Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2008

1 March 2008

March 2008

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 15:31, 31 March 2008.

Diocletian

Self-nominator I've been working on this article for some time now, and I think that it's now more or less up to Featured Article standard. Comments welcome. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Support While not being an expert in the Roman history I nevertheless have always been interested in this subject. So from my point of view the article appears to be comprehensive, well sourced and well written. I have only one concern with it. The lead contains the following words: "ending forty years of peaceful coexistence between Christian and Pagan, and resulting in a revanchist Christian Church.". The facts stated in this phrase are not mentioned in the main text of the article. I think you should drop it from the lead or explain in more detail what you mean by "peaceful coexistence" and by "revanchist church". Ruslik (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped the sentence, and added a little paragraph on the aftermath of the persecution. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment "...known in English as Diocletian", may be simply "known as" because not only in English? And no mention of dominate in the lead. --Brand спойт 09:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped the "in English". I'm not so sure the dominate needs to be mentioned: few of the works I've read give it much press, at least, not by that name. I'll look over my materials again tonight (I don't have them with me), and see if I can justify the change. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Well written and comprehensive! You did an excellent job! I had read it a few weeks ago and was thinking that it's probably the best article I have seen on one of the Roman emporers.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment

Hyphens aren't needed after -ly words, eg. "personally-led campaigns"

Done.

Some dates need linking, including in the footnotes.

Done(?)

"newly-built Christian church" - all churches are Christian

Done.

Some compound adjectives need hyphens, eg. "second and third century emperors", "five year census"

Done(?) Tell me if I've missed any.

"one-thousand years" - hyphen not needed

Done.

Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "27 BC", "5 km"

Done.

"a looser administrative structure than that which was imposed on ..." - "which was" is redundant

Done.

"Prior to" is overly formal. "Before" is better.

Done.

Ref page numbers are inconsistently formatted, eg. "pp. 8–9." vs "p. 22–23.", "pp. 280–81" vs "pp. 134–5"

Done(?) Tell me if I've missed any.

Sentences shouldn't begin with "but"

Done.

Some measurements are missing conversions

Done(?) I think the km's the only one.

An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.

Done.

Some duplicate refs can be combined, eg. refs 23 and 27

Done(?) Tell me if there are any I've missed.

Logical quotation should be used, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks. Epbr123 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done(?)

I think I've fixed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

** Current ref 49 (Potter, The Roman Empire at Bay, 281) is inconsistent with the rest of the footnotes, lacking the pages abbreviation (Yeah, it's REALLY picky, but...)

- - Done.
- Same for current ref 69 (Codex Justinarius ...) the Barnes New Empire ref lacks a page number abbreviation.
  - Done.
- Page abbr missing from current ref 88 (Barnes New Empire 255)
  - Done.
- Current ref 152 is lacking a page number (Bleckmann)
  - Done.

- Probably don't need to list Hardcover in the references.
  - I do that so I can list both the ISBNs that the books are issued under. Should I drop one of them?
    - Don't have to, it was just something I noticed while i was reading through the refs. It's not usually done, but it works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      - For those cases where a library might have one, but not the other, I thought it might be helpful to list both. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Current ref 80 which has a discussion of Maximian's appointment as Augustus has a number of refs lacking page number abbreviations and which are inconsistent with the formatting of the rest of the refs (Using the Harvard system)
  - Done(?) What should they look like?
    - You refer to the books as Corcoran 2006 instead of the usage in the rest of the article (which would be Corcoran "Before Constantine" to be consistent with the rest of the article). Likewise it's Southern 2001 instead of the usage elsewhere which is Southern Severus to Constantine. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      - Fixed it now.
- Current ref 135 (Lactantius (DMP)...) uses Harvard referencing in it, which is inconsistent with the system used elsewhere in the article.
  - Done(?) Are page number abbreviations all that is lacking?
    - See above, you're using (Southern 1999 (which isn't even listed in the bibliography, oops! What article/book is that?)) instead of the Author, Title short form you're using elsewhere in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      - Ack! That was supposed to be Southern 2001. Fixed it now.

All other links checked out fine with the tool. I'll try to get back later and do a review of the article itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Prose needs some tweaking though not looking too bad. There is some redundant wording and some words used where a slightly more appropriate one would improve flow. I will post any that aren't straightforward here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers sensed a bad smell emanating from the coach. It would have been the kind of smell corpses are known to emanate in the later stages of decay, especially in hot climates - seems a bit wordy - why not "In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers sensed a odour reminiscent of a decomposing body (or corpse) emanating from the coach." - or something like it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Changed to: "In Bithynia,[22] some of Numerian's soldiers smelled an odor reminiscent of a decaying corpse emanating from the coach." Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Support everything has been addressed. Oppose for now, pending resolution of the following concerns/questions/quibbles.

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

*Lede, third paragraph, second sentence is awkward and wordy. Perhaps "Although effective while Diocletian ruled, the Tetrarchy collapsed after his abdication with the dynastic claims of Maxentius and Contantine, sons of Maximian and Constantius respectively."

- Changed to: "Although effective while he ruled, Diocletian's tetrarchic system collapsed after his abdication under the competing dynastic claims of Maxentius and Constantine, sons of Maximian and Constantius respectively."
Rise to power section, Death of Numberian subsection, first paragraph, fourth sentence. Is the he referred to Bahram or Numerian? It's unclear from the context.
- Clarified.
Same section and subsection, last sentence of the subsection. Why did the act of changing his name place Diocletian in the line of legitimate emperors?
- I don't really know. "He would then change his name to Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, as a way of placing himself in the succession of legitimate emperors after Gallienus." Potter doesn't make it especially clear, so I've dropped it.
Same section, Conflict with Carinus subsection, third paragraph, second sentence. Do you mean that Constantius had been an associate of Diocletian in the household guard? Consider rewording to make the context a bit clearer.
- Better? "Carinus' rule was unpopular, and it is possible that Flavius Constantius, the governor of Dalmatia and Diocletian's associate in the household guard, had already defected to Diocletian in the early spring."
  - Better. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Same section, subsection and paragraph. Artistobulus was whose prefect, Carinus or Contantius?
- Carinus'. Clarified.
Same section, subsection, and paragraph. Where did Diocletian move on to?
- Italy. Clarified.
Same section, Maximian made co-emperor subsetcion, first paragraph. The last sentence is very convoluted and hard to follow. Consider rewording.
- (No longer same section) I've dropped the arguments over the date into a footnote and abandoned Maximian's age. Is it better?
  - Much! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Same section and subsection, second paragraph, third pagaraph. Any reason to italicize Ca. and use the abreviation instead of circa?
- No real reason, just thought it would keep consistency with the parenthesized dates. I've replaced it with "circa".
Same section, Conflict with Sarmatia and Persia subsection, first paragraph, third sentence. "took them to battle" is awkward. Consider rewording, perhaps to "Diocletian refused and fought a battle with them, which, however, failed to eliminate them."
- Tweaked to: "Diocletian refused and fought a battle with them, but was unable to secure a complete victory."
Same section and subsection, second paragraph, sixth and seventh sentences. I don't see the "denying them their rest" in the sentence (plus it's very odd phrasing) and the mention of Maximian's build-up is without context, you've not mentioned it before this, I assume it's for fighting against Carausius? Next paragraph you mention a fleet that Maximian lost, is this the build-up?
- (No longer same subsection) I've had to gut a few sections that were more appropriate for daughter articles: Maximian's one of them. I've made a few tweaks for clarification. They apparently moved forward so quickly that the Germans were unable to rest. I've dropped the sentence.
Same section and subsection, the third paragraph, fourth sentence is awkward
- I've moved some material around and chopped that sentence into smaller pieces.
Tetrarchy section, Foundation of the tetrarchy subsection. Should Tetrarchy in the subheading be capitalized?
- Yes.
Same section and subsection, first paragraph, second sentence is very long and convoluted. Consider breaking it up into smaller chunks.
- Done."Constantius was a former governor of Dalmatia and a man of military experience stretching back to Aurelian's campaigns against Zenobia (272–73). He was Maximian's praetorian prefect in Gaul, and the husband to Maximian's daughter, Theodora."
Same section, Conflict in the Balkans and Egypt subsection, first paragraph, fourth sentence is oddly phrased. Perhaps "The defeat kept the Sarmatians from the Danube provinces for a long time."
- Took your phrasing.
Same section, subsection, and paragraph, sixth and seventh sentences are also awkward. Consider "In 295 and 296 Diocletian campaigned in the region again, which resulted in a victory over the Carpi in the summer of 296. This victory consolidated the Danube frontier."
- Tweaked to: "In 295 and 296 Diocletian campaigned in the region again, and won a victory over the Carpi in the summer of 296."
Okay, if Dioceltian's corrector Aurelius Achilleus held out in Alexandria until 298, who was he holding out against? Context seems to imply Diocletian, but that makes no sense if he was Dioceltian's corrector, unless he revolted with Domitianus.
- Former corrector.
Same section and subsection, last paragraph and last sentence, Diocletian left Africa quickly after which event? Directly before this is a discussion about the reforms bringing Egyptian administration into line with Roman practice, which isn't an event per se.
- Moving phrasing around: he left Africa quickly after the peace treaty.
Later life section, Illness and abdication subsection, first paragraph, second sentence is very wordy and awkward. Consider rewording.
- Rephrased.
Same section, Retirement and death subsection, last paragraph, fifth sentence. Does this imply that he may have comitted suicide? Would be clearer if the article just says that, not "perhaps even personally accelerated the advent of his death".
- Alright.
Reforms section, Tetrarchic and idealogical subsection, first paragraph, fourth sentence is awkward. I believe "and it is implied that the tetrachs engineered the deeat over the Plamyreneses" is supposed to mean "it is implied that the tetrarchs engineered the defeat of the Palmyrenes."? Consider rewording if that is the case, and if it isn't, the meaning needs to be made clearer.
- Clarified.
Same section, Military subsection, second paragraph, first sentence is awkward, consider rewording to "Lactantius criticized Diocletian for an excessive increase..."
- Took your phrasing.
Same section, Taxation subsection, second paragraph, sixth sentence seems to be lacking something in the part "operated at different speed throughout the empire, and The kept up with changes in the ..."
- Fixed.
Same section, currency and inflation subsection. You mention in the third sentence "Aurelian's measures" but this is the first mention of such measures. The previous discussion says that market forces stabliized the exchange rates, so what were Aurelian's measures?
- Aurelian reminted some old, highly overvalued currencies, giving them a higher silver content and issued two new currencies. They still had a lower bullion content than their face value, however, and the government basically expected everyone to trade them at that face value (Williams, Diocletian, pp. 116–17). I've dropped the reference: now it's just market forces.
Diocletian and Maximian were the only Roman emperors to abdicate, surely that would merit a mention in the lede?
- Not true: Justin II and Majorian also abdicated. I could put "one of the few".
  - Were he and Maximian the first? I seem to recall Justin and Marjorian came after Diocletian. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Aye, I've put it in: "becoming the first Roman emperor to voluntarily abdicate the position."
Why is December 22 thought to be his birth date?
- It's his official birthday, and Barnes considers it to have probably been his actual birthday. The primary source cited is the papyri at the P. Beatty Panopolis 2.164, 173, 181/2, 193/4, 262. Barnes states the fact pretty unambiguously: "Born on 22 December." (New Empire, p. 30) Do you want any of this in the article?
  - If the source you are using says December 22 unabiguously, it should be stated something like "The modern historian Barnes gives his birthdate as December 22, but other historians are not so sure." or something like that. You'll need a source or two for the second phrase of the sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    - The problem is that no other historian disputes the date. Williams, who has written the only biography of the bunch, just relegates it to a footnote and states the fact impartially: "Beatty in Skeat, op. cit., concludes that Diocletian's official birthday as emperor was 22 December, and Barnes considers this was probably his actual birthday." No The other works trust in Barnes' chronological work pretty firmly. Barnes, New Empire, is one of the more common titles cited by Potter and Southern's general histories. They have not mentioned the birthdate because they are not interested in the issue: they are historians, not biographers. Many of the other statements in the article could have longer and more detailed histories of disputation; this one seems quite tame by comparison. Any reason why it leaped out at you?
      - I've changed the passage, as per your suggestion.
        
        It was the qualifier that jumped out at me. When I see "probably" I wonder if there is some juicy historian's spat behind the phrase, that's all. This solution works. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Another one, the first pargraph of the Death of Numerian section says that Carinus hurried to Rome, and the context seems to imply that he was in the East, but the section before states Carinus was left in the West. Where did Carinus hurry to Rome from? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- How does the context imply that? He was in Gaul (a fact not mentioned in the article), and had been in the West for the duration of the Persian War. It's now: "Carinus quickly made his way to Rome from Gaul, and arrived by January 284; Numerian lingered in the East." Better? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  - It was the next sentence that said that Numerian lingered that implied that perhaps Carinus was with Numerian when he left for Rome. It was more an implication than a outright statement. The new wording works.Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a good copyedit to cut down on wordiness. Lots and lots of places have "filler" words such as "while" Since I suffer from this fault myself... I'm very familiar with the problem! I've pointed out some of the ones that leapt out at me, but I'm sure there are others.
- Casliber has given some places a going over, and I've removed some whiles. Are there any other words I should be on the hunt for?

All in all a very nice article. I'll be happy to support when some of the prose issues are taken care of, and when some of the clarifications are made. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've resolved any continuing concerns you've had, save for that copyedit. Any suggestions on how to cut down on verbiage? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What I do if I can't find someone to go through for me, is to sit back from the text for a day or two, then just go line by line through it, trying to change all the passives to actives and reading it aloud to myself. If I get lost reading it, its a sure bet the reader is lost too. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I did some copyediting also, hopefully I didn't break anything. I'm sure others will find other things to tweak also. May I compliment you on the excellent job on a very difficult subject? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, and thank you for providing a very intensive review and copyedit. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - well done - prose nicely massaged. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Support - a real imitable article. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 14:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 15:31, 31 March 2008.

Jacques Plante

Jacques Plante was a goaltender for Montreal Canadiens dynasty in the late 50s. He is now best-known as the inventor of the first practical goaltender mask for ice hockey. He was also the first one to use it regularly in NHL games. I've worked since around December on this article, and with the help of Risker, Nishkid64 and many others who gave me pointers and/or actually edited it, I think this very comprehensive article about Plante is worthy of featured status. Maxim_(talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination–concur with Maxim, I think this article is ready. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Links were reviewed. As per previous hockey FACs, the tool doesn't like websites from the Hockey Hall of Fame, but I've cheked manually and they work fine. Maxim_(talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments-

Does line 13 to 18 of the first paragraph in "Early Life" really need all the repeated cites? Couldn't it all be cited with just one?

I'm unsure of what lines you're talking about. Can you be more specific? I don't use monobook Skin so the lines probably render differently for me. --Maxim_(talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In Early Life, why did his school's coach order the former goalie off? Perhaps just a quick phrase?

Done. --Maxim_(talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Same with Minor Leagues, couldn't the tuques statement be concluded in 19 cite? There's a few of those else where in the article, but it's a minor thing.

I don't understand what you mean by this... --Maxim_(talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Figured this one out; the same reference (#19) was used for two consecutive sentences, and I have simply cited once for both sentences. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a little more detail on the on-ice brawl in section "Five Stanley Cups"?

I've reworded that paragraph, and inserted a link to the article about the incident. --Maxim_(talk) 19:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And I've done a little further work on it, because on further research the suspension came several days before the ensuing riot. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, Support. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment The fifth paragraph in the opening seems to be repeated in the 'Retirement and death' section. Seeing as how the opening is usually is supposed to be a brief overview of the article, it would probably be in the best interests to merge that information into the relevent section, and merge any other information into the proper place.

Also wouldn't hurt to add a few external links, seeing how there is only one. Knowing that there are currently issues with a template for a link, I know that isn't long to be fixed. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Support All my concerns addressed. Also like seeing so many images of Plante, and the video clip. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Two worthwhile external links added, including a link to the "History by the Minute" video re-enactment of Plante's injury that led to him wearing the mask in regulation play the first time; many Canadians will remember it. Risker (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
About the lead, the lead is supposed to be an overview of the article. While it mentions parts of Retirement and death, it's supposed to do that, and section itself gives more information on that, too. Maxim_(talk) 12:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

The "See also" section belongs above the "References" section
"where he became well known" - "well known" needs a hyphen
"Canadiens won the game 3-1" - wrong dash
Non-breaking spaces are needed between numerical and non-numerical elements, eg. "50 cents"
The "See also" section shouldn't contain articles already linked elsewhere.
"he signed for $35000" - should be "$35,000"
Some duplicate refs could be combined, eg. "Plante, R., pg.214" or "Plante, R., pg.14"
Some inconsistent page number formatting, eg. "pg.214", "pg. 216"
"He's [Plante] the biggest attraction since the good old days of Terry Sawchuk". - period belongs inside the quotes if present in the original text.
"three–week training camp", "10–year contract" - should be hyphens.
"a $10–million ... contract" - hyphen/dash not needed. Epbr123 (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly all done. For your 4th point, can you please link me to the appropriate guideline as I'm not sure what to do. Secondly, I think the see alsos are to link to subject that were not discussed a lot but are somehow pertinent to the subject. The mask is mentioned, even linked, but not discussed as much and should be an important read after the Plante article. Hall and Sawchuk were Plante's contemporaries and the two other leading goalies of the age. Maxim_(talk) 01:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding non-breaking spaces, the relevent guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Non-breaking spaces. I think they just need to be added to "50 cents" and "$10 million". Regarding "See also", Wikipedia:Layout#See also states, "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment", so I'll leave the decision to you. Epbr123 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Have taken care of the non-breaking spaces, thanks. Risker (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Support—This is very well-written indeed. Since so much of the referencing is to a book by "Raymond Plante", it would be good to know who that author is—perhaps even a mention in the main text (Legacy?). If it's his second wife, RaymondE. If not, is it his brother? Tony (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC) PS Check Canadian spelling of "fibERglass". Tony (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling tip, Tony; the brand name here is FibERglas, just to add to the confusion. The author of the primary source is, oddly enough, no relation to the subject. I was surprised at that too. Risker (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

** Could the notes come before the references and could the references be alphabetical by author please? Also, why a references AND a bibliography?

- - No, refs shold be above notes; it's confusing to have last name, page number before seeing the appropriate book.
    - To address the comment about references AND a bibliography: The references are just that, books that were used to reference the article. The bibliography is made up of books that Plante wrote or participated in writing; not all of them were used as references. The first edition of his goaltending manual, for example, is long out of print and a first edition is worth a fortune now in the hockey collecting world. Risker (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- What makes http://www.hockeygoalies.org/ a reliable site?
  - Just because you don't know a site doesn't make it unreliable.
    - You are correct that I don't know the site, but I did look it over and try to see what sources it used, who published it, etc. before asking what made it reliable. You'll note that I didn't oppose based on these comments, I merely ask questions. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      - I'm not seeing any sources listed specific to the page. I'm not seeing that the author is a published author on the subject. Granted, the first reference to this page is corraborated elsewhere, but this site is the only source for the information that he was paid while playing for the factory team while the others weren't. (the site also says coach, not factory manager and says that the others weren't paid) If there are articles in the press that refer to the site as reliable that would help. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Likewise http://www.hockeysiteincanada.com/? (The "contact me" button on the home page is not exactly inspiring confidence)
  - I cannot find any information on sources for the information nor who is the author/publisher of the site. As above, any mentions in the press/news sites that this is a reliable source would help. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also http://www.goaliesarchive.com/index2.html?
  - Same as above about sourcing and author/publisher. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- What makes http://www.losthockey.com/main.cfm a reliable site?
  - As above. There is nothing on the site that tells me who is the author or publisher. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- http://www.frameworth.com/hockey/players/jacques-plante.htm what makes this reliable?
  - I see that this company markets memorabilia, so it's probably somewhat reliable. It would be nice to see a reference to the actual book: Step by Step Hockey Goaltending: The Complete Illustrated Guide
    - I suspect this is a different reprint of Plante's book from the 1970s; can't verify much more about it so have not included it in the article. I note it is "published" almost 20 years after he died. Risker (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- ~~The connor reference, is 21 the page number? If so it needs to be formated like the other references in the notes.~~
  - Removed.

All the sites check out (As mentioned above the checker doesn't like the Hockey Hall of Fame sites, but they are there fine) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a look at all of the site over again, and I'd say all of them are reliable. Feel free to ask a bit more pertinent questions about the sites and I'll see what can be done. Maxim_(talk) 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Time Ealdgyth, plz see this. Risker has books that he can use to replace problematic sources, but knowing him... it might take a day or four... ;-) Maxim_(talk) 23:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine. Take the time you need to get it right. The article has only been at FAC for six days, it's not a rush yet. I'd gladly help source things if I had anything at all on hockey. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

All questioned reference sources have now been replaced with reliable sources. I've asked Maxim to just give it a once-over to ensure I didn't leave a duplicate lying around. Risker (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks great now. Thanks for putting up with me! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:05, 31 March 2008.

Irreplaceable

Self-Nomination: After being passed to GA, geting fresh eyes for the peer review and additional substantial reviews, I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is now ready. "Irreplaceable" is song by Beyoncé Knowles and was 2007's best-selling single in the United States. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Hey, I was gonna comment on the peer review, but I guess I am too late.(been busy lately) I do think this article needs some serious prose work, some parts are kind of choppy, some sentences are short, and could be merged together. Here are a few examples of the prose issues I see:

When Ne-Yo heard the song, the melody was more guitar-based. He felt that it sounds like country western music. It was brought to R&B when the drums were incorporated, and Ne-Yo considered making an R&B-country western music song. - could be combined into somthing easier, like "Ne-Yo felt the original demo sounded like country music, although adding drums gave the song an R&B feel. He considered making an R&B country crossover song." or somthing to that effect.
- Hmm. Sounds like the history is twisted a bit. Here is the real statement: "When I first heard the track, produced by Norwegian production team Stargate, they just played the guitar. There was no drums to it and sounded like country western music and when they put the drums on it, it brought it back to the R & B side of things. I was then thinking of making an R & B country western music song." --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ne-Yo also felt that with a woman singing it is empowering. - Stubby, could use clarification.
- Merged. --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
A demo of the song was presented to her, and was pleased after listening. - confusing
- Clarified. --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In an interview, Ne-Yo said about the writing that "Beyoncé had some stuff that she wanted to get off her chest, and that's what she did." - you could just use 'Ne-Yo said "Beyoncé had some stuff that she wanted to get off her chest'.

The strum of guitar was noted by Al Shipley of Stylus Magazine as an integral element Stargate and Ne-Yo crafted on contemporary singer Rihanna's 2007 single "Hate That I Love You". - run on sentence, could be reworded.
- Fixed. --Efe (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

These sentences (and quite a few more) have an akward feel to them, and could be rearranged/rewritten. Other than prose, the article seems very comprehensive, and the sourcing looks good, good job! Skeletor2112 (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - subdisfactory the graphic. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

**~~I can't find anything on this site http://www.contactmusic.com/ that tells me who is behind them. Being in the US, is this considered a reliable source in the UK?~~

- - Obviously it's an interview. I think this is reliable, "Hollaback Girl" (a featured article) is using this site. --Efe (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Hollaback Girl is not being evaluated here; what makes this source reliable? This page does not inspire confidence; it looks like a fan contributor site. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      - Removed content supported by this source. --Efe (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- ~~Same for http://www.mansized.co.uk/index.phtml?~~
  - I believe so. The editor is stated. --Efe (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    - This page does not inspire confidence; again, per WP:V, what makes this page a reliable source? 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      - Again, removed. --Efe (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- ~~http://www.sonymusic.com.au/cd/releaseDetails.do?catalogueNo=88697025082 gives me some weird http status 500 error~~
  - Whats the problem. Its accessible and the source is reliable.
    - Even they admit they're not reliable; scan down to Full policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- ~~Hm.. what makes this http://www.pr-inside.com/beyonce-creates-breakup-anthem-r35598.htm a reliable source?~~
  - I will hide the fact cited by this source until I can find reliable one.
    - Finally removed. --Efe (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- ~~Generally About.com isn't considered a very reliable source, is the author of this http://randb.about.com/od/awardsshows/a/2007SoulAwards.htm considered reliable generally?~~
  - I believe it is because it is published by About, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. --Efe (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Anyone can sign up to write for about.com; it is not a reliable source. What makes the author of that article a recognized expert in his field? Instead of brushing off the editor reviewing this article, the answer to that question can be explored here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    - For proper sourcing, I used news from Billboard. --Efe (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates
  - Huh? Please clarify. --Efe (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    - See WP:CITE#Citation templates; don't combine citation and other cite families. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  - ~~So what template do you want me to use? Im now confused.~~ --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Just find this one: {{Cite album-notes}}. Now, its fixed. --Efe (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise http://acharts.us/?
- This website is up-to-date, and been used by in many articles.
  - Please justify use in this article, in terms of WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Is this enough?
And http://top40-charts.com/? (That it bypassed my no-popups and flashed me an annoying add isn't helping my opinion of the...
- Used in "Cool (song)".
  - Cool song is not being evaluated here; please explain what makes the source reliable per WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    - This?
Likewise http://www.mediatraffic.de/about-us.htm?
- Its published by Media Traffic.
  - Who is Media Traffic? The link to the article took me to a page about the chart. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    - Can be found at the bottom of their site: THE MOST POPULAR TRACKS ACCORDING TO GLOBAL AIRPLAY, SINGLE-SALES DATA, PAID DOWNLOAD, AND VOTE. IMPORTANT SOURCES: IFPI, MUSIC CONTROL, NIELSEN SOUND SCAN & BROADCAST DATA SYSTEMS (USA, CANADA), ORICON & SOUND SCAN (JAPAN), OFFICIAL UK CHARTS COMPANY (UNITED KINGDOM), SNEP / IFOP (FRANCE), MEDIA CONTROL (GERMANY, AUSTRIA, SWITZERLAND), ARIA (AUSTRALIA), AFYVE & MEDIA CONTROL (SPAIN), FIMI / AC NIELSEN (ITALY), HOT100 BR@SIL (BRAZIL), MEGA CHARTS BV (NETHERLANDS), GLF (SWEDEN), VERDENS GANG (NORWAY), AC NIELSEN (DENMARK, BELGIUM), YLE (FINLAND), AFP (PORTUGAL), RIANZ (NEW ZEALAND), AND OTHER. COMPILED AND PROVIDED BY MEDIA TRAFFIC.

- THis one http://host17.hrwebservices.net/~atrl/trlarchive/db.html looks to me like it's a private site?
  - Used in "Hollaback", "Rich Girl", "Cool", etc. ARticles already featured.
    - Those articles aren't being evaluated here; if they use non-reliable sources, they can be submitted for review at WP:FAR. For this article, please explain reliability of that source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      - I believe this site gets its chart from this archive.

All the other links check out with the link tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing is better, although there are cleanup needs in the ref formatting. Who is Spence D. and what makes him reliable? No last name doesn't inspire confidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll clean it up right now. I'll try to scan his bio in the page. If it fails to meet WP:RS, I'll remove it and look for another review. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Its Spence Abbott. Since {{Cite web}} do not allow this formatting, February 01, 1990, I used the YYYY-MM-DD formatting to all references to achieve consistency. My problem now is what type of template I'll use for the sheet music ref. --Efe (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Support ~~Nuetral Regretfully withdrawing my support. Read below comment.~~ Wow. Sorry I didn't comment on the PR. Surley deserving for FA. Efe deserves the nom credits also. —Burningclean _{Speak the truth!} 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~—Cautious neutral. TONY (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC) not well-written. In particular, many of the relationships between the ideas within sentences are jumbled. Please get someone new to sift through the whole text.

"Originally not created for her, Beyoncé re-arranged the demo presented by the producers—a country-turned-R&B-pop song during the production." I can't see a clear referent for the last three words. Appears jumbled.
- Removed the last three words. --Efe (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
"a female empowerment anthem"—"an anthem to female empowerment" would be better; I do hope this is referenced in the main text; it's such a contestible statement that you might consider saying who "considered" this, even in the lead.
- Changed per suggestion. All are properly cited in the main text. Don't worry. The New York Times also said its a statement of independence.--Efe (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
~~"the album's third single late in 2006"—so the third of how many in late 2006? I think you need a comma.~~
- Yah, I got your point. Its really confusing to others. "Late in 2006" is added after "released domestically". --Efe (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
~~""Irreplaceable" was certified as multi-platinum, and one of the best-selling single of 2007, establishing Beyoncé among successful female artists to date."~~—Was certified as one of the best-selling single (I think you mean singleS) of 2007? I think you need "was" before "one". Was it both the multiplatinum and this best-selling thing that established her as ..., or just the second reason? Jumbled; the causality needs to be absolutely clear.
- Changed to: "Certified as multi-platinum, "Irreplaceable" was one of the best-selling singles in 2007, establishing Beyoncé among successful female artists to date." --Efe (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Fixed again to clarify the causality: "Certified as multi-platinum, "Irreplaceable" was one of the best-selling singles in 2007, and its addition to Beyoncé's achievements establishes her among the most successful female artists to date." --Efe (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Compared WITH, for contrasts. Tony (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments/objections by Dihydrogen Monoxide

Comments

"Beyoncé re-arranged the demo presented by the producers—a country-turned-R&B-pop song." - it would be better if you only had the old style (country) between dashes, followed by what it changed to (R&B/pop)
- Huh? Please clarify. --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Hmm...now I'm confused too. I'll strike. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
~~"album's third single, and the second single in most international music markets"~~ - so where was it the 3rd? Confusing
- Its stated in the article as "domestically". Ok, to clear this out, Ill change it to U.S.. --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
~~"establishing Beyoncé among successful female artists to date."~~ - there have been a lot of successful female artists. Probably missing a "the most" or something
- Fixed. --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
~~"The song won awards, and was nominated at the 2008 Grammy Awards for the Record of the Year"~~ - won awards, and was nominated for one? Giving a lot of weight to one in particular...
- Ok, removed nomination thing. Focused on just one. --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
~~"—Tor Erik Hermansen, Billboard[1]"~~ - however, ref one cites MTV (on that note, it should be MTV, not MTV Networks, as the publisher)
- Mismanaged attribution. Hope MTV missed to read this. Changed to MTV News. --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
~~"Ne-Yo wrote the lyrics from a male perspective. Ne-Yo revealed that he"~~ - change the second Ne-Yo to "he", perhaps?
- If that so. (there is two "he" in that sentence). --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
~~Stargate focused on the sound of "Irreplaceable"."~~ - short, kinda meaningless, sentence...
- Removed. --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"~~and Ne-Yo also felt that its empowering for a woman singing it"~~ - its should be it is --Efe (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"can relate to, and that "Irreplaceable" was the result.[6] Beyoncé also wanted to make a record that women could relate to.[7]" - something that people and women can relate to seems a bit...odd
- Huh? Ne-Yo says for people while Beyonce specifies it to women, in line of the theme of the album which is women empowerment. --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  - Maybe it's just me - I don't get how something can be "everyone can relate to" AND "women can relate to" - surely one falls under the other? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O)
    - Me too; I just realized when you commented here. But its how the article was written (or how it is organized). But seeing how Ne-Yo was inspired by his family, it has something to do with the personal content of the song. Beyonce wanted to write songs that women can relate as well. --Efe (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      - Actually, Ne-Yo's statement was removed due to questioned source per WP:RS. --Efe (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
~~Ref 10 (and other IGNs) publisher is just IGN~~
"~~John Jobling on Mansized.com found "Irreplaceable" a "gorgeous acoustic ballad",[26]"~~ - is that website an RS? --Efe (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
~~Any copyvio issues with the external links?~~
- Hehe. Got your point. I'll remove the whole section though your "pointing out" to the music video link. --Efe (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Anymore comments/suggestions? Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Support --dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To Sandy: Im hiding Dihydrogen Monoxide's comments since he allowed me to do it. --Efe (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the reviewing. I think no one here will disagree that we need to maintain very high standards of writing and verification for the huge increase in the proportion of FACs on popular culture. Otherwise, the currency will be diluted, yes? To do this, reviewers need to engage with the criteria, or nominators will be discouraged from doing so. While it's good to have people such as Mojska and Burningclean on board, they are providing absolutely no indication that they have engaged with the criteria. What are we to make of these postings? —

Support - subdisfactory the graphic.

Support Wow. Sorry I didn't comment on the PR. Surley deserving for FA. Efe deserves the nom credits also.

Now Mojska and Burningclean, and others I see doing the same thing in the FAC room, these declarations of support (or indeed of oppose, where that occurs) are worth nothing to the process without using your knowledge and expertise to critically evaluate the article WRT to the criteria. Sandy has—I think in desperation—pointed out the woeful state of the verification of this article, and I'm not sure that the nominator is yet convinced of the need for a thorough audit in this respect. I have picked to pieces a few sentences to show the density of issues in the prose, but nowhere is there a sign that the whole text will be properly copy-edited by someone new to it, to produce an authoritative and well-written article. No number of blithe supports will change this. I call on you, the experts, to take on a more critical role, rather than rolling up just to support-as-easy-vote in an area that you like and have considerable investment in. Please match your interest in the area with reviews that will prompt article improvement during this process. Tony (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Response Tony, you have a very, very valid point. I read the article and did not point out grammer mistakes simply because I create alot of grammer mistakes myself. I usually don't notice them when I am reviewing an article. I do not oppose but I am striking out my support and replacing it as nuetral. sorry, Burningclean _[speak] 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Further comments upon my oppose above.
- Fair-use rationales: I wonder what a judge would think when WP is being sued for copyright infringement when she sees the FU rationale for this article, and two others in which the track is used, just cut and pasted. Exactly the same wording? No, the folks at WP:NFC would be alarmed to find this; thing is, we need the FU rationale to be more closely related to the text it is supporting. Criterion 8 at NFC says this:

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

I cant access the sample so I asked the uploader which part of the song is uploaded so it will be properly captioned. --Efe (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Per captioning, I stated in the template the relationship of the instruments to the genre of the song. --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Convince us, please, or the NFC police will be visiting (after 23 March, I believe). At the very least, I think you need to say something about how the file "illustrates" the article — perhaps in the terms you've used in the main text, harmony, form etc. I've always wanted to know how an audio file shows similarity or difference in terms of the surrounding output by this artist and similar artists—I don't know, it's not my area, but you need to do something different for each of the linked articles. So the vocal range is more than an octave and a half—is that unusual for this artist (and the style in general)? Is the less aggressive tone to do with the lyrics here? Just one level deeper would make your FU claim stronger.

The notational excerpt: "To visually present the musical structure of the song."—It's "part of the excerpt" rather than the whole song, and "structure" normally refers to form on a larger scale than three measures. Visually? Better "To present the notation of part of the audio excerpt, showing the basic harmonic progression, rhythmic style, and pitch relationship between piano and voice." Or something like that. Caption and main text: en dashes, not hyphens, between the chords.

I used this: "To present the notation of part of the audio excerpt, showing the basic harmonic progression". --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The copyright tag includes this statement: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Have you provided copyright information? Who holds the copyright? Sony, is it? Website or postal address might make the company feel more recognised if their copyright people inspect the info file. Catalogue number of the album? Track number and its total duration? More details would shore up your claim. I'm not being a contrarian, but warning that they're about to get tougher on NFC!

I think Columbia also owns the copyright. I stated Columbia in the description page. --Efe (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added Sony Urban Music. --Efe (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the prose that describes the excerpt: What is a "moderate" pop song? We see "moderate" again a line later. Replace "written in the key of" with just "in". No hyphen after "-ly". ""Irreplaceable" refers to a woman breaking up with a boyfriend after she found him cheating, and was considered a statement of independence." What, the woman was considered a statement of independence?

All crashed out comments were addressed. For the "moderate" stuff and "written....." were already fixed because the first para was copyedited/reworded. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And below, why oh why is that little-known country, the US, linked? Please tell me. Australia too. In general, it's not necessary to link anglophone countries in the English-language WP.

Fixed some of them. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE After fixing questioned sources, a copyedit by someone new to this article will follow. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Commment - Hey, sorry for the delay, I haven't been on much in the past few days. Another look finds the prose is still pretty choppy in places - mostly in the "Background and inspiration" section -its just confusing in places. The "composition" section looks good, as does the "Release and live performances" section. I'll try and clean up a bit of the prose, but here are a few sticky sentences I notice from the other sections:

American country band Sugarland first sung "Irreplaceable" and Beyoncé later appeared to perform." Sung? should it be performed, or sang, or somthing else? and did Beyonce appear with the band, or perform on her own? its a little confusing. if the sentence is related to the 2007 American Music Awards info before it - "..and a "surprise" performance of the country version of the song during the 2007 American Music Awards. American country band Sugarland first sung "Irreplaceable" and Beyoncé later appeared to perform. The band has been known for covering Beyoncé's songs during their live shows and the idea of teaming-up emanated from their publicist" - then it needs to be restructured, you could try somthing like: American country band Sugarland, who were known for covering Beyonce's songs live, were joined by the singer for a performance of "Irreplaceable" at the 2007 American Music Awards. or somthing like that.

Fixed per suggestion, but with little addition. I removed the "idea of teaming up" thing because its too much detailed. --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the quotes in the Critical reception section don't really describe the song or add to the article, such as: "Bernard Zuel of The Sydney Morning Herald noted the track "a pretty good rhythmic ballad" and "Carolyn Davis of US Magazine referred to "Irreplaceable" a "power ballad". A power ballad is a type of song, not really a critical description. I think that there are ample quotes and critical responses, you could lose a few for clarity.
- I removed the former because its the only description of the song posted in the site, as well the latter. --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Spence D. of IGN observed that "Irreplaceable", along with "Resentment", are more oriented on traditional contemporary R&B compared with other tracks in the album". The 'are more oriented on traditional contemporary R&B' part sounds a little strange, could be "have more in common with", or somthing different.
- Changed to: Spence D. of IGN observed that "Irreplaceable", alongside "Resentment", "go for a much more traditional contemporary R&B vibe" compared to the other tracks in the album, and stated that it made them "stand out as if they were recorded separately from the rest of the album". The following by Spence D. was removed. Do you think the remaining quotes can suffice readers' understanding? --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  - More importantly, who is Spence D, and with no last name, what makes him a reliable expert? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"and at the 2008 Grammy Award for Record of the Year." - should be "awards", and the sentence is a little vague, did they just get nominated, or win? And I'd think that the Grammy nom is a little more notable than the VH1 one... Im not sure the nominators are needed, you could add "by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences" - but I think the sentence would read better leaving both out, to say somthing like: "Irreplaceable was nominated for Record of the Year at the 2008 Grammy Awards, as well as Song of the Year at VH1 Soul Vibe's awards show."
- Fixed. I wanted to add that it was lost to blah blah blah to clear it out but some users would always object that its too much detailed. Any thought? --Efe (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a go at the "Background and inspiration" section, to tighten up some of the prose there. Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

=) =) =) Thanks for the help. Like Burningclean, we need assistance from those who have good grasp in English. --Efe (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a good grasp, I just suck at spelling. (I'm from and live in America) :p Burningclean _[speak] 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If thats only your problem, you dont need assistance anymore. Even Microsoft Word can help you fix them. Hehe. Thanks for striking neutral. --Efe (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Support I stumbled on this article randomly, saw it, and thought that it should be a WP:FA. I noticed someone was heavily editing it, so I didn't bother to touch it, but then I noticed that it was already nominated. Good lord, the article is definitely WP:FA status in my books! Gary King (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:05, 31 March 2008.

Anarky

Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have methodically edited this article for over a year, to the point where I have exhausted all known first and third party sources, creating as comprehensive article as possible on the subject. If it isn't ready to be featured now, it must be nearly so. Cast (talk) 05:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments
- Displaying my ignorance of comics, what makes http://www.2000adreview.co.uk/index.shtml a reliable source? Likewise http://gocomics.com, http://www.newsarama.com/, http://www.comicsbulletin.com/panel/108672670397105.htm, http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=003866
- http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bakunin/rousseau.html It would probably be better to quote direct from Bakunin and add a link to the online version.

No links show up as dead. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The numerous websites dealing with comic books are known for reliably publishing interviews with comic book industry insiders; reporting breaking news regarding the industry; offering numerous reviews of comic book content; and detailing reports on industry conventions. They are to comic books as ESPN reporters are to sports games. As for your suggestion regarding the quote of Bakunin; I have followed this and traced the information to the source: an 1868 speech by Bakunin. The information is now properly cited and a link to an online version is provided. Cast (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly on the Bakunin, it just makes more sense to quote direct if you can, and give the online text as a backup. That way if the online source goes dead, you still have the cite.Ealdgyth | Talk 00:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for what makes the sources above reliable sources is still needed. Specific pages that shows authorship/ownership of the sites, what makes them published experts in the field, fact checking, editorial oversight, reputation, etc. For example, a bulletin board posting is unlikely to be a reliable source unless you can prove who the author is and what makes the author an independently published expert in his/her field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if I must run down the criteria for each site and author, lets try to run down a list:

2000 AD Review: About Us. 2000 AD Review is a website focusing on reviewing content and interviewing authors associated with the 2000 AD magazine. From the website: "This is an unofficial site. All characters and related indicia are © and TM of their respective owners. Original content (c) 2002 Gavin Hanly"
About Newsarama.com. From the front page: "Copyright 2008, Newsarama.com Newsarama.com is the comics industry's #1 source for daily comic book news, previews, reviews and commentary, and is home to the largest comic book reader message board community on the Internet, with discussions ranging from Marvel Comics' X-Men and DC Comics' Superman to manga and the smallest indy publishers."
GoComics.com FAQs. "© 2008 uclick The uclick Network refers to the group of entertainment Web sites developed and managed by the people at uclick, LLC. uclick Network include: Doonesbury.com, uPuzzles.com, Garfield.com, NewsoftheWeird.com, GoComics.com and uExpress.com." (Emphasis added.)
COMICON.com: "COMICON.com is a one-of-a-kind virtual comics convention, only available on the Internet. We are not affiliated with any real-world conventions..." COMICON.com title and design © and (TM) 1998-2002 Steve Conley and Rick Veitch

Comicon: PULSE: a news service attatched to Comicon.com. Jennifer Contino, author of the noted article, is the head writer of the online publication. Please understand, all articles are published via bulletin board posts. (The author's forum account is only accessible to members.)

Almost all of the interviews/columns were written by contributing staff writers about whom I have little information. What is immediately apparent is that the information obtained from these sources are all direct quotes from interviews with notable figures in the comic book industry. The reputation of these writers might be immediately suspect if not for the fact that comic book professionals consistently return to give ever more interviews. I should at least hope this consistent reputation would lend to them some credibility. It should also be noted that such sources as Newsrama.com are currently used in other featured articles, such as Superman and Batman. The only non interview noted above is an article by Jennifer Contino. Her job title as head writer of Comicon: Pulse is accessible, though you'd have to do more detective work to find out about her. Her subject is notable. She, it would seem, is not. On a side note, it should be understood that the relationship these types of websites have with the industry is somewhat tight, and at times there is overlap. Gail Simone was a contributor to a similar website before she made the leap to professional comic book writer.--Cast (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't sort out this one above : http://www.comicsbulletin.com/panel/108672670397105.htm SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, missed that one. © 2000-2008 Comics Bulletin, All Rights Reserved. Current company owner is Jason Brice. Wikipedia has an article on it, Comics Bulletin, though it is flagged as having been edited by individuals with a conflict of interest. The column was co-compiled by former managing editor, Craig R. Johnson.

Our article on them is of no use, because our article isn't reliable; how can you demonstrate that the author of that article is a reliable source, published expert, etc, per WP:V? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing some digging, but the compiler seems to be non-notable. I can't find much of anything on him. I can only point out his job title at the time of writing as managing editor, and who the owner of the website is. On a side note, this is not an article in which he interprets and reports information. It is a column in which he posts written quotes from authors, in this case the pertinent author being Alan Grant himself. Alan Grant also contributed to this same column repeatedly before and after this instance. So the question in this case isn't so much what are the credentials of the compiler (note I haven't referred to him as author), but rather what are the credentials of Alan Grant. Those should be instantly manifest.--Cast (talk) 18 March 2008

Support, meets the FA criteria. I share Ealdgyth's concerns about the reliability of the comics websites, but as Cast is an editor in good standing and I am unfamiliar with the comics media, I am more than willing to accept Cast's word on the matter. скоморохъ 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Support, heavily referenced article with a neutral tone. Informative without delving into trivia. A few images seem to be included more for decoration than illustration, but not excessively so. The article definitely compares well with those describing characters with a more extensive history, such as Superman or Batman. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd chosen each image because I felt at the time that they were illustrative, but this was at times relating to the text they contained. Now that they've been reduced the text has been blurred and they've lost a degree of their informative purpose (although I feel they have retained some degree of purpose). If the matter is pressed and must be resolved, I can replace them with more illustrative images.--Cast (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry overly much. As I said, the article still falls within the guidelines, it's just around the upper boundary :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Question "Anarky would appear "in the late 40s"" - 1940s or issue #40 something? It reads like you mean the previous. indopug (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well the citation gives the full context, but I'll reword it a bit for further clarity.--Cast (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral --Laser brain (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC) ~~Oppose~~ - I really like the article; it is a fantastic reference. However, I'm really struggling with the sourcing here, pursuant to criterion 1c. I've realized since reviewing video game articles that a lot of fan sites and blogs are considered reliable sources of information in those circles - comics appear to be no different. There is almost nothing in your list of sources that I would bet any money on being reliable. For example, some sites transcribe interviews but we don't know where they came from or if the text is accurate. You cite a single blog ten times, where I can't find information about the author. There is a donation link despite the fact that authors don't have to pay anything to maintain a blog at blogspot. I don't mind narrow statement being sourced to these sites, like: "The author of the popular fan blog 'Anarky World' really hated this storyline" but the sites are not used this way. Some examples follow:
- Some of what I consider important statements in the article are sourced to really shaky sites. For example, "This steady evolution in Anarky's abilities was later poorly received by fans, who saw it as having overpowered the character, preventing the suspension of disbelief that was previously possible for a character still described as in his mid-teens. It was further criticized by Matt Morrison, a contributor to Fanzing, an online fanzine produced by fans and professionals of the comic book industry, to be a contributing factor to the failure of the second Anarky series." The first sentence isn't really even cited, despite making a huge generalization about the fans of the magazine. The only citation for this whole passage comes at the end, leading to "Fanzing", a site whose articles might be written by, well, anyone. Could be me for all you know. Trust me, I'm not a reliable source, nor am I qualified to make statements about the entire fan base of a comic.
- ~~A lot of your sources are primary.. the comics themselves. If you are just providing plot summaries, these are not even needed per Wikipedia:When to cite. Slims the list a bit.~~
- ~~However, this brings me to my next point - some statements that go beyond summarizing and into interpreting are sourced to the comics themselves. That is, unfortunately, original research. Examples:~~
  - "Throughout Alan Grant's series of books written for the character, cunning and intelligence were viewed as his primary tools for victory, often using quick thinking, fighting skills, and technology in conjunction with each other in order to defeat tougher opponents."
  - ~~"In accordance with the superhero convention of following a recognizable theme, the character's tools often incorporate the circle-A into them."~~
  - ~~"At this time, the tone of the character began to move away from improvised munitions, and toward self-sufficient funding for more elaborate technology."~~

--Laser brain (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your input. I've tried to initially address the last two of your three main points. You are right in regards to the three examples of my prose which unfortunately appear as original research. An unfortunate product of my prose. I've reworded them to remove statements which appear interpretive. Your point regarding the citing of comics was one I initially dealt with prior to the GA nomination. Some of the plots for the character span multiple issues, and so questions arose of which issue and plot was being referred to. The comic citations are used primarily where direct panel/page citations are necessary (where does Anarky make his cameo in Wonder Woman? Only one panel of a single page. Blink and you'd miss him.), or where it becomes necessary to point out exactly what issue of what arc a quote came from. I'll go back over these citations and try to slim them down, but if they compromise reader understanding, I'm sure you'll understand if I do not.

Now on to your first, and the most pressing point. This issue has now been raised several times; a question of verifiability. You note a blog is often quoted. I'm sure you're referring to "BATMAN: Alan Grant & Norm Breyfogle Speak Out" on 20th Century Danny Boy. You're not the only one who has problems with citing a blog. For a good long time, I didn't like it either, which is why I was very happy to find the author moved the post to a website, with all legal disclaimers conveniently placed at the bottom of the page, Adelaide comics and Books presents: Alan Grant & Norm Breyfogle. "Content on this page is copyright 2006 Alan Grant, Norm Breyfogle and Daniel Best and cannot be reproduced, reprinted, stored, transmitted (electronically or otherwise) without the express written permission of all relevant parties involved. Interview conducted via phone in May 2006 and edited by Norm Breyfogle, Alan Grant and Daniel Best." (emphasis added.) Just before I began the nomination process, I found the website had gone dead. In my haste the repair the link, I foolishly reverted them to the blogpost rather than the more respectable, and verifiable, archive.com. Now thinking clearly, I'll shift the citation to the archived website.

That said, you are right in noting that I had to rely on some slim choices when it came to my references. As you note, these fan zines and blogs can be useful for reflecting the general disposition of a fanbase, but are not verifiable. Given that Anarky isn't the most widely known character in the DC pantheon, I was hoping a few well chosen citations could be used to represent the general attitude for the character. I have encountered other fan reviews of Anarky, but none which I felt were useful. Fanzing at least had it's legal disclaimers and staff information available (by the way, I doubt you are Matt Morrison, unless you are from Arlington, Texas. Are you from Arlington, Texas?) At any rate, I'll address this matter in the coming days. This is nothing a little rewriting can't fix.--Cast (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: on the matter of the interviews, I can understand that you feel concerned that there is no way to know if these transcriptions are literal or edited, but I'm left with no way to address this. I've tried to provide the legal owner and publisher information for each of these cites as they've been requested, and if that isn't good enough for these websites, I have to ask, how is it possible for any websites? If nothing else, I have always found the interviews remarkably consistent. Grant and Breyfogle have been asked about the character rather often, and only Grant has been known to be self-contradictory (a point noted in two of the interviews, where he makes off hand remarks about believing his own memory to be poor. Perhaps we ought to consider Alan Grant an unreliable source?)--Cast (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cast, thank you for taking my criticism so gracefully - it speaks volumes of your character. I struck some of my issues above, and I now understand your purpose for citing the books themselves. I need to think some more on the issue of sourcing. I keep coming back to the same thing: Per our policy on verifiability, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Going through your list of sources, I'm having a really hard time figuring how well they adhere to this policy. Your responses have given me some food for thought; I'm closer to thinking that for the subject matter, it may never be possible to source it differently than you have. Are there any print magazines or journals that publish criticism or reviews of comics? --Laser brain (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Journals and magazines? I can't recall many off the top of my head, save Wizard magazine, and a weekly segment, Fresh Ink, on Attack of the Show! on the G4 channel. I don't watch that show, but I know of it. I'm rather positive there are more. At any rate, there is no sign that these ever touched on Anarky, so they are rather moot for the purpose of this article. Anarky might have gained at