Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2006

Contents

Absinthe

self-nomination: a number of people have worked on this article to get it to its current state, which I think is up to FA standards. It has gone through peer review and is currently listed as a good article. Ari 00:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think that the article could use a good checking for style. I just cleaned up one section that was a little iffy (removed words like "downright," as well as some scarequotes), and a quick glance shows that the whole article could use a final cleanup. Otherwise, it looks quite good. Exploding Boy 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the corrections, hopefully any others can be ironed out, I know the topic but am not always grammar inclined when it comes to encyclopedia type standards. -- Ari 01:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: How do you pronounce "absinthe"? Some people say ab-sin-thayˈ while others say abˈ-sinth (like "absent" with a lisp). Just a question. Jtmichcock 01:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
In english it's commonly pronounced ab -sinth (like 'synth' esize) where as in french it is pronounced ab -sant. -- Ari 01:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to say something about the different pronounciations at the start of the article. This is one of those really "basic" things that any encylopedia article should address. Jtmichcock 21:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, I added IPA pronunciation for both english and french, as best I could (not being very familiar with IPA). -- Ari 22:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. There are only three issues I have with this article, all of them small:
    • Ordering of sections. I would like it of the "Czech" section was included in, or placed nearer to, the production section.
    • Why are the countries mentioned in the regulations mentioned, and other countries omitted? If it's because those other countries don't have regulations regarding absinthe, that fact shoulod be mentioned.
    • Copyedit. We all speak English here, but we also all make mistakes.
Overall a very good article, I just need a few clarifications/corrections before I lend my full support. RyanGerbil10 02:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
As the czech section has to do with production and preparation I reordered it underneath the preparation section. I added some clarifacation of the regulations. As absinthe wasn't banned in many countries they never made any regulations about it. All EU countries must comply with the EU regulations, only france is specifically mentioned as they have additional laws. -- Ari 07:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • I think it might be wise to give "Czech absinthe" its own article. Aside from the placement issue above, it is largely uncited. For example, the statement that the method of preparation is fake and for tourists doesn't have a source; the cite provided instructs readers how to do it, but doesn't say when it was invented or that it's just for rubes. In addition, there seems to be some dispute about the accuracy of the rest of the section (see the article's talk page). As I understand it, Czech absinthe is its own distinct thing, so maybe giving it its own page would kill four birds with one stone.
The talk page is all but addressed and I know of sources for most of what is said and will find them. Ironically the bohemian style section was its own article under absinth but a number of people questioned why it wasn't part of absinthe so it was cleaned up and put there. Perhaps a sub-page under absinthe would best satisfy concerns? -- Ari 04:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The first two sentences about the ban in the US make it seem as though the law is somehow contradictory, but the FDA doesn't govern alcohol so the two aren't really related. It's apples and oranges.
The regulations are contradictory, the FDA controls substances in alcoholic beverages, such as the use of proper food-coloring. Customs also points to the FDA for more information about the regulation. -- Ari 04:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Absinthe is banned, as I understand it, as having an unapproved food aditive, that's why it's the FDA that regulates it. It's not a controlled substance, so its legal status is iffy. It's illegal to make it in the US, because the FDA regulates additives in food manufacturing. But FDA has no enforcement mechanisms (or legal standing, really) to prevent people from possessing it, owning it, consuming it or probably buying it, except that unapproved food or food additives can be seized by Customs (on FDA's orders) at the border. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Also in the US section, there are a lot of unsourced "probably" and "occasionally" statements. I know reliable sources can be tough to find on this, as I've tried many times, but something needs to be in there to back up those claims. Since it's stating that the position is based on general consensus between American absinthe drinkers, it might be good enough to use an absinthe forum as a reference, but I wouldn't bet my life on it when it comes to FAC.
I can clean that up a little bit and provide a basic source, however some of the speculative language is because the most anyone so far has dealt with the regulations is customs seizures so the exact legal ramifacations for something like selling absinthe in the US is unknown, although I could see if I can find information about companies breaking other FDA regulations. -- Ari 04:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
As you know, I think this is a great article. With a few tweaks, it will definitely have my support. Kafziel 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I've clarified the czech section and added citations. If you think more should be included (such as a citation for companies hyping thujone) I can add those as well. I've tried to clarify the US laws as well as adding citations. It states absinthe is occasionally seized by customs because even a blatant declaration of "absinthe" on customs forms results in hit and miss seizures. -- Ari 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
There are three separate bullet points about US customs, all basically saying the same thing - customs doesn't like Absinthe and they will sometimes, for various reasons, confiscate it when they find it. That could all be under one bullet point and covered by the source you cite. I think that's about the last of my comments before my support - it looks good. Kafziel 17:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor object Comment There seems to be a factual omission that makes the article look slightly incomplete: traditional Scandinavian absinth liquor. There are (or have been) several brands, at least one of which is currently sold by Systembolaget, see http://www.systembolaget.se/SokDrycker/Produkt?VaruNr=214&Butik=0&SokStrangar= , and I seem to remember seeing similar drinks in Norway, too. I don't know anything about their legal status in pre-EU times, but there seems to be some history waiting to be discovered. Given that the legal hisotry in various European countries is so prominent in the article, I think that there should be a sentence or two about this. Kosebamse 11:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    I couldn't find much information about Bäska Droppar, however not everything that is similar to absinthe is absinthe. On the anise side there are a number of products such as pastis, Ouzo Arak, etc. On the wormwood side some Bitters use artemisia species and some of those even use grande wormwood, vermouth was originally flavored with grande wormwood and some still are. The use of grande wormwood as an wine flavoring goes back many centuries and was used in ancient times as a stomach cure and to wean babies. Although interesting history and products none of these are specifically absinthe. Bohemian-style absinth isn't really absinthe but it gets a mild pass because it started the revival and is often marketed so closely with absinthe. An article on the use of wormwood and other herbs in alcohol might be good but is beyond the scope of this. -- Ari 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    My point was more about the legal side of things - it would be interesting to know whether absinthe or similar liquors have ever fallen under prohobition in places where they have been produced traditionally (Bäsk is quite unlike absinth, not as high in alcohol and without anise, and it might be a far older recipe than absinthe in the modern sense). But I would not oppose the FA request because of this. Kosebamse 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, I think I understand now. AFAIK there really weren't any legal issues beyond the european countries mentioned. The ban really had more to do with corporate and political motivation such as wine-producers losing sales and the temperance movement than absinthe or anything in it. Countries were absinthe wasn't the most popular drink and there weren't pressures from political parties, corporations and even racism towards the french never made a big deal about it and its legal status remained the same as any other alcoholic beverage. -- Ari 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as my comments above have all been addressed. Nice job, Ari. Kafziel 19:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I think it is an excellent article. -Cribananda 01:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
In the art and absinthe section, it says: "According to Gauguin, Van Gogh had been acting in an unstable manner almost a week before the incident and had flung the only absinthe Gauguin had seen him order, before drinking it." Is this what was intended? I've read that VG tossed a glass of it at PG, but in this rendering, how does one "fling" the stuff and then drink it? Sfahey 14:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right that should be "instead of drinking it." -- Ari 14:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, prose is average, run on sentences and miss ordered words are common, like these from the lead;
Absinthe had its start in Switzerland as an elixir, but is more well-known for its popularity in late 19th and 20th century France, particularly among Parisian artists and writers, whose romantic associations with the drink still linger in popular culture.
Modern evidence shows it to be as safe, or dangerous, as ordinary alcohol.
In addition to langauge problems there are comprehensivness issues, the article never discusses at any length the the mentioned dangers or evidence to the contrary (unless you count an quote about undetailed "scientific studies" from an author of a "popular" book on the subject). The regulation section is unnecessarily broken up into sections which further serves to highlight missing locales, I know that it is sold in New Zealand and a lot of other places, which leads me to believe that this setion needs to be refactored.--Peta 06:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Prose. There have been a number of copyedit changes but I will go through it again and see if I can find anything else.
Studies. I have just recently added information about one 19th century study. I don't think we really need a large number of these types of studies. Some of the modern research is at thujone but I can bring over the conclusions.
Regulations. The regulations section is broken up into countries as different countries have different regulations. Many countries never banned it and never payed enough attention to even put regulations on it, I believe this is mentioned in the article. I don't see a reason why the regulations section should list countries it's legal in with no regulations. Other countries may have had regulations but neither I nor the page you listed provide any sources as to what those may have been or still are. -- Ari 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
As is the section heading only serve to (1) lenghthen the TOC and (2) highlight that this section is not comprehensive.--Peta 23:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I am unsure what your objection is. The section is "Regulations" to list every country and then say "no regulations" is pointless. The link you posted contains no sourced regulations in any country that isn't already listed either directly or indirectly (as being part of the EU) thus I don't see how the section is not comprehensive. -- Ari 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
My point is, the subsections are completly unnecessary as they blow out the TOC and some are a single sentence long, and that not enough effort has been made to make this part of the article comprehensive.--Peta 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
They could be bolded instead of subsections although that would seem to not match wiki formating guidlines. Although it blows out the TOC I think having a TOC link to say US regulations (a common topic) is important. What do others think?
Can you provide specific example of how this section is not comprehensive? -- Ari 02:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I already have, there are tens of courties with laws which allow or disallow the drink.--Peta 03:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Name one that you have a source for and is not part of the EU. The only one on that list I saw not on this page was Brazil, which was listed as "unconfirmed" and I am looking for any solid data about it. Beyond that they are part of the EU, already listed or have no regulations. Perhaps I missed one. -- Ari 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
To elaborate the only ones on the list posted that aren't already mentioned are Brazil,Israel,Norway,Russia and South Africa, of those only Brazil is listed as having regulations and those are unconfirmed. Searches for regulations for all has turned up empty. -- Ari 04:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I added some information about thujone toxicity and rearanged a few words/sections to attempt to better the flow. -- Ari 19:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it's a good, well-referenced article. Raul654 13:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Absinthe is a French word and the correct pronounciation is ab-sAAnth with the emphasis on the 2nd syllable.

Chew Valley

Partial self nomination. This article describes a small valley in Somerset, England. It has undergone a lot of editing during its peer review including turning lists into text, additional sections etc & I now feel meets the FA criteria. Rod 15:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment As of a quick scan, it looks pretty good- could Transport and Schools be expanded a bit more though? Even though it is not quite a city, you might want to use a guideline similar to WP:CITY's template. Thanks, AndyZ t 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. I've changed the all-caps in the etymology section to italics; that was my only concern. —CuiviénenT|C, Sunday, 21 May 2006 @ 20:58 UTC

Thanks for the feedback. There isn't really much else to add on Transport and Schools and when you edit the page you get the warning "This page is 33 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable;" Thanks for the edits on the etymology section I didn't really know how to represent the other languages etc. Rod 18:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support: Excellent, excellent work. - Tutmosis 18:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A very trivial point, but the "include/includes/including X, Y, Z" began to grate by the time I reached the end. I counted 26 occurrences. Assuming this quibble is addressed, Support. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the majority of "include/includes/including X, Y, Z" & hope this makes the article easier to read. Rod 11:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine, quibble withdrawn. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor Object I think this is a fine article except for one thing: sequencing of "History" and "Natural History". First, I suggest moving Geology to the beginning of Natural History as it occurs first in time. Likewise, "History" specifically talks about humans, but the title doesn't say that. Also, why is "Natural History" near the end. It seems to me it should be at the beginning. Can something be done with all this? My suggestion would be to have only one "History" section with subsections in this order: Geology, Flora, Fauna, Human habitation, and Field patterns. The titles of the sections aren't the issue (change them to whatever if you want), it's the organization and sequence that I have an issue with. Other than this, it's a fine article. Rlevse 12:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now that structure and ref numbering are fixed. Rlevse 20:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the history timeline you suggest is more logical & have rearranged the sections as you suggest & have tried to re sort all of the references to make them work but now have number 7's in the text & can't work out why. Rod 14:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Your Darwin ref was orphaned and causing problems. This was because it was at the bottom and had line spaces between it and the previous refs. The ref/note systems does not like spaces between ref lines. I moved it to where I thought it should go. Aside from that, you should look over your ref numbering as I think it may be awry from the section moving. If you need help fixing this, leave a msg on my talk page. Rlevse 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now run User:Cyde/Ref converter & it seems to have resolved the problem of reference numberingRod 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Rodw's being extremely responsive to peer review comments helped make that process very helpful here. The writing is also very good. - Taxman Talk 15:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Claudette (2003)

Self-nom, on behalf of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. I worked on this, and I feel it is ready to become the next Tropical Cyclone related Featured Article. I feel it is comprehensive, well written, and, in all, ready. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Just look at the article and you'll know why I supported it! Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 21:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. You Tropical Cyclone Wikiprojecters are getting very good at this FA-standard article malarkey... Batmanand | Talk 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support though not the most notable hurricane, this should be one of our most notable articles since it is so good. My only issue is that the infobox bites a bit into the storm history section, but I don't think that's a serious problem. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I shortened it a bit, but I'm not sure how to remove the "bite". I suppose it isn't too serious of a problem. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, very well-done article. -- RattleMan 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object This could be the 10th featured hurricane-related article, how many do you plan on getting featured? Fine Support - a couple of minor things though, 236 million cubic feet needs a conversion and nbsp;, and there should be a comma following states following cities (like a comma after High Island, Texas). AndyZ t 01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • LOL. OK, I got the metrication for cubic feet and added a comma after High Island, Texas for the TS warnings. What is nbsp; though? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
      • "nbsp;" is an HTML command for a non-breaking space. It prevents something attached to it from wrapping to the next line if it's at the very end. -- RattleMan 01:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh. Where is it needed? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Although I've never used it before, I think I know where it goes; between the conversions, like "236 million cubic units" (use edit to check the code). Looks messy, but I think that's it. Try resizing your browser window, and notice that the entire "236 million cubic units" moves to the next line instead of just one word (say, "units") moving to the next line. -- RattleMan 01:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, you'll see that our evil plot is to overwhelm Wikipedia with tropical cyclone featured articles. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 01:57 UTC
  • Comment. I'd like to see a longer lead before I support. I'm not sure how it could be expanded, but it seems too short. —CuiviénenT|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 01:57 UTC
    • For a storm that killed only one and caused only minimal damage along its path, anything more in the lead would become redundant. Also, Irene was featured with a shorter lead. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Everyking 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. On the lead a bit more detail on the storm history would work (thats the one thing Irene's has which Claudette doesn't).--Nilfanion (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "landfall" in the lead should be wikilinked.--ppm 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I've gone over the article with a fine comb and made sure there weren't any glaring errors. AndyZ: You may want to read the bold text near the top of WP:WPTC... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Nice, I'm going to change my vote to object just to stop you! (no just kidding) AndyZ t 21:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • More Comments Well written article, but I have more comments before supporting:
    • "There, residents remained calm during the evacuation, and peacefully taped up window" -- the reference provided suggested that they did NOT tape up windows. The sentence is somewhat POV sounding, anyway.
    • "to an area of flower growth" in the section on Aftermath. Is flower growth a technical term, or merely growth of flowers?
    • "Also, the storm was indirectly responsible for a death when a tree fell on a person in the cleanup of the storm" -- I actually could not find this info from the reference provided. It talks about one direct death due to tree falling, though.
    • In general, a light copyedit might be useful. I am not sure, but phrases like "By 2 months later, over 15,000 " (in aftermath) sound a bit suspect style wise.

--ppm 23:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

      • I fixed that. Can someone else copyedit it? I need an outside eye. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; I did some copyediting, and fixed a few things. I'm confused at the inclusion of "This report would suggest the storm was a low-end Category 2 hurricane", when in fact a 95.5mph wind (even if it was sustained) is not a true Cat 2 (which begins at 96mph). Add to that that the report was unofficial and I fail to see the purpose of the sentence. I'll keep looking for wording problems, but this is looking really good. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 15:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Whoops, that's supposed to be 96.6 mph in Seadrift. Now it shows the possibility for Cat. 2. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- nice article. I would just request the editors to go through the references once, as some inconsistencies surfaced earlier.--ppm 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel

Peer Review

Salute to All - I request your vote to make this a featured article. It has undergone an intensive process of expansion, formatting, copyediting and improvement through peer review. I know that the length is 68kb, but there are notable FAs which reach such a length. I welcome all objective advice and criticism to further improve this article. Rama's Arrow 22:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This article has 46KB of prose as of 23 May 2006
  • Comments:
  • No, years alone (like 1952) should not be linked, but with a date they should be. Dates alone (like January 6) should be linked however. AndyZ t 00:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I don't think fair use is justified for the TIME cover or the movie poster since they both do very little to add to the article.--Peta 00:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply Image:Sardartime.jpg "specifically describes the issue in question or its cover" - I believe this is properly justified for use in this article, as the pic is used in an article describing Patel's life and work at the time of the subject of the article in TIME, which discusses Patel's life and background at the time when he is taking charge of India's government with Nehru. Image:Sardar(film).jpg depicts the film representation of Patel, but I can understand why its not "FU" so I'll take it out. Rama's Arrow 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. — Ravikiran 04:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Having read the article few times, I can give it my strong support. It is very polished and nicely referenced. My only comment is regarding the section name "Cabinet mission and Partition." Would something like "Role during partition" work better? --Blacksun 06:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written article. Deserves to be featured. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A Fine article, however, could the references be neatened up a bit? .... 07:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It went through a good peer review. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Followed the article from peer review. Excellent.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for the moment. There's much to admire in the article, but there's an awkwardness in some of the writing that falls short of the requirement for "compelling, even brilliant" prose. In the lead, for example, "accomplish the integration of India" is unidiomatic; "turmoiled regions" is incorrect; "His leadership obtained the swift unification", again, is not quite right, and there's a clash of mood later in that sentence ("Patel would lead initiatives"); and in: "he is also remembered as the "patron saint" of India's civil servants for his defence of them against political attack", whose political attack? Remove or explain. The rest of the text needs a thoughtful copy-edit along these lines. Tony 15:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tony - I've copyedited the lead as per your suggestions. I'd like to know if the changes are ok - [1] - and what other stuff needs copyediting. Please respond on the FAC page. Thanks, Rama's Arrow 16:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is largely a case of different writing styles. I kindav noticed what you are talking about too but I am not sure if different writing style means it is not brilliant prose. --Blacksun 16:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I've further addressed your points Rama's Arrow 04:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I don't think it's just the fair use images that are a problem here. Many of the ones listed as public domain give no rationale for this listing. I think this needs to be cleared up. gren グレン 06:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the rationale is exactly the one given in the PD-India description, as per Indian copyright law. Rama's Arrow 06:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The images have fake copyright tags. I have notified the uploader. Warmongering attitude of Patel is not even touched. Substandard work. Anwar 08:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply. {{PD-India}} holds in the case of at least two of the three photographs cited by Anwar as these photographs could have been taken only before 1947 as Patel died in 1950 at the age of 75. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I feel that even the third one is in public domain as it is taken in 1928 and 60 years have passed since it was taken. Anwar, can you elaborate what "Warmongering attitude of Patel" you are talking about. Referenced would be helpful. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The criticism of Sardar Patel in regards to his use of force is present in the article. However, you will not find terms like "warmongering" as they can be hardly considered encyclopedic. Here's to hoping that in the future you will read the article before calling it substandard :). Furthermore, it is rather curious of you to demand exact dates of pictures that could have only been taken before 1947 and hence as Sundar stated qualify for {{PD-India}}. Whats next? do we need to prove that Tagore's pictures qualify for {{PD-India}} even though he died before then? Toodles. --Blacksun 17:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Note User:Anwar saadat has been opposing all Indian RFAs, FACs, FPCs etc. Most if not all of these objections have been unreasonable. Thus I suggest that his vote be disregarded until he finds a better reason to oppose. The term warmongering can hardly be used in Wikipedia. There are no copyright infringements involved. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
        • His comments pretty much discredit themselves. - Taxman Talk 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply all the images in question are justified under PD-India. Criticism of Patel for allegedly compromising the rights of princely states and perceived anti-Muslim bias are in the "Legacy" sections as well as in relevant paras. Rama's Arrow 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice article. Has gone through a good peer review, and covers all aspects of Patel's life in a very nice manner. Is a very good read even at it's size. I fully support it becoming an FA. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Very well written article that has evolved into a spectacular work over the course of the last many months. AreJay 02:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support very good article. Is informative and that's what articles are meant to be. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done again Nirav.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 09:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article, very well researched. - Taxman Talk 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support this well-written article. Saravask 19:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — Great work Rama's Arrow. I'm back! deeptrivia (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - good article. thoroughly researched and discussed... Lost 18:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Smolensk (1943)

Self-nom. An article about an epic WWII battle, hiding in the shade of Kursk salient :) Good length, pictures, formatting and inline citations. Has been peer reviewed by MILHIST project.

Oh, and that is the first FAC I nominate, so don't bite the newcomer please :)) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support, excellent article; all issues raised during the peer review have been addressed. Kirill Lokshin 17:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Excellent work - interesting and very readable. Some minor problems need fixing before I can support this nomination; I've done a little bit of work myself but things I haven't done include
    • Overlinking, e.g. road network - be careful only to link to relevant subjects. In this case, neither link leads the reader to anything relevant to the article. There are other examples. Also, some words are linked several times - it's only necessary to link the first appearance of a word. - Adressed to a reasonable extent. I know i'm overlinking, but in this case, multi-links to places and rivers and so on... seem necessary, because people are usually not familiar with Russian geography. But I removed any non-relevant ilinks... :)
    • Linking style as well - you have, for example, After a rain, quite common during the Russian summer, most of them were covered with mud - it would be much better to link transparently to the word Rasputitsa, explainin what it is at the same time. -- Corrected, the only example remaining is anti-aircraft warfare, which I think is quite OK to link as anti-aircraft defense. Correct me if I'm wrong :)
      • Yeah, that's fine - it's just using a piped link with text that doesn't look at all like the article title you're linking to that's not very desirable. Worldtraveller 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Language issues - I have rectified a lot of minor grammatical problems and spelling mistakes, but more might remain, so I'd recommend a thorough read through. -- I reread the article, but that's where my English hits the wall... :( Your help is welcome...
      • I've been through it more thoroughly, and fixed up all the nitpicking minor things I could find. Worldtraveller 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As ordered by the Stavka - Stavka is not previously explained. -- Done.
    • as general M.M Popov wrote in one of his articles - this wording appears to endorse a viewpoint. Also, it's not explained who M.M. Popov is, or why his articles are relevant. It would be better here to write what he said in your own words, then cite him as a reference. -- Done.
    • What was General Kurt von Tippelskirch's involvement with the battle? This needs to be explained. -- Explained.
    • 'Aftermath' says the total advance was 200-250km; immediately above, it says it was 100 to 180 km. -- Clarified: 100-180 is advance during 3rd stage, 200-250 is overall advance.
    • It's a little bit weak at the end. A brief mention with a couple of links about what happened after this battle would be really good.I added a last paragraph about what happened next in the northern part of the Soviet-German front (Leningrad counteroffensive and Operation Bagration in 1944). If you feel more details would be necessary about a particular subject, please say so :)
  • Otherwise, excellent work - hope to see many more such articles from you! Worldtraveller 18:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Brilliant stuff - I enthusiastically support this now. Worldtraveller 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Support: Excellent article but some above concerns by Worldtraveller need to be adressed. - Tutmosis 18:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support but I have some problems with part of the prose. These sentences caught my eye:
"By 30 September, the Soviet offensive was tired and depleted, and became bogged down near Vitebsk, Orsha and Mogilev, which were still held by the Wehrmacht, and on 2nd October, the Smolensk operation was over." - Seems like a run on. -- Sentence changed by Worldtraveller just before :) What would you suggest?

I would write...."By 30 September, the Soviet offensive was tired, depleted, and became bogged down near Vitebsk, Orsha and Mogilev-still held by the Wehrmacht-before the Smolensk operation ended on October 2nd."UberCryxic 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for messing that up when I was trying to fix it :) Worldtraveller 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"Subsequent attacks by Armored and Cavalry forces of the 6th Guards Cavalry Corps had no further effect and resulted in important casualties because of heavy German defenses, leading to a stalemate." - People realize what you're saying here, but I suggest replacing the word "important" with something else, like "heavy" or "significant." -- Corrected.
"Thus, both operations were a part of the same offensive." - "Thus" isn't needed. Just say "Both..." and get on with it. Same thing with.... -- Corrected.
"Finally, the forward edge of the battle area was protected by three lines of barbed wire and a solid wall of minefields." - "Finally" not needed. -- Corrected.
Otherwise, it was a very good article. Worthy of FA.UberCryxic 19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- All issues raised above were corrected or at least attempted to be corrected. My remarks are in red above. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

  • A couple minor issues: Make sure & nbsp; precedes abbreviated units (I think I've done most of them) to prevent line breaking, and format repeated inline references so that the actual text of the reference only appears the first time, and future identical references carry the number first used (saves space in your notes section). Also, check for agreement—I noticed that the Geography section switches between past and present tense. Other than these minor issues, however, very nice work. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
IRT tenses in Geography section: corrected. :)
IRT references: I did not know it was possible... Sorry I'm just a dumb newcomer and don't know wiki scripting very well... :( -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem at all. But actually, let me suggest referencing like I used on shielded metal arc welding—have a references section where you list the books, and then a notes section where you list just the author or title keyword and the page number. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll be sure to consider it. However, I don't think it is an obstacle to FA (or am I mistaken?). I think than more important style matters should be dealt with first... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
References changed to short form (with 1st occurrence in full) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Should "second" or "battle" or both or neither (of Second battle of Smolensk) be capitalized? In Second Battle of Bull Run, both are capitalized. AndyZ t 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It was capitalized in the infobox, so I did so in the lead as well. Maybe it will be changed but at least it is logical for the moment :) ... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nicely written but needs a touch more work.
#Needs another round of proofreading and copyediting for grammar and spelling. I think it's about done by a lot of people (kudos to them all :)
  1. Some vernacular, e.g. This direction, which was the Stavka's biggest headache since 1941, was finally secured. I'm sorry I don't get it...
  • "Biggest headache" is something you would use in a conversation but it's too informal for an encyclopedia. There are a few other places where I felt the tone was like that (again, a proofread would help). - Emt147 Burninate! 15:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Corrected, and I assume proofread is quite OK by now... :)
  1. I would like to see a mention of notable equipment (guns, tanks, aircraft, etc.) used, if any.
#The lead needs to provide a better summary of the article. Lead Expanded
#The two commanders (?) in the lead should have ranks preceding their names. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Done
Good points, I'll see what I can do. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally support, as this is a very good article on an important subject that thus far has seen little treatment in the relevant literature in the west. A few minor points that I think should be addressed:
  • Exact time of the attack, attack procedure (e.g. preliminary bombardment, etc.) for the first stage Added
  • German reserves shifted up from the Orel region – a bit more detail? Added
  • Soviet Fronts (Front should always be capitalised and they should be wiki-linked). In general I think capitalisation needs to be checked. Checked I think...
  • I think a generic map of the region with all the placenames would be most helpful. Andreas 07:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Added a general plan to help with the text.
  • Support as the criticism seems to have been addressed. We need more military FAs on subjects other than Polish military history. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

One more comment - the picture used in the infobox looks to me as if it is from the occupation of Smolensk in 1941, not the liberation. The tank is a T26, a model which was not in service anymore - on its turret a direction indicator for a German tank formation is drawn. The truck also looks distinctly German. Together I should think this means the picture is from 1941. Andreas

Remember that they did not clean the streets after the 1941 mess (that's why the tank has signposts on it). And the city was captured in one night too, so they had no time to evacuate. As for the signposts, sure they were there before they were removed (look at the photo at Battle of Budapest.
In short, I'm not sure. But what we could do is swap this one with one of the two pics in the aftermath section... What do you think??? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if they left the tank wreck in situ for two years, but stranger things have happened. More importantly though, the soldier on the truck looks more like wearing a German uniform to me. None of this is conclusive by any means, but I'd change it for one of the later pictures. Andreas 11:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Pick the one you would like :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd go for the one with the civilians, which is currently the last one. Just switch them and caption the other one 'Smolensk during the war', or sumfink. Andreas 17:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • support with quibble: Some identical refs could be combined, also, repeating the entire reference each time instead of just the shortened form gets tedious very quickly. Circeus 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
By shortened form, do you mean like here??? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Roughly. Though I don't mind if the first note uses a full text instead of having to refer to the references. Circeus 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
References changed, please remove your quibble :))) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Full support now following all the changes, and a big pat on the back for Alexandre for making all this effort and making the changes so quickly. Andreas 14:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support although I usually feel comfortable if articles exceed 32kb. Please see if you can add more material. Rama's Arrow 22:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • However, because of heavy German resistance the overall advance was quite modest and slow, and the operation was therefore accomplished in three stages (7-20 August, 21 August-6 September, and 7 September-2 October) with intervening stalemates. This sentence in the lead makes it sound like there were "intervening stalemates" of 0 days :) Haukur 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't me, but I removed this mention. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support As per Kirill. Major criticisms have been addressed and now meets FA criteria. Well done.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A very good article for the technical details of the battle, and an in depth description of unit movements, etc. However I felt that the terrible destruction of the battle needed to be brought out more. What would it be like if you were actually there, a Russian or a German soldier caught up in this horrendous battle? Nowhere in the text is the human cost of the battle mentioned, and nowhere is the immense human suffering of battle mentioned. What about an account from a soldier who was actually there, instead of a general talking about the numbers and titles of 'units' involved? Where is the human element in this article? It talks about units being able to continue the advance because they were 'reinforced'. Think what that word means - it means that hundreds and thousands of men met their deaths in horrible wretched circumstances amid the blaze of gunfire and artillery explosions. We shouldn't forget that an entire generation of Russians and Germans bled to death on the eastern front in WW2. The last thing I want to come across as is bloodthirsty, so I apologise if anyone has misunderstood my post. All I am trying to say is that war is hell. There should be at least some reflection of that in this article. Otherwise, it is easy to read it in the same was as an account of a football match, and forget the terrible cost of the battle. Bigdaddy1204 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian Institutes of Technology

First FAC | Peer review

A self-nom. This is an article about the group of seven elite educational institutes in India. The article has improved a lot since its first FAC, when it was nominated by an anonymous IP. It has also gone through an extensive peer review and the suggestions given there have been adequately addressed. With the help of a number of enthusiastic editors, in my opinion it fulfils all criteria to become a Featured Article and hence I am nominating it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the table? I thought it was kind of useful. Raul654 06:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply. It was suggested by an editor in the Peer Review that the table is unnecessary for the article. Further, since all the IITs don't have a motto, incomplete table looked bad. The table took too much space and except for the the shields and motto of the institutes (the details of which might be unwarrented in summary style), everything is still included in paragraph format. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Fine article. Rlevse 11:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Yet another fine addition to Wikipedia's coverage of Indian topics. My only small issue is that the "IIT Family" and "Establishment and development" sections could probably use a little more inline citation, but it's fine as it is. Finding that Dilbert cartoon and finding the correct place for it in the article is hilarious, IMO. Staxringold 14:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply. I have added more inline citations to the "IIT Family" section. Almost all of the first half of "Establisment" section uses single source (IIT Kharagpur History) and I have indicated it by the end. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support a lot of hard work by Ambuj. Rama's Arrow 14:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent work in making this article FA quality by the editors. --Blacksun 15:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Excellent article. Followed it from peer review. Well done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I only have one small issue- isn't it a bit ostentatious to have the large blue quotes insted of normal quotes? I don't really care if they're in the article, I just think they're strange. RyanGerbil10 16:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply. I used the quotes because I have seen other Featured Articles use it. However, things wouldn't look much different if we just use the normal quotes. If you insist, I can very well change that. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, those large quotes seem to be becoming quite popular on newer FA's for some reason... I prefer the Template:" myself, but even Raul has reverted me there - LOL. Oh yeah, Support for a good article. RN 16:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good! One small criticism - the caption for the Dilbert comic just reiterates what's written in the comic. I couldn't think of a good way to rephrase it, though... User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 16:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply. I have changed the caption. Hope this one is better. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; I'm feeling like a broken record. Here's another high-quality article that fails to cite sources in key sections like "Undergraduate education", "Postgraduate and doctoral education", and "Culture and student life". The first part of the Education section could use some more citations as well (it's unclear where 90% of the information there came from). Also, writing quality is rather poor—I found and fixed a "went" attempting to pass as a past participle, and noted excessive use of "a lot" in the Alumni section. Also, "the total government funding to most of the good quality engineering colleges". "Good" is almost always a completely wasted word. Another useless word, "very", appears four times. Tighten the language, please. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Spangineer, could you please give some other examples of language errors that need rectifying? Rama's Arrow 18:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply. I have added references wherever applicable. However grant me one freedom. I have used the B.Tech ordinance from IIT Madras. I am not sure if I would be willing to copy same info from every IIT and place 7 trailing references everytime after the article mentions "All IITs..". The reference added by me gives an overview of the whole B.Tech program and mentions things like students having common subject and having to take "breadth" subjects. For more clarity, I can even source the official first year time-table from IIT Kharagpur where it can be clearly seen that there is a common curriculum for all first years, but unfortunately the PDF document is on internal notice board which will require hosting on a free web-server (like geocities) before it can be referenced. I can do that; but only if extremely essential. Regarding the use of "good", I can't possibly think of an alternative to write as the fundings vary with size of college as well as reputation. If you can suggest some neutral adjective, I will be grateful. I have replaced "A lot" with "Many" as it sounds more nuetral. I prefer using it as I don't want to mention each and every alumni who has achieved notability, which in itself is very vague. I have removed all but one instance of "very", where I found it useful. If there are any more actionable concerns, please let me know. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Reply Update. I have replaced the word "good", and have possibly addressed all your concerns. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see this link to check the updates Rama's Arrow 18:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Examples of ambiguities/things to fix:
      • "The IIT-JEE is well known for changing the pattern of paper quite often in order to discourage study by rote." Pattern of paper?
      • "The age limit for appearing in IIT-JEE" That is, maximum age for entrance?
      • Might just be me, but "have been offering reservation for Backward Classes" doesn't sound right. Should "reservation" in that paragraph be "reserved spots"?
      • Relatively constant sentence structure throughout, especially section "The IIT family". Combine some of those short sentences. One example of many: "The campus is located in a wooded land of about 2.5 km² (620 acres). It has 15 academic departments and nearly 100 laboratories. The campus has 13 hostels."
      • "Most of the IITs have been consistently ranked over other engineering colleges in India in almost every engineering education survey." Most, consistently, almost every... numerous and conflicting qualifiers.
      • "All the IITs provide residential facilities to their students, research scholars and faculty inside their campus." Are the facilities inside or the people?
      • Spelling inconsistency: both organized (6 times) and organised (1 time) are used, and I recall seeing another instance of british spelling somewhere. Needs a thorough copyedit.
      • Many other things I've fixed related to word choice and style that should be applied more generally—unnecessary prepositions ("opened up" to "opened", "finalized upon" to "selected"), use of "etc." (entirely useless; something is either worth mentioning or it isn't), and numerous other things that can be seen in my recent edits and should be eliminated throughout the article. I've also added a few {{fact}} tags.
    • Hope this helps. Please look for these problems throughout the article and don't just fix these examples. If I only wanted the examples fixed, I would have done it myself. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What exaclty in say "Post-graduate and doctoral education" section requires an inline citation? Everything in it is pretty standard for a research university system. Is their really a point to cluttering an article with citations? Obviously, the information probably came from the material in "further reading" section. Lets not go overboard with inline citations. They should be used only for information that requires them - not every standard sentence. I dont need a citation to know that a university which offers PHD has teaching assistantship positions for its doctorate students. That is just stupid. --Blacksun 19:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand what you are saying but I have to still disagree. External links to the schools websites are provided in the external link section. What is the point of linking it in that section? I mean the information in it is REALLY standard. It is pretty much the norm across the world for a research university. If someone wants to verify they can just visit the website from external link section. Since, all the schools in the IIT system have different websites it would be fairly irrelevant information to link in the section itself. Again, that is just my opinion. However, yes a citation should be provided for the statement that says Govt. employs geologists in the system on contractual basis. Everything else is too standard to merit a citation. --Blacksun 20:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's typical for websites used as references to appear in the references section, and for websites that supply supplementary information to appear in the external links section. I see what you're saying, but if something was used as a reference, it should be noted as such. Besides, some of that information there isn't really "obvious": "The reason for starting this program was" (says who?) "The benefit of saving a year coupled with scholarships made this an attractive choice." (according to who? Not everyone does it I assume) (overly picky, sorry) "the doctorate program of IITs is considered average" (according to which surveys?). --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Whew...looks like a lot of debate enraged this page when I was busy fixing the article. To Spangineer: I have addressed all raised doubts (by editing at suitable places), but I don't think that I am able enough to ponder over the language issues (use of "organized" vs "organised") as all I could ponder over has been fixed in the last one month or so. In summary, I have changed "pattern of paper" to "pattern of question paper". The age limit sentence appears perfectly fine. It may be due to difference in way people speak english. This sentence structure is very common in India. The reservation is a complicated issue. I suggest you go through the articles detailing them before suggesting changes. Often people mistake "reserved seat" for "quota". "reserved spots" has a totally different meaning which is wrong in this context. I have merged sentences wherever possible. Regarding residential facilities, is there really two ways of understanding the sentence? Anyways, I have copyedited to make it clearer. "Etc" has been eradicated. I will address concerns when raised. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
In short, this is what I did. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks better. You apparently want to use American spelling, which is fine (it's the only right way =), but then should terms like football be changed to soccer? Just wondering. I don't understand "pattern of paper" or "pattern of question paper". What is question paper? Are they modifying the test questions or is there some sort of pattern on the paper like stripes or spots or something? Thanks for combining sentences; it's common in the US too but good writing employs a variety of sentence complexities to keep the reader engaged. Re residential facilities, I take it to mean that the university has residential facilities on campus for everyone, but I'm surprised that professors live on campus. Never heard of such a thing, nor is their there further mention of the type of housing they have. As a result, I begin to wonder if it's just a subpar usage of the preposition "inside" and that the university supplies housing for everyone, some of which is on-campus and some of which is off-campus (which fits in better with what I'm familiar with). It's probably true that much of what I am brining up is regional differences in English, but terms which are only understood by one group of English speakers should be avoided, because we have a global audience. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Question paper = exam - the questions you get during the exam. It is a common way to refer to exams in many countries in English. But ya, it should probably be changed to exam. --Blacksun 22:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Spangineer. Sorry, didn't notice you left more comments. Now, coming back to the comments. Nobody in India calls football as soccer (at least most people), while almost everywhere I see people use "organize" instead of "organise". Given a choice, I will change "organize" instead of "football". If you think this is essential, I can do it rightaway. Looks like there need to be some changes incorporated for global audiences. "Pattern of question paper" means the pattern that fits a given examination. For example, everyone is aware that GRE has a fixed pattern of question. Although the questions are different, they fall into some category (like verbal, quantitative, etc) and whenever you see the question paper, although you have never seen that question before, there is no element of surprize. However in IIT-JEE, they will always try to catch you off-guard so that candidates don't cram up questions of a type and succeed. Suddenly in one year they will have negative marking for questions. In other year, they will invent a new definition of distance and ask students to use that to do all the calculations. One time they will stress on proofs of theorems, and on the other they will ask many numericals. The questions will be from syllabus, but not the usual type that you solve in classrooms. In simple words, you can't guess which way the question paper will go. To me the meaning is very clear that there is no fixed pattern. Based on my description above, if you can suggest some other way of putting it for global audience, I will be glad to change it. Yes, the Professors too live inside the campus. I thought it to be no-brainer so didn't mention it. Although its not mandatory for them, most of them do stay inside the campus. I can tell about IIT Kharagpur (things will be similar in other IITs, I believe). The professors live in bunglows (independent houses) given by IITs. The bachelor professors live in flats (again owned by IIT). All the students have to compulsarily live in student hostels and only in rare cases are they allowed to live outside the campus. Please note that for students who's actual home is in IIT premises (like being children of professors/officers/workers), they can live in their own home. Anyway, thanks for letting us know that these things that we take for granted might not be so common elsewhere. Is there anything in the above paragraph that needs mention in the main article? Let me know. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Good work Spangineer! Ambuj, perhaps you can mark up additional references using {{inotes}}? I agree though, it still needs a copyedit, preferably by a non-Indian editor. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Spangineer and Nichalp. I have added 16 inotes to the article wherever I felt the need. Hope this is sufficient. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Have followed the article from first FAC to PR to this, though haven't contributed to the article much. Nice work. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. As per Spangineer. Plus, some assertions are unreferenced like the most widely sought degree of IITs has been the B.Tech. degree. Is the Dilbert strip cartoon really necessary? The alumni list is haphazard, not chronological. The IIT stub at the bottom includes duplicate links to other sections of the article. It would be better if it restricts to the 7 IITs only for clarity. Also, it seems too much attention is given to criticism and reservation. Both sections could be merged with the main article on Reservation Policy in IITs. Anycase, the pie-chart should certainly go as it is duplicated. I agree with Spangineer about imprudent use of American and Anglo vocabulary which may put off both sections of audience.
But I am more concerned about absolute lack of information as to how/why IITs are considered superior to other educational institutions and varsitites with reference to syllabuses, pedagogical techniques, placements, associated stats, etc. Education section has a lot of scope for expansion by trimming section on culture. Give illustrations on IIT pedagogy. Entrance Competition subsection should probably be moved to Admission section. Anwar 22:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Surprise surprise. 1) Yes, Dilbert cartoon is a great addition for this article. It allows people not familiar with IIT to relate to its status. 2) Why does pie chart need to go? It looks fine to me. *then again why am I asking you to explain your reasoning as you have a tendency to never follow up*. 3) Isn't the article mostly restricted to the 7 IITs already? 4) Considering that one of the biggest current issue is regarding reservation in IIT, I think the amount spent on it is appropriate. 5) I find the criticism section nicely organized and presented. 6) Their is plenty of information in the article regarding why IITs are considered top notch amongst Indian universities - enterance exam, facilities, etc. What you have attempted to object in the second paragraph is very generalized criticism hiding behind big words. --Blacksun 22:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Anwar. As you might have seen, the Dilbert's cartoon has been removed. The alumni list is not part of the article so problems from it is not admissible here unless it contradicts something stated in the article. Still, I will try to fix it as soon as possible. The "See also" below is a template used over many pages relating to IITs. They have been discussed summarily in the article with relevant link provided. However, the template below clubs them and presents an overall related topics. This is very common and University of Michigan as well as Michigan State University (both FA in education category) use it. Attention is given to Criticism and Reservation as they are important. Don't worry; I have given them only as much attention as is desired in summary style. Most parts of "Reservation" exists as a separate article (Reservation policy in IITs). The pie chart is used to visually depict the contrast and help the reader understand its magnitude quickly. If you think its taking too much space, I can try to reduce its size as long as its clarity is maintained. The article has been copyedited a lot after your comments. Please have a look again and see if vocabulary problem still exists. Now coming to your second paragraph. The IITs aren't very notable in terms of syllabus. I remember sometime back a college tried to replicate IITs success by following its syllabus. It didn't reach anywhere 'coz it failed to realize that the success of IITs are largely due to students from IIT-JEE and infrastructure (both of which have been adequately discussed). Again for pedagogy, IITs are not considered superior. Even if they are, it hasn't been established yet and hence can't be included as of now. The education section is already over-flowing. If you can point specific details missing, I will add them. However, I am not going to do mindless addition of information as it will be a turn off for the reader. Entrance competition is discussed under "Criticisms" which I believe is the correct place to discuss it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I have adjusted the parts of the article I was concerned about and now have no significant problems with the article. The Dilbert image was inappropriate for this article because it contradicted the guidelines of Wikipedia:Fair use. Cedars 04:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply. Thanks for fixing up the article. Is there anything that you request that will get this article your support vote. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
      • From my talk page - If the Dilbert image is added to "Criticism" section where media is criticied (and the strip being taken as example), will it qualify as fair use? Also, for it, I will need to add the sentence about hindsight bias that you deleted as "confusing". I feel its important to highlight the bias people have about IITians. There might be a need to copyedit it to make it clearer, but it is essential. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
        • The short answer is, no it will not qualify as fair use, by the policy Wikipedia has chosen to adopt. Note counterexample four on the Wikipedia:Fair use page that states, "A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war." The Dilbert comic is not iconic and it is not being used in a Dilbert-related article therefore it does not qualify for fair use. As for the hindsight bias comment, I am happy for it to be added back provided it is expressed in a clearer fashion. Cedars 12:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. I have standardised the use of English in the article. Now the language is consistantly British English as per the guidelines. I feel that other criticism have also been addressed, as noted in the replies above. The issue of insufficient citations is also resolved with extensive use of {{inote}}. Since use of "pattern" led to confusion, I rewrote the sentence without using it. The issue of residential facilities is also clarified. The doubtful use of fair use image has been resolved. The template also no longer contains internal article section links. Sections have been given weightage as per their importance. The article does not contain original research (reg. superiority in syllabus/pedagogy). This looks exhaustive. If you still find something missing, please check out the article in edit mode, as there are inotes at a lot of places. Now, I am also giving Nominator Support to this article. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I've gone through and copyedited to remove the last of the non native english usage and some of the unecessary folksy wording, and now I feel I can support this excellent article. - Taxman Talk 14:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent article. Fulfils all the criterion for being an FA. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 15:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great job Ambuj. And after the hard work by User:Spangineer, it's becoming even more awesome! deeptrivia (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I just found more problems that slipped through Taxman's fine-toothed comb, and I'm sure there are more to be found by a real copyeditor like Tony, but I'm pretty pleased. Great article. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support after Taxman's copyedit. --Nichalp (logged out) 13:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Image:Main Building IIT Roorkee.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons because it has a spurious license claim. Image:Nehru laying foundation stone of IITKGP.jpg needs a proper fair use rationale. Image:Iitmconvo.jpg has no source. Image:IIT Bombay Classroom.JPG violates our fair use policy. Template:Indian Institute Of Technology is using an unfree image outside of article space. Jkelly 19:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Saravask 06:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Parthi 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Georg Forster

Very well written, comprehensive, well-sourced article about the "inventor" of travel guides and fairly controversial historic figure (see talk:Georg Forster). That said, and although it went through peer review, it would be great for a biography specialist(s) to volunteer provide suggestions and help eliminate what short-comings there still may be. --Mmounties (Talk) 06:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - good work.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:LEAD is too short, it should summarize the entire article. There are also too few in-line citations, and having a list of sources that the dewiki authors used isn't much use here. Dewiki and enwiki have very different standards when it comes to citing sources. Angr (t • c) 07:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I will re-verify the article using the English-language sources available (mostly Sain's biography, the only English-language biography that I am aware of) over the weekend. Perhaps we can then get rid of some of the lengthy German source list, and keep only what is necessary for the article. Would a lead section approximately twice as long as now be okay? Kusma (討論) 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, quality is obviously more important than quantity, but I think to do the article justice the lead would have to be between twice and thrice as long as it is now. Angr (t • c) 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I have worked a bit in this direction, but probably need to expand the lead more. Kusma (討論) 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Lead looks quite well now, IMHO. --Mmounties (Talk) 19:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
            • The article is much better now. It just occurred to me right now that it still needs {{Persondata}}. Angr (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; Angr is right; this needs more inline citations and a longer lead. External links would be great too. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Please take another look when you get the chance. I believe all of your concerns have now been addressed. --Mmounties (Talk) 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object, per Angr and Spangineer. Also, I found the prose to be a bit choppy, with perhaps too many one and two sentence paragraphs. Overall though, the article is very informative and well-written. RyanGerbil10 16:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have removed the German references and re-sourced most of the article. I'll work on the remaining {{fact}}s later today. If I find sources for these facts, will the number of inline citations be sufficient? Kusma (討論) 21:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
      • This is much better. Support. RyanGer