Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2007

Contents


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

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind

Thanks to a helpful review from what was formerly the Computer and Video Games Wikiproject and useful comments from visitors to the talk page, I am ready to submit The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind for featured article candidacy. I have hoped to be as comprehensive and bring in as many relevant sources as possible, following the recommendations of that first CVG peer review. I have also aimed to keep the style of the article up to code, although this is an area in which I am of unsure footing, and of limited expertise. I had hoped that the standard peer review would have helped me on this point, but no kindly copy-editor thought to drop by. That said, I will be glad to receive your stylistic and compositional criticisms, as well as any other criticisms you would seek to submit in regards to this article. Many thanks for your time! Geuiwogbil 23:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - One of the best computer games articles I have seen for a long time to appear on FAC, and one of the few that I'm going to support. Incredibly comprehensive and uses a wide range of sources. I have a few suggestions to make though:
    • It could do with some more "non free" media. I know some guys don't like it, but frankly those guys just bore me. It could do well by having a screenshot of first person combat in game, as well as the inventory screen showing all the attributes etc.
    • The soundtrack was rubbish in that there were only like 5 tracks and the Cliff Racers always set one of them off. But the theme is pretty iconic and is used again in later games. A 30 second snippet of the theme would be useful to have in the article.
    • A bit too much seems to be made of Lynda Carter's contribution to the voice cast. I don't really think it matters when Bethesda announced they had hired her.
    • You cite a few reviews from publications such as Computer Gaming World and GamePro, fairly major publications which could also do with the score in the reviews box.
Thank you very much for the support Hahnchen! I hope I was able to address your suggestions. I've added two screenshots: one of the first person combat, and another of the windowed interface. (I actually have a fuller description of the game's interface in the Morrowind subsection of the "Gameplay" subpage") I added an audio sample of the title theme. (It's my first, so I wasn't really sure where to cut it. It's quite a heady experience, creating audio samples! ;) ) The Lynda Carter miscellany has been trimmed, and GamePro's score has been added to the review box. I'm afraid I wasn't able to find CGW's score, since the only version of the article I read was the one uploaded to "Find Articles", and that version doesn't have a score. Sorry. :(
Thanks for taking the time to comment, and another thanks for supporting! Geuiwogbil 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You found the CGW score on the Game Rankings page! Sorry for missing that. Geuiwogbil 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - this article's material is done as well as possible. Few things it could use would be related to slight gradual expansion, however it already has all that's necessary. The article is also written with a serious approach, extensively discussing not just the game from a player's viewpoint, but giving a good overview of the game's reception, influence and position in gamedev field. It has a concise and summarizing plot section, while giving much attention to actual information not found in the game, and sections on gameplay detail put them into perspective of the overall game development and progress. This is the kind of article one would expect to find in a printed general encyclopedia, reviewing the game in full context, making it interesting by itself, as a report on a piece of game history, and not just as guide. Lots of detail go into history and achievements, providing detailed and well referenced analysis and overview. So it might serve as an example of how a serious game article should look like. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support and kind comments, CP\M. Geuiwogbil 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - A very excellent article, you've really taken it to the top in the last few weeks! I wish I had the time to make the Oblivion article look half as good. --PresN 06:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support PresN. If it hadn't been for your GA nomination of the page, I would never have taken the time to be here! You've done good work on the Oblivion article, and it's much cleaner now than it was before you started. Thanks, again, for your prior comments and current support. Geuiwogbil 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

Surface weather analysis

Since there have been positive comments on the talk page since it earned GA, and no reported problems so far, I have nominated this article for FA, which would be the first FA for one of the core meteorology project articles. It appears stable. Thegreatdr 15:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - inadequate sourcing. Addhoc 16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Where specifically do you think additional sourcing is needed? Thegreatdr 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • For example - the first three citations link to a non-functioning website and the publisher of this site isn't mentioned. Addhoc 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Replaced the dead links with a primary source. Thegreatdr 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks, Addhoc 09:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Found a random cite book ref and changed it to fit the ref format used in the remainder of the article. Thegreatdr 21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; you mention the use of SWA in aviation in the lede, but the article never goes on to discuss this subject; perhaps a short section is in order. Also, in the first section, you cite the time standardisation info as (W.S.R.), but you never state what this refers to. This cite should be converted to a ref format. Laïka 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Fixed the reference to standard time. Thanks for catching that problem with aviation being missed in the body of the article...will add that shortly. Thegreatdr 05:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
      • A section has been added for aviation. Thegreatdr 05:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support; ideally this image should be an SVG, but it's very tricky to make a copy of the image, given that the symbols used by the NOAA really are that pixellated, and the images themselves aren't really a reason to oppose an FA so long as they add to it, which this one does. Laïka 11:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Its a good article, but I have just one question before I support, why is Dry Line bolded in the article? Darthgriz98 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Other than it being also in the title of the section, there was no good reason. That part of the structure preexisted my upgrade of the article some months back. Since only fronts was bolded in such a manner, I have removed both bolded words/phrases. Thegreatdr 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I would like to see a few more citations, some of the sections have none at all like the front section. Darthgriz98 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
        • It should be more thoroughly referenced now. Let me know if you see any spots where additional references would be helpful. Thegreatdr 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support looks fine. I did not give this article as well of a look over as I should have, if you can get this copy-edited I will remove the conditional. Darthgriz98 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The article has come a long way since being placed up for FAC. DarthGriz98 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose; not at all ready for FAC. Inadquate WP:LEAD, numerous short stubby sections, headings use special character (/) (see WP:MSH), large chunks of uncited text in history, inconsistent wikilinking (first occurrences should be linked), numerous terms introduced for which red links should be created or articles should already exist, WP:MOSNUM issues on temperature ranges, multiple See also templates at head of section which should be combined. I suggest an extended stint at WP:PR to prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Fixed the problems with the wikilinks, special character, and the one spot where I saw multiple seealsos in the same section. I believe I fixed the problem with the one temperature range listed. More references have been added to the history section, as requested. I combined a couple of the stubby sections into other related sections. Worked on the lead some as well. Which links/articles that are not linked to you think should be created? Is there anything left that is problematic with the lead? I need more than inadequate to go on. Thegreatdr 16:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Why is the heading Synoptic Scale Features all in caps (see WP:MSH — and why are those terms not defined until a later section? Reference formatting is not consistent at all; I can't discern which style is used. Please see WP:CITE/ES. Some retrieval dates are wikilinked; others not. Solo years should not be wikilinked. Short, stubby sections have now been replaced by some massive paragraphs; for example, the middle of the Fronts section. Does it make sense that no terms used in "Plotted symbols on weather maps" or "Pressure centers" are wiki-linked? There are also a lot of terms in "Fronts" that aren't linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The various fronts have now been wikilinked. All dates within refs are now wikilinked. The massive paragraphs and lead section have been restructured per specific comments in the peer review page. The subheading is also fixed. Thegreatdr 14:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 1a, 1c and 2a. The lead, inadequate in scope and length, provides ample evidence that the whole text needs thorough copy-editing, preferably by someone with fresh eyes.
    • "Specific", not "specified", I think.
    • "The first weather maps in the 19th century were drawn in order to devise a theory on storm systems.[2]" A number of problems. So there were weather maps in the 18th century, but they weren't drawn for this purpose? (Needs proper use of commas to convey the intended meaning.) "In order to" is my pet hate. Why use three words when just "to" will do? Are you sure the maps were drawn for the purpose of devising a theory? Reference 2 doesn't" say that at all.
    • "such as atmospheric pressure, temperature, cloud cover, and others"—Why two subset terms: one at the start and one at the end?
    • "The data are measurements"—No, they're the result of measurements.
    • "the map's domain"—no, just "the area".

That's the first half of the para. Tony 09:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Tony. A bad reference was mistakenly left in during the reorganization of the lead yesterday. That problem was easily fixed. If you know of weather maps drawn in the 18th century (1701-1800), please let me know and provide an appropriate citation. The small word problems you noted have been fixed. Thegreatdr 14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Tony, this article could use a good copy-edit by somebody not familiar with the article. I won't withdraw my support because I think it can be done, but it still needs editing work before it can be FA. Darthgriz98 15:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • But you lodged a Support of the article above ?? 1a (compelling prose) is a requirement for FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I did not give the text as well as a look over as I had thought in addition to the comments I had about citations. Darthgriz98 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I am starting to give the text a look over tonight, but I would suggest enlisting the help of the League of Copyeditors. Darthgriz98 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Comments made at this articles recently started peer review. Leave any responses there please.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • This article has come a long way since peer review started. Check out the changes and see what you think. Thegreatdr 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment—It's not hard to find problems in the prose, still. Take this one: "Organized areas of thunderstorm activity not only reinforce pre-existing frontal zones, but they can outrun cold fronts in a pattern where the upper level jet splits into two streams, with the resultant mesoscale convective system (MCS) forming at the point of the upper level split in the wind pattern running southeast into the warm sector parallel to low-level thickness lines." Hyphen problems (three, I think); far too long; redundant words. Tony 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Parsed the run-on sentence and slightly reworded to make it sound more encyclopedaic. Thegreatdr 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support All of my suggested improvements have been made during peer review. I see no reason not to support this article as a Featured Article anymore.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

William Goebel

Self-nomination: I finally have the images to take this from good to featured status. I believe it meets all the criteria, and would appreciate your support. Acdixon 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I thought that images were not required for GA or FA. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • They aren't, but they help. Acdixon 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And shouldn't the citations list the specfic pages in the book? I don't know the exact rules for this, but it might be needed. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In order to cut down on the length of the References section, I just included the book itself in the cite. If you find a policy that says it is required, I suppose I'll have to withdraw this nom until I can check the books out from the library again. Acdixon 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I realize it's a pain to do at this point, but see FA's like Daniel Boone, the citation to the page number really helps should anyone want to fact check or get more information. It's really not a strict requirement for FA status, it's ultimately up to the participants in a given FAC to deem whether the citations are good enough. --W.marsh 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
        • It is indeed a big pain but it's most definitely preferable. Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I have provided chapter names for all book references except Klotter and Woodson. Most of those chapters are a page or less, with none of them being more than 10 pages. I will be on business for the next couple of weeks and won't be able to get back to the library to get the Klotter and Woodson books. Since this is not a strict requirement for FA, would you all consider supporting this nom in spite of the page numbering issue? Acdixon 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Well referenced, well researched, well written, a credit to wikipedia that satisfies all the criteria. --Wingsandsword 17:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Changing to Support. Lots of reasons. It's a mess.
    • Let's start with the lead. What's he notable for? Being controversial, being assassinated. Great that's in the first sentence - but that's it! Can't we have at least something more on that in the lead, rather than his voice and his sex life, or rather, lack of it, which is not mentioned anywhere else in the article body? I'd dump the entire second paragraph, and replace with a bit more on, oh, the duel, the election law, the assassination and aftermath, his actual politics ... you know, the stuff the rest of the article is about, per WP:LEAD.
      • I have attempted to improve the lead, but this is admittedly my weakest Wikipedia skill. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Par 1: Born Wilhelm how did he become William? Spoke German ... meaning only German?
      • Clarified. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Par 2: "Goebel's father moved the family to Covington, Kentucky, on his return from military service in 1863. He attended school in Covington, and became an apprentice to a jeweler in Cincinnati, Ohio." - the meaning of "He" changes in two consecutive sentences!
      • Clarified. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • How did he study law under Stevenson? In college, in law school, private tutoring, on-the-job training? Was Stevenson a teacher after being a governor? Our article on him doesn't say. Aha ... "rejoined Stevenson's practice" - when did he join it the first time?
      • Clarified as much as possible with the sources I have available. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Hmm. William Goebel: The Politics of Wrath By James C. Klotter, page 7 on Google Books implies strongly that page 6, which it doesn't present, is what you want here. Do you have the actual work, or just Google Books?
          • I had the actual book. I returned it to the library, but will try to obtain it again when I return from the business trip I am currently on. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I am presently sitting in the library with the book in my lap. I have clarified the text as much as I am able from what Klotter has written. Acdixon 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Political career - "However, while Goebel had to stick close to his allies in the Democratic party, the Union Labor party courted the vote of Republicans, and made the election close" - why was this a problem? Normally, when you run as the candidate of party A, and a third party siphons off votes from party B, that's not a bad thing for you, that's a good thing!
      • Clarified. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In fact, we sorely need the sentence "He was a Democrat" somewhere prominent in the article, besides the infobox. That's kind of important in an article on a politician.
      • Added to lead. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • James W. Bryan, John Lawrence Sanford, Wat Hardin, William Stone - so many names without wikilinks?
      • I will wikilink them if redlinks are preferable to no links. I'm sorry no one has taken the time to write articles on these men. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Presumably you're at least somewhat knowledgeable about them. Use your judgment as to which would make good articles. For those, yes, red links would be preferable to no links. If all someone is known for is as an unsuccessful political candidate, probably not. If they did something else, probably yes. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
          • The only one of the group that is listed in The Kentucky Encyclopedia (a 984 page tome of most important people, places, and concepts related to Kentucky) is Wat Hardin, and the highest office to which he was elected was Attorney General of Kentucky. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "This system, however, proved to be just as manipulable" - Why the "however"? - since it passed by sharp party lines, it seems clear it was intended to be manipulated, only by the Dems instead of by the Reps.
      • Not sure I agree with this assessment, but it doesn't damage the sentence to remove the word. Done. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "When the plan was exposed," what does "exposed" mean? Written about in a newspaper?
      • Clarified, I hope. With that many delegates talking about it, word was going to get out. It is possible that spreading the word was deliberate to entice Hardin to drop out, but none of my sources confirm or deny that speculation. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Stone had been stabbed in the back" - overly colorful language in an article involving a couple of actual shootings
      • Corrected.
    • Why did "three hand-picked Goebel Democrats, ruled 2–1 in favor of Taylor"? needs explanation
      • No kidding. I said it was a surprise decision. None of the authors I have found even offered speculation as to why. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Wow. I guess if you say so...
        • I have provided the official explanation given by the board, per Klotter. This still doesn't explain it for me, since the questionable tactics used throughout the campaign suggest that the Board was able to do whatever it pleased. Still, perhaps this will add some closure for you and any other concerned reviewers. Acdixon 21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "For several days, the state hovered on the brink of civil war." Surely not. Each side seriously considered raising troops and fighting it out on the field of battle, for the governorship of 1900 Kentucky? Where would the US Army be during all this? Just a bit of overstatement there.
      • This is the language invoked by James Klotter and Lowell Harrison, two extremely prominent Kentucky historians. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "In a final act of defiance, the governor's body was carried" - whose final act? Goebel directed this? If so, say so. In what way was it defiant anyway?
      • Goebel spent his career fighting against the Louisville and Nashville railroad, which is mentioned in the political career section. Goebel's body was carried on the rival railroad's line. Klotter does not mention who orchestrated this. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "The idea of Beckham as governor" - who? What? This is first mention of Beckham in the text! If he became governor, surely he deserves a Wikipedia article and wikilink.
      • Clarified. An oversight. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Augustus E. Willson is wikilinked twice in the same section, and the first time he is mentioned it is not clear if he was governor of KY or IN.
      • Not sure why the governor of Indiana would have the ability to pardon someone from charges made in Kentucky, but clarified, nonetheless. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Youtsey turned state's evidence - so what did he say? What was his evidence?
      • None of the sources I have access to says what his evidence was, only that he turned state's evidence. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
        • There seems to be a lot on Rootsweb.com: [1] [2] [3] probably more ... goes into "fits" Youtsey was subject to, and his recanting, which should probably be mentioned given the importance of his testimony. See this: [4] "It was Youtsey's confession about the alleged conspiracy to kill Goebel that led to the conviction of the others."
          • Thanks for these links; I'll try to read up on them and clarify in the next few days. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • General question - why was the KY governorship of 1900 so important that it led to so much gunplay, anyway? Remaining civil war issues? Surely not just a bit of corruption over a railroad?
      • This is the same place where the Hatfield-McCoy feud had just ended. That was over a land boundary. Remember, dueling was so prominent that it is still in the state's constitution that participants in a duel are barred from public office. People have been killed for less. Acdixon 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Many things improved. A few more issues
    • PBS in http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/1900/maps/maps_mwusa.html says "With the state assembly charged with deciding the winner, Taylor barricaded himself in the State House, protected by an armed militia. Attempting to confront the militia, Goebel was shot." That's a fairly important difference from an assassination plot. Can you clarify or work both views in somehow?
      • It is true that Taylor barricaded himself in the State House, but Goebel was only "confronting" them in the sense that he was attempting to enter the next-door Old State Capitol (also barred by militiamen) to carry out the business of the General Assembly. There was no physical contact, as Goebel was shot several feet from the entrance of either building. (I have a picture of myself standing on the spot where he fell if you would like to see it for reference.) All accounts I have read have the shot coming from the state house, but which floor of the building remains in dispute. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Goebel was never known as a particularly genial person in public, nor as a gifted public speaker" - Can you rephrase that to be a positive statement? That Google Book says things like "cold, secluded, taciturn, deep harsh words"...
      • I can try. I suppose I was trying to avoid sounding too POV. Klotter remarks "critics would portray him as a cold, power-hungry man... Allies, however, presented Goebel as ... a caring man who dared attack the old guard and the old ways." Harrison says "Goebel was denounced by some as a ruthless, heartless demagogue and hailed by others as a compassionate, dedicated reformer." In the interest of not taking sides, I crafted the somewhat ambiguous statement above. Acdixon 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Issues addressed ... not completely, but let's say as well as possible. Supporting. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose—Poorly written. Here are examples just from the lead that indicate that a complete and thorough copy-edit is required. Please don't just fix these examples; fresh eyes are required.
      • What would you suggest, then? I've already sent it to peer review once. In a month, all I got was one automated bot review. Now I bring it here and you basically tell me it's beyond my ability to fix ("fresh eyes are required.") As seen above and below, I've actively attempted to correct any and all concerns brought to my attention, and will continue to do so. What more can I do? Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Research the edit-history pages of FAs on related topics. From the edit summaries and comparisons, identify the good copy-editors. Familiarise yourself with their work, and when you ask them for a favour, show them that you've done so (it’s a form of flattery). This is a valuable investment in a collaborative framework that will serve you well in your future development of FA nominations. Tony 01:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I have recruited several editors I respect at WikiProject Louisville to look this over. They collectively brought Louisville, Kentucky to FA status almost two years ago, and many continue to participate in FARs and FA development. I may also post an all-call on relevant WikiProject talk pages. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "to die in office from assassination"—When does assassination not result in death?
        • As I understand it, assassination is when the attempt is made, regardless of whether or not it results in death. This phraseology sounded weird to me too; I took it from one of my sources. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
WP adds value if possible to the sources it draw on; your critical eye might have seen this error. Dictionary says: verb (often be assassinated) murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons.
No problem here with changing to a simplified wording. Done. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "His tendency to utilize the state's political machinery earned him, at various times, the nicknames"—"Utilize" is an ugly equivalent of "use", but neither is suitable here. They beg the question of how he used the machinery. Remove "at various times" as redundant.
      • The deal-brokering and deal-breaking described in the article is how he used the machinery. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it begs the question in the lead, which should prepare the reader for the greater detail in the body of the text. Just be more specific here: "... use the state's political machinery for his ... purposes earned him ....".
Hopefully corrected. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is "the common man's" in quotes?
      • I thought it appropriate, as it's a bit of an ill-defined term, but I have no problem removing it. Done. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Goebel's abrasive personality made him many political enemies, but his championing of "the common man's" causes, like railroad regulation, won him just as many friends. This schism came to a head ..." "Just as many friends"? What, exactly the same number as his enemies? Who's counting? This is what I call a false equivalent. What schism?
      • I consider the reference to "just as many" a figure of speech. I have reworded to hopefully correct this issue. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "having elected the party's first governor four years previous." Ungrammatical ... ly.
      • Easy enough to fix. Done. Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The lead finishes with a major statement that is unreferenced: "The resulting political maneuvering brought tempers to a boil, and resulted in Goebel's assassination." Yet trivial information such as his nicknames is referenced in the lead. Tony 11:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It seems to me that the article itself supports this assertion.
That's circular. Since it's the lead, the requirement for referencing is looser; but "brought tempers to a boil" is highly subjective and attitudinal, so I suggest that you remove that bit and deal with it in the body of the article, where it can be comfortably referenced.
If that phrase is the issue, it is removed easily enough. Done. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Acdixon 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My interpolations are above. Now what about the rest of the text? Please locate some good copy-editors who've worked on similar FAs. Tony 01:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I've done some recruiting, and hopefully, they will be able to help me clean up the prose. In my (meager) defense, much of the lead was re-composed at the prompting of AnonEMouse above, so it is the most recent part of the article (read: has had the least time to be reviewed.) I hope the rest of the article is better, but you seem to indicate that it isn't. I will continue to try and fix issues as you or other editors bring them to light, which I hope you will continue to do. (Specific instances are easier to fix.) I still hold out hope that this can become an FA, and that right soon. Acdixon 13:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: The article has been improved from one that was in poor condition to one that is well referenced throughout, well supported with verified sources, and is also well written. You can't expect much more from that. If this does not pass, let me say that you did a fine job Acdixon on improvements! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I was asked to look over this article and provide suggestions for improvement. Here are my comments. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Assessment: All in all, the article is great. Well referenced, and the prose is excellent. In particular, the sections 2 and 2.1 were good enough that I had to check your sources for plagiarism. It's already probably FA-worthy, and if my suggestions below are dealt with, it will be unambiguously an article that "exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation"
    • References suggestions: Always check Google Books for your sources. One of your primary sources, "William Goebel: The Politics of Wrath", is (partially) available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=cw-1wFeQoIgC. Also, page numbers would help. The best way to do this is to have separate References and Notes sections, with the Reference section listing the books in alphabetical order by author (including publisher data, etc.), and the footnoted Notes section citing the references above in an abbreviated fashion with page numbers. Example: "Klotter, William Goebel, pp. 301-305." Also, the full name of "The First New Dealer" is apparently "The first new dealer, William Goebel: His origin, ambitions, achievements, his assassination, loss to the state and nation; the story of a great crime", according to Amazon.
    • Organizational suggestions: The article is lacking a section on Goebel's personal characteristics. The lead section mentions his personality, as does the last paragraph of "Early Life", but it would be better as its own section. (After all, the fact that he never married isn't really a part of his early life.) Also, the Goebel Election Law section seems to need a concluding sentence, in my opinion. Also, in the "Assassination and aftermath" section, you state he was hit in the chest, and the reader wonders "Is he dead? What happened to him?", but the text veers off into discussing political disagreements before confirming he was not killed (immediately). It would be better to say something right after saying he was shot, like "Goebel survived, but was seriously injured, and pandemonium broke out", or something.
    • Suggestions for clarity: In the "Gubernatorial election of 1900" section, was the maneuvering illegal? I can't tell. Was it widely considered unethical? Also, I assume Hardin dropped out because he realized he couldn't win against Goebel's and Stone's agreement, and I assume that he reentered when he believed he had a chance again, but both should be stated explicitly. Later in that section, you say the Board of Election "ruled 2-1 in favor of Taylor", but you never say what the case was or what they were ruling on. (Presumably they were asked to review individual county results?) What does "go behind" mean in "go behind the official county results"? Reword this. Finally, it says "the Republican minority was incensed", and I assume this means the minority in the Generally Assembly, but this should also be explicit. In the "Assassination and aftermath" section, the last sentence should be reworded. (Split it up, and make it clear that "the company" refers to the railroad.) And the article's very last sentence should say "conclusively identified" instead.
    • Rewording suggestions: In the lead, "common man's causes" would be better as "populist causes" so as to be NPOV. The last sentence in the lead suggests that the assassination was a natural result; it should instead say "Goebel was assassinated amid his controversial political maneuvering" or something. I don't think "Perhaps because of his stern demeanor" makes sense in explaining his lack of romance; plenty of stern people marry. Anyway, it's speculative. In the Goebel Election Law section, replace "much opposition in the politics of Kentucky" with "much Republican opposition in Kentucky"; it's clearer, and lets the reader know what kind of opposition it got right up front. Immediately afterwards, "after the passing" should be "after the passage". In the "Resolution of the election" section, the phrase "cooler heads prevailed" sounds too casual to me - reword. In the first sentence of Trials and Investigations, the "but" is a bad idea -- he didn't flee despite suspicion, he fled because of it. I would say, as a separate sentence, "Seeing an indictment looming, he fled to Indianapolis to avoid having to testify."
      • Thanks for taking the time to leave some great feedback. I've addressed the "easy ones" tonight, but I'm headed to bed following a long day with the wife at Holiday World. I'll try to get to the rest of them in the morning. Of course, if any of my corrections don't adequately address your concerns, please let me know. Thanks again. Acdixon 02:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I think I have now addressed all of the concerns above, with the exception of page numbers which a) will take a while and b) are not strict requirements for FA. Please review my changes (summarized below) and comment if the new prose can be improved. Acdixon 14:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • (link to Google Books) Done. Thanks for the tip regarding Google Books. I didn't know this was common practice.
        • (long title of Woodson's book) Done. I used the short title for convenience, but I suppose the long version is more appropriate.
        • (personal characteristics) Done. I've added a section to address this aspect of Goebel's life. I hope this is what you were looking for.
        • (hit in the chest) Clarified.
        • (political maneuvering) I can't find anything that says it was illegal, but Klotter seems to believe it didn't win him any friends, especially in his own party. I've made this more explicit in the prose.
        • (Board of Elections) Clarified.
        • (the company) Reworded.
        • (Goebel Election Law) Actually, the law was unpopular with voters from both parties, but was driven by the Democratic political machine in the state. I've tried to clarify this.
        • Where simple wording changes were suggested, I generally took them verbatim.
  • Support. All my suggestions (except page numbers, sadly) have been dealt with. The new "Personal characteristics" section is absolutely great, by the way. Congrats on your accomplishment. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

Alfred Russel Wallace

previous FAC

This article was nominated about a month ago by another editor. The nomination was premature, but as a result of the process a lot of valuable input was gathered that significantly improved the article. Since then I and a couple of other editors have made many more improvements, and a noted Wallece expert was kind enough to make some edits and leave some comments on the talk page. I was able to solicit reviews and comments from some other editors, and I believe the article is now ready for FAC.Rusty Cashman 02:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Tomer T 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please combine identical footnotes. For example, I see three footnotes in a row that read "Slotten pp. 422-436". Why do I see "pp. 4" instead of "p. 4"? Lose the confusing second external jump in web references. Pagrashtak 14:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I did a sample edit to show the work needed per Pagrashtak. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) PS: there are numerous WP:MOS issues. Have a look, for starters, at WP:MOSNUM and WP:DASH. Why are some solo years wikilinked? See WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSNUM. Has this article had a peer review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
      • References are alphabetical by last name of author, but Further reading uses a completely different style. Further reading should follow the same format as References. SandyGeorgia[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This has been taken care of now. Rusty Cashman 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Per numerous referencing styles, (see WP:CITE and WP:CITET) pp. is completely acceptable, if not preferred, over a single p. --Phoenix (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I hope I'm not being dense, but I don't see a single example on either of those pages where pp. is used when referencing a single page. Pagrashtak 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I think all the issues raised by the preceding comments have now been adequately addressed. I kept the 2nd links in the web cites but I made sure there was non link text in between to make it less confusing. Incidentally, I think this is a weakness in the web cite template and I have left a comment to that affect on the template talk page. While the article was not peer reviewed, in preparation for this nomination I did ask several editors to review the article as well as solicit input from an outside expert. Some of the feedback that resulted can be seen in the talk page. I am not quite certain I understood everything SandyGeorgia was commenting on so I am not completely sure all those comments have been addressed. I am not sure this is relevent or not but there is one quote with a wiki-link in it. I think that in this particular case that is appropriate per the exceptions mentioned in the policy Rusty Cashman 21:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
If one of the comments to which you replied was mine, I'd just like to point out that I'm in favour of said stylistic issue, that being the citation template. Sandy will probably see your message and may better explain his comments. I'd like to also have a closer look, and will do so in the next 24 hours. --Phoenix (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Rusty, having multiple external jumps in a web reference is confusing to the reader. I don't want to have to decide which one I think will lead me to the reference. Publisher and other similar information should link to the Wikipedia article or be left as plain text. For example, link to Western Kentucky University, not WKU's home page. Pagrashtak 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I am going to concede on this point. I have already fixed the p. vs pp. issue for cites of a single page, and I will fix the extra external link problem within the next 24 hours. Hopefully, that will resolve all the issues over ctitation format.Rusty Cashman 05:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok all the external links to publishers in the web cites are gone and I managed to combine a couple of them. I am really hopeful that the format issues with the citations are behind us. Rusty Cashman 05:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It should be made clear that Wallace developed his theory of natural selection during his Malay Archipelago exploration. I don't like the organization of the article, though I think it can be made to work. However, as I read through, I often come across places where I think: "wait, shouldn't there be something here about X" only to find X mentioned in another section. I'll try to pinpoint some of the other places where this is an issue.--ragesoss 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a couple of edits I just made should address the issue of clearly drawing the connection between Wallace's Malay archipelago expedition and his ideas on evolution. I don't think there is a big structural problem with the article. It just took a little text to make the connection.Rusty Cashman 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Comment from nominator A few days ago I received a marked up hardcopy of an old version of the article from a leading Wallace scholar with numerous hand written comments. I have just finished a series of edits inspired by those comments, as well as some comments that appeared on the talk page. At the same time 2 other editors (rageoss and dave souza) have been making some significant improvements to specific parts of the article. My belief/hope is that the article should now be reasonably stable once again.Rusty Cashman 08:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per a couple of thorough nitpicking reviews. 1 2 :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I still feel a little uncomfortable with the organization, but it covers all the important issues, is well-referenced, and each section reads well.--ragesoss 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Object While this article is clearly well-researched, I feel that its prose and organization is just not quite good enough for FA. Also, perhaps oddly, I feel that it is not quite comprehensive enough for FA.
  • Should not what Wallace is "best known" for be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead rather than the second?
  • The "Early life" section jumps around quite a bit - can you work on making the sentences flow into each other better?
  • This is still a problem. The paragraphs just list facts about Wallace rather than narrate his "early life." They give the feeling of "and then this happened and then this and then this and this..." Awadewit Talk 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Still a problem.
  • I would argue that the article should be structured differently as well. Why not tell the story of his life alongside the story of his developing scientific ideas? Once I read the "Exploration" section, I thought, "that's it on natural selection"? It's rather odd. I would relay parallel the information which is in "early evolutionary thinking" with what is in "exploration" in regards to his early explorations, for example.
  • Related: I feel like the headings don't take the reader along through Wallace's life. Even more importantly (and this is probably a result of the organization of the page), there is not much information on Wallace's life here. Obviously Wallace was important because of his science, but the biography part of this page seems to have been completely lost after the first section or so. Readers are interested in Wallace's life as well as his ideas. This impression may just be a result of the poor organization, though. When I finished reading the page, I felt that I had learned a lot about Wallace's ideas but not about Wallace.
  • Related: I feel that the page lacks chronology. It is hard the follow the story of Wallace's life. So, sections like "Other controversies" or "cybernetics" are just stuck in and it is difficult for the reader who is not already familiar with Wallace to figure out what is going on in Wallace's life - what is happening simultaneously?
I think I understand your points. There is a lack of biographical context after he returns from Indonesia, and I agree this needs to be addressed. I also suspect that the lack of chronological order you mention is at the root of some of rageoss's reservations over organization. After I read your comments I spent some time reviewing other articles (especially other FA articles) on leading scientists, mathematicians and philosophers. I think I see 2 ways of handling this problem. One is the way the Charles Darwin article handles things which is, to a large extent, to interleave the biographical detail with the detailed discussion of his works and ideas all organized chronologically (which is what I believe you are recommending). The 2nd approach is the one used by Galileo Galilei where there is a single biographical section that outlines, in chronological order the significant events of the subject's entire life with only relatively brief allusions to their work at appropriate points. The biographical section is then followed by other sections that treat the subject's work in detail in a more thematic manner. I suspect this second approach would probably fit Wallace better and would do less violence to the current organization of the article. Although there would still have to be significant shifting of material. Would such an approach meet your concerns? Rusty Cashman 09:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not just biographies on scientists that wrestle with this problem. I myself primarily write biogrpahies on authors and the same issue arises there. I have done both styles - interweaving life with works/ideas (Sarah Trimmer) and separating life from works/ideas (Mary Wollstonecraft). I think that the root of the problem is that the page doesn't choose one of these strategies. I would be fine with either one, so go ahead and separate the life from the work and see what happens. As you say, the subject determines the structure. Right now, it is just hard to get a handle on all of the information because of the lack of structure. Awadewit Talk 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There are too many subsections that are too small, I think, such as "Wallace effect" and "Defence of Origin of Species."
The "Defence" and "Differences" sections still seem small - why not integrate them into a section on the "Origin" and evolution? Awadewit Talk 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have combined the cybernetics section with the difference subsection and made the result a subsection of Natural selection and Darwin. I have eliminated the defence subsectionm altogehter and just moved the text into Natural selection and DarwinRusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that it works to have the cybernetics section in there like that - why not put that in the "Legacy" section? To me, it just totally interrupts the flow of the page.
I think I understand the problem here. The text did not make it clear that Bateson had noted another significant difference between Wallace and Darwin's thinking, namely that Wallace appeared to envision natural selection as a kind of negative feedback mechanism that kept populations in sync with their environment. I believe it is more clear now. Rusty Cashman 08:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The contextualization works much better. Awadewit Talk 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The "social and political views" section was sparse and largely uninformative, unless one knows those figures and one's history. I think that such information can be worked into the biography if it is important.
  • In general, I would say that the first part of the article needs a copyedit for the following reasons: use of imprecise diction such as "get" and "a lot"; typos; repetitive diction; and some overly long sentences.
  • I would still like more copyediting - there are some typos and many of the sentences snake around quite a bit. Maybe you could list it at the League of Copyeditors. Awadewit Talk 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reworked the Early life section and I think it no longer reads like each sentence was written by a different editor. Rusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Minor quibble: Aesthetically, it is awkward to have the majority of the pictures on the right-hand side of the page. Awadewit Talk 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that your objections have been addressed by a recent series of edits to the article, which have included a significant reorganization of the material along the lines discussed here. Rusty Cashman 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The "Cybernetics" section is out of place - why is it in the middle of the discussion regarding evolution? It is kind of a footnote to history. It should not interrupt the main discussion of evolution and Darwin.
I have combined the cybernetics section with the difference subsection and made the result a subsection of Natural selection and Darwin.Rusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There are also quite a few block quotes - I think some of these should be taken out. Which ones are the most essential?
I am sorry but I think the block quotes convey ideas effectively and add impact. I don't see how eliminating any of them would improve the article.Rusty Cashman 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I won't object on this basis alone.

For me, the last remaining thing is the "Early life" section - it still has absolutely no flow. It just moves from one thing to the next without any connection at all. Awadewit Talk 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just finished some edits that I hope address this issue. Rusty Cashman 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Support This is a well-researched, well-written and (seemingly - I am no Wallace expert) comprehensive article on Wallace. I appreciate the revision that the editors have done to make it easier to navigate and follow. Awadewit Talk 04:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

Dominik Hašek

After undergoing a peer review and obtaining good article status, this article has undergone several changes to enhance the prose, the references and the overall content. It is a very comprehensive article that is structured similarly to FA-status Martin Brodeur, and I feel that it is ready for an FA-review.

  • Support Per nom. Sportskido8 08:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I've been working on this article for a long time, and I believe it meets criteria at this point. --Wafulz 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • All dates should be wikilinked per WP:DATE. Also, either use Hasek, or use Hašek, but don't use both throughout the article. Pepsidrinka 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, not all dates are wikilinked. Solo years should not be wikilinked unless they provide WP:CONTEXT. *Full dates* and month-day combos are wikilinked so date prefernces will work. Month-year and solo years are not wikilinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • No, all "Full dates" are not wikilinked. Look at the entire Transactions section. None of them are wikilinked. Also, Image:0222 hockey2.jpg is a cropped image of a picture that has no source. Pepsidrinka 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree about the date wikilinking. However, a transactions section is one place in particular that I think can do without them. The Wayne Gretzky article doesn't link them either. And I fixed the name consistency issue. Sportskido8 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Question? The only time "Hasek" is used is in the references section, for the sake of being technically correct by listing the "real" title. Should this be changed for consistency? --Wafulz 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
          • No. Someone fixed the "Hasek"s throughout the article, but the reference titles should be exactly how they are in the source. My contention with the dates in the transactions section is for formatting purposes. Let the user decide how they want to format the date. Dates aren't wikilinked for any reason other than for the formatting. If formatting wasn't an issue, then there would be no practical purpose to do so. Is there a reason why, just in that section, dates shouldn't be formatted? Pepsidrinka 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I formatted all the transaction dates, as requested. Sportskido8 23:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Question? Why do we roll along just fine with formatted references, and find the last four footnotes unformatted blue links? Why do most footnotes include publisher, and then the Willoughby note suddenly has none? Please review for consistency. I also corrected an ndash as a sample of work still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Will do. Just curious, what specifically needs an ndash? Is it only game scores, or do I need to put it for something like "6-year old"? Sportskido8 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • 6-year old is hyphenated; ndash separates date ranges and number ranges (see WP:DASH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support been using this and the Brodeur articles as tools to improve the Sakic article. Both the Hasek and Brodeur articles are of similar qualities, and one of them is already FA. Kaiser matias 01:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Object Nice article with lots of references but the writing is well below the FA standards. The lead was full of peacock terms. There are still a number of one-sentence paragraphs and flow certainly could be improved. I recommend asking the League of Copyeditors to go through it since I don't think there are too many objections on other grounds. But as it stands, the article should not be promoted. Pascal.Tesson 16:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I will check for more of these writing issues but I'm not sure it's quite as bad as you're saying it is. There are a few two or three sentence paragraphs but they are infrequent and have a reason to be short. As for the flow, can you give me an example of what you would like fixed? Thanks. Sportskido8 18:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
      • No offense but although the article is pretty well written, it falls short of the standards. I suggest you take a look at the excellent User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a on how to improve the writing dramatically. Here are some specific examples:
        • Change sentences of the form "It would be several months before Hašek would find out that he was even drafted."
        • condense "who wrote a column that night that appeared in the following day's newspaper."Y Done
        • "After the Senators were eliminated in the second round, they opted not to re-sign Hašek, despite claiming he would take a pay cut." Who's claiming?Y Done
        • "His play made him one of the most popular figures in the Czech Republic, with popularity status comparable to that of the country's president Václav Havel". The sentence is awful but more importantly it is completely unsupported by the reference! (The reference is to an interview with Hasek where he tells of Havel jokingly saying that Hasek is going to steal his job). By the way, I found that the sentence "He is extraordinarily flexible — at one point in his childhood, doctors in his native country marveled at how he could contort himself to make saves." is also unsupported by the corresponding reference. (Sure, Hasek tells a story of that sort but for one thing the sentence makes it sound as though all Czech doctors were intently studying this kid with good flexibility and secondly we should not be constructing a featured article from vague tales the subject tells about himself) I suggest that all references should be double-checked very carefully.
          • Question? The exact quote is Doctors were always amazing at young Hasek because of the amazing things this double-jointed boy could do with his body. The flexibility helped him make saves the other goaltenders didn't - or couldn't. Is there any way you'd prefer the sentence be rewritten? --Wafulz 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Answer! Indeed this is the quote in the article. First, the broken grammar says a lot about the quality of the reporting. Secondly, it's clear from the context that these are either Hasek's words or a rephrasing of them and so this should be treated with suspicion. Not that Hasek has any sort of reputation for making stories up but the whole story seems pretty far-fetched. Sure, maybe he recalls that a doctor once told him "hey kid, you're incredibly flexible" but the context of the Wikipedia article makes it sound as though he was a major object of amazement for Czech doctors. Frankly, I think the whole sentence needs to go. Actually, I've been bold and made the change. The whole paragraph reads more smoothly and is less fanboyish. Pascal.Tesson 04:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • "Hašek and his wife Alena have two children: a son named Michal (born 1989) and a daughter named Dominika (born 1994)." as Tony would say, spot the redundancy.Y Done
        • Too much blue. For instance, teams need only be linked once.
          • I think I've gotten most of the links, but I'm new to the "too few/too many" links problem. --Wafulz 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I really think the league of copyeditors would find many many ways of improving the article dramatically. Pascal.Tesson 05:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I fixed the sentence in the International section with the "popularity status". I think it makes more sense now. Sportskido8 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Object Support I would like some more citations: (for starters first round game against the Ottawa Senators box score please). When did he make his NHL debut, first start? Can these be found easily for hockey? I haven't looked lately. I have faced heat on citation objections. I have just gotten Chris Young (baseball pitcher) up to my own standards though his minor league career. No one is going to contest the annual awards he has won but citing each sentence of such a claim would be nice. I will add some more particulars later this week. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps instead of a box score maybe an article that claims he thought he was injured? I know how crazy you are about box scores Tony, and let me tell ya, box scores don't say anything more than numbers. So I will try and find relevant articles. Sportskido8 23:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, now that I look at it, there are more than enough sources there with the Ottawa sentence. A box score could not possibly add any more benefit to that area. Sportskido8 08:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The part of the story I am interested in has no reference. The reference two sentences later is surely medically related. I am interested whether he was replaced before the game started, after the first period, or what have you. I need a box score to see this.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • How about a box score for the game with the most important goal in Sabres history. ("the decisive sixth game being one of the longest Stanley Cup playoff games in NHL history. Hašek and Ed Belfour made 50 and 53 saves, respectively, in a sudden-death triple-overtime duel that only ended when Brett Hull scored a controversial Cup-winning goal with his foot in the crease.") This would be an interesting one. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Added (with game recap as well). Sportskido8 06:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • This whole section is uncited: "Final years with Buffalo (1999–2001)". (admittedly only 2 short paragraphs)TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Added two credible references to this section. Sportskido8 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I must say I am really enjoying reading about my favorite hockey player of the last 15 years (I grew up in Buffalo). Each of the aforementioned citation request is associated with curiosities that your article has stimulated. Here is another one. Is it possible to determine who the "future considerations" in the 2001 trade were. For example, if it became a 2003 2nd round draft pick who was the pick used for. I am not sure how easy future consideration are to track down, but if you can find out it would be nice. It might be more comforting to me as a Hasek fan if I can say we got someone for him.
      • There is another uncited paragraph in Detroit and Ottawa (2001–present) (the 2nd one)
        • Is there anything here that could be challenged (Or that somebody would challenge)? Sportskido8 06:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Can you find a citation for the 2006 Olympics stuff.Y Done
      • In the style of play section. I would change the language to read stick hand and glove hand. That is the language I am familiar with and I grew up watching both American broadcasts and Hockey Night in Canada. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Y Done
  • Oppose Neutral The prose needs work throughout and there are some MoS errors. Here are a few (not all) examples:
    • "For his third stint in Detroit, he lost a considerable amount of weight between May and September of 2006 to increase his flexibility." should be "between May and September 2006", there also might need to be a mention that the weight loss was before the season; assume that at least some of your readers know nothing about hockey.
      • Y Done
    • "His strong play is credited for bringing European goaltenders into a league where the position was once widely dominated by North Americans." Awkward "Is credited with establishing European goaltenders in a league..." might be better see here about using into btw.
      • Y Done
    • "He is extraordinarily flexible, so much that at one point in his childhood, doctors in his native country were marvelling at how he could contort himself to make saves." I think someone meant to say "so much so that" either way, that's not the best way to word the sentence. A semicolon could just eliminate the need for extra words "He is extraordinarily flexible; at one point in his childhood,"
      • Y Done
    • "at one point in his childhood, doctors in his native country were marvelling at how he could contort himself to make saves." Clunky, "doctors marveled at how he could" is better.
      • Y Done
    • "Because of his flexibility, Hašek manages to make saves that other goalies would consider very difficult" weak prose. WOuld consider very difficult is particularly weak, find a source that says he makes saves others cannot and just strengthen the wording, perhaps using a quote to avoid someone potentially perceiving it as bias.
      • Y Done
    • "Hašek presents one of the most unorthodox styles of goaltending in hockey." He presents? Who does he present it to? Just say "has" it's tighter and more direct.
      • Y Done
    • Ref #10 needs formatting, ref #2 needs pub info. Also publishers should only be wikified the first time they appear in the reference section to avoid huge swathes of blue text. For instance, refs 14–16 all have The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel linked.
      • Question? What information would you like from the A-Z Encyclopedia? I don't think it has an official "publisher", but it has a list of credits with contacts, over 5 million hits, and a couple of awards for accuracy and comprehensiveness. --Wafulz 19:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Add WP:PDATA.
      • Y Done
    • Abbreviation formatting is incorrect the first time abbreviations appear, see WP:ABB.
    • an opposing coach once referred to them as "miracle saves." Needs a cite (which coach?).
      • Comment. It's cited, but the source only refers to him as "an opposing coach". --Wafulz 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm gonna stop now I'll come back and see if they were addressed before going on. If I have time I'll help out tomorrow or the day after. Quadzilla99 09:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I believe I addressed all of your referencing inquiries. They are very consistent now. Sportskido8 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Nice work addressing those, here are some more, they mostly relate to tightening the prose:
    • "In 2002, Hašek became the first European starting goaltender to win the Stanley Cup when he led the Red Wings to a championship, setting a record for shutouts in a playoff year in the process" You could eliminate some extra words here. Saying Stanley Cup and then saying championship again seven words later is unnecessary. How about "While with the Red Wings in 2002, Hašek became the first European starting goaltender to win the Stanley Cup. In those playoffs, he set a record for shutouts in a playoff year."Y Done
    • "Hašek is considered a very unorthodox goaltender, with a distinct play style that has labeled him as a "flopper."" Shouldn't this be playing style?
      • A huge part of his career has been being labeled a "flopper" --Wafulz 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
        • No what I'm saying is it should be "Hašek is considered a very unorthodox goaltender, with a distinct playing style that has labeled him as a "flopper.""
          • I see the whole playing thing has been removed, that's even better. I changed to neutral, as all of the points I raised have been addressed, I 'll look it over later and see how it looks. Quadzilla99 01:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "He is best known for his concentration, foot speed and flexibility. He is also known for his unusual habit of dropping his stick to grab a loose puck with his blocker hand rather than using the conventional trapper." Starting two sentences in a row with "he is known" is probably not the best way to go.Y Done
    • "Hašek has one of the most unorthodox styles of goaltending in hockey." Still needs a little tweaking, how about:"Hašek has one of the most unorthodox goaltending styles in hockey."Y Done
    • "Hašek started playing hockey at a very young age in his native Czechoslovakia. His competitive goaltending career began at the age of six, as he explains" This two sentences should be combined, they're taking a bunch of words to say he started playing when he was 6.Y Done
    • "At the age of 16, Hašek made the move to the top level of Czech hockey" how about "At the age of 16, Hašek moved to the top level of Czech hockey"? Tighter wording.Y Done
    • "He was drafted by the Chicago Blackhawks in 1983, and despite being a very talented player, he was selected in the 10th round, 199th overall." See which part of the sentence seems like an OR personal summary or weasel words. You could just say he was drafted relatively low or low in the draft. Best wording would be: "he was the xxth goalie drafted." Would also be interesting if he's one of the handful of greatest goalies ever and he was the 32nd goalie drafted in his draft or whatever.Y Done
      • He was the 17th goalie. Interestingly, Vladislav Tretiak was drafted the same year, and he was a pretty deep pick too (130 something)
    • "It would be several months before Hašek would find out that he was even drafted." extra words here too could be "Hasek did not even know he drafted until several months later." or something even tighter.Y Done
    • There's a lot of use of "would record" or "would go on", I used to do that until I got blasted for it on a FAC, just use recorded and went etc.Y Done
    • "Hašek continued his success with the Sabres in the 1996-97 season, but was overshadowed by a conflict between Hašek and then-head coach Ted Nolan, leading to a clique-like atmosphere and a lot of tension in the franchise." extra words. How about "Hašek's continued success in the 1996-97 season was overshadowed by a conflict with then-head coach Ted Nolan. The conflict led to a clique-like atmosphere and a lot of tension in the franchise."Y Done
      • That's all for now I'll check back later. In general try to see for any way you can eliminate superfluous words. Quadzilla99 18:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, the "Inline hockey game incident" should be rewritten a little. It's not mentioned where it happened and what he was playing (although it's in the linked source). Also, names of the prosecutor, his lawyer or even the guy he supposedly attacked should not be there IMO.--Svetovid 18:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the name of the supposedly attacked player should definitely stay. I am not so sure about the names of the other people, but their names were cited in the media writing about the incident, so they might stay here as well. If the names are there, it is easier to understand, who said or decided what. Jan.Kamenicek 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Tentative support. It's basically well-written, but needs a copy-edit throughout. Here are examples of why (don't fix just them).
    • In AmEng, hyphens are used less, but some US editors would still prefer them in "second-oldest active player", "eight-season span", and especially "European starting-goaltender" (I see that "15-season NHL career" is hyphenated, as is "league-best goals".) These are just from the lead. Later "top tier goaltender" and others.
      • I think it's important to not overuse hyphens. "Second oldest" doesn't seem like the kind of phrase that needs one, but I'll try and spot other places that do need them. Sportskido8 04:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Good use of piped simple year links.
    • "From that point up until 1990"—Spot the redundant word.
    • "He was named the top ice hockey player in Czechoslovakia in 1987, 1989, and 1990, along with being namedand Czechoslovak Goaltender of the Year from 1986 through 1990."
    • "and only played 25 games over two seasons"—Place "only" as late as possible in a clause. "and played only 25 games over two seasons".
    • "in a 5-3 performance over the Buffalo Sabres, and on 9 January 1992, he recorded his first shutout in a 2-0 win". En dashes for relational numbers, such as scores: "5–3", "2–0", "1–1 tie", etc. Much easier to read. Just why we have "Buffalo (1996–1998)" as a title (although I'd prefer just "1996–98"), and straight after "1996-97" is a mystery. Tony 00:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe all the EnDashes are taken care of now. I fixed a few other things from the list too, and will try and spot other problems of the same nature. Sportskido8 07:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I was asked to revisit my opinion based on recent copyediting. I feel that the article as improved but I've been copyediting the beginning of the article and I think there's still quite a bit to do. In fact, it's an ominous sign that I'm able to do so much copy-editing myself since I don't think I'm that good at fixing little details in the prose. So I still object to the promotion for now but as I said earlier, the article clearly has the potential to reach FA status after a thorough copyedit. Pascal.Tesson 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Once again, Sportskido brings us an FA quality hockey article. Good citation, nice use of photos, I don't see many problems with the prose (maybe here & there as others have stated, but I'm not overly picky). Nice job!Anthony Hit me up... 17:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support It's very good overall but there are still one or two issues. I went through and fixed the prose stuff I saw, the prose is OK now but not great. These are the last of what I can see though so fix these and I'll change to full support:
    • The opening sentence of the lead and the first sentence of the early life section need to be re-written per WP:DATE specifically here.
    • As a corollary to that, the opening sentences in the early life should probably begin something like "Dominik Hasek was the middle of three sons born to Yuri and Natasha Hasek in xxx. His father worked as an engineer, while his mother worked part-time at a local grocery store." Or whatever the information is. As it is now the article just barrels into his hockey career, he is a person too. The general reader finds this sort of information interesting. There is some info in the Off-The-Ice section but it should