November 2007
- 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.
Powderfinger
I'm nominating this article for featured article because... because I feel after a lot of work from WikiProject Powderfinger and its individual members, it meets the featured article criteria. The article only just reached GA in August this year, but I believe that the article has improved substantially since then. I am happy (and I'm sure other members of the project are, too) to respond to any comments or suggestions you may have about the article. Thanks, Spebi 09:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- As a contributor, I believe it meets the criteria now too. Support. --lincalinca 09:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support with some comments/queries/suggestions:
- "and rankings on Australian music charts" — maybe clarify that Aust. music charts are top 100 (are they top 100?), to give perspective on how much of an achievement this is.
- Now reads and rankings in top 100 on Australian music charts.
Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now reads and rankings in top 100 on Australian music charts.
- "the tracks "These Days" and "My Kind of Scene" were written by the band for the films Two Hands and Mission: Impossible II" — is that respectively (ie. TD -> TH and MKOS -> MI2) or did they write both songs to be featured in both movies?
- Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Powderfinger was formed in 1989 as a high school band by members vocalist and guitarist Ian Haug, bassist John Collins and drummer Steven Bishop, who took their name from the name of a Neil Young song" — was it the same high school they all attended (as implied by the sentence)? If so, which one?
- I removed the high school bit, even though they did form as a high school, I can't find much web content that actually states which school, so I removed that part. Now reads Powderfinger was formed in 1989 by, so pretty much Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the high school bit, even though they did form as a high school, I can't find much web content that actually states which school, so I removed that part. Now reads Powderfinger was formed in 1989 by, so pretty much
- "Powderfinger's final lineup change came" — I read this (especially the word 'final') as if it was there final lineup change ever, which might be applicable if the band wasn't still active. However, given they are still active and touring, would it be better to add a qualifer to the effect of "to date"? You kind of do this in the next sentence, but it confused me while reading it through the natural flow, so those two sentences may need a tweak for clarity.
- Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- "of other artists' songs, gradually developing their own material" — reads as if there's a word missing before 'gradually', given the two parts separated by the comma are a contrast.
- I can't really see what's the problem with that one, so I've left it as it is. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- "The EP quickly became successful and the group was signed to Polydor Records, a major record label in the UK" — reference (or is it the one from the next sentence?).
- Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- "It charted poorly and failed to launch the band" — that really needs a reference, as it's a judgement statement.
- I merged it a bit. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Four singles were released from the album; "Pick You Up", "D.A.F.", "Living Type" and "Take Me In", which was released as a video-single featuring several other music videos by the group" — all four were released as a video single, or just "Take Me In"? If it's "Take Me In", please add 'the latter' or words to that effect before 'were released'.
- Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- "A FasterLouder reviewer commented that" — what's FasterLouder?
- Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- "selling over 280,000 copies[22] and spent almost two years in the albums chart" — confusion of tenses there: either 'selling' and 'spending' or 'sold' and 'spent'.
- Fixed, now reads Internationalist sold over 280,000 copies, and spent 100 weeks in the ARIA Albums Chart, although this might clash with the previous sentence a bit, it'll do for now. Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed, now reads Internationalist sold over 280,000 copies, and spent 100 weeks in the ARIA Albums Chart, although this might clash with the previous sentence a bit, it'll do for now.
- "and reached European audiences for the first time" — what's Europe? *ducks* In all seriousness, just link Europe as it's the first time it's been used in the article.
- Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- ""Passenger", a song from the album, was also nominated for three awards in 2000" — specify ARIA, as there are a lot of awards out there.
- Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Odyssey Number Five was Powderfinger's most successful album to date" — does 'has been Powderfinger's most successful to date' work better?
- Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- "and rankings on Australian music charts" — maybe clarify that Aust. music charts are top 100 (are they top 100?), to give perspective on how much of an achievement this is.
- That's a fair chunk of the article reviewed. I'll hopefully get the rest done over the weekend. On the whole it's a very good piece of work, and the article is very comprehensive and thorough nonetheless, however some minor tweaks may just clean it up slightly. Cheers, Daniel 06:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, I think it's really what the article needed :) Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment MOS breach - album names shouldn't be in bold. Also, the "main article" things at each section is unnecessary. It would be useful to enclose the period of reference in parentheses in each sub-section heading like "Formation and early releases (1989-93)". Tommy Stardust (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- In regards to the album bolding, I'd like to divert your attention to Nine Inch Nails, which currently uses bold on album titles an their only EP release. I decided to bold the album titles on this article, and only the album titles (because Powderfinger have released 4 EPs, 2 in one timeframe, which in turn would make Early releases look way too bold-y). I think the {{main}}s should stay, but perhaps not contain every release in that era, so I've limited it to only album releases (and for the record, Done). As for the dates in the headers, Done, as well. Spebi 07:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- On further thought, I have removed the {{main}} templates out from under each header, and removed the bolding; I based these two features on the Nine Inch Nails article, which uses its release of the era as the section header, hence having a need for the template. The main template links the article, so linking directly under the template would make the links redundant, and so bolding was put in place. This article doesn't use the same type of headers, and so it shouldn't use bolding or {{main}} (as none of the articles are really main articles, as such). Spebi 07:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are plenty of prose issues here. For eg: "Bernard Zuel, of The Sydney Morning Herald reviewed" and "The band received much praise and criticism, for the political views in several songs" incorrectly use a comma, the "We would never try and preach" quote is wholly unnecessary as the exact same thing as been explained in th prev line... And what exactly is a "similar" rock group? A thorough copy-edit is required. Tommy Stardust (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- On further thought, I have removed the {{main}} templates out from under each header, and removed the bolding; I based these two features on the Nine Inch Nails article, which uses its release of the era as the section header, hence having a need for the template. The main template links the article, so linking directly under the template would make the links redundant, and so bolding was put in place. This article doesn't use the same type of headers, and so it shouldn't use bolding or {{main}} (as none of the articles are really main articles, as such). Spebi 07:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Initial comment Unless the website that reprints the article has permission to reprint it, you shouldn't link to it. For example, I saw a Rolling Stone article that is reprinted on a fansite. In such instances, remove the direct link and just credit the article as you would if you were referencing it straight out of the magazine. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Spebi 08:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jose João (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not comprehensive. No reception section. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can't imagine a section titled "Reception" in the article. If the article was about a single, or an album, then I see the reasoning, but for the main band article, it doesn't seem like something to me that the article should/would/could have. The article has a philanthropy section, covering the band's philanthropic acts, and a musical style section, displaying comments from reviewers of their works relating to the band's style of music. Spebi 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is a reception section, it just has a different title. Suggest disregarding this comment, Raul. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 05:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can't imagine a section titled "Reception" in the article. If the article was about a single, or an album, then I see the reasoning, but for the main band article, it doesn't seem like something to me that the article should/would/could have. The article has a philanthropy section, covering the band's philanthropic acts, and a musical style section, displaying comments from reviewers of their works relating to the band's style of music. Spebi 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support as contributor. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 05:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support as contributor. Slabba (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comments ....these days... , no seriously I have a few comments: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- turned out nothing like I had planned....control well it's slipping right through my hands... oh wait, you have comments...my bad :P Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
-
Across their 15-year career, Powderfinger has been active in practicing philanthropic acts. - ewww, sounds clunky and unnatural. How about "Across their 15-year career, Powderfinger has been actively involved in philanthropic causes" or just "philanthropy" or something similar.- Appears to be Done Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Appears to be
-
- Need to explain why Parables is considered worst album and expand upon why Fanning described them as "dark days"
- I don't think there is much on that - they really don't like talking about it. Occasionally Bernie says in an interview that he hates the album etc. etc., but that's about all that's noteworthy.
- OK then - even that would be really helpful - e.g. "Fanning and other band members have declined to speculate" or "reasons no known" or something rather than just how it is. Sorry to be pedantic but this article is verry close but I feel really needs some enrichment somehow if possible.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there is much on that - they really don't like talking about it. Occasionally Bernie says in an interview that he hates the album etc. etc., but that's about all that's noteworthy.
- Need to explain why Parables is considered worst album and expand upon why Fanning described them as "dark days"
::Upon its release on July 4, 2003, Vulture Street, named after the street in Brisbane, headed off in a more aggressive direction, though remaining ballad oriented and melodic in style. - odd flow. I dont' think the album did this after release did it? It was written like that. Needs to be expanded and assessment of album in different sentence.
-
-
- Appears to be Done Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Appears to be
-
Some of the info seems a bit spartan - can there be any more fleshing out of musical style? And look at ways of reducing a few commas but getting there...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 27 November 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.
A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant
Self Nominating A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant. This article was first featured on Did you know? on February 27, 2007. It was then listed as a Good Article in June, and recently had a Peer Review. I believe I have addressed all of the points to the best of my ability from the Peer Review, where I received some great feedback and helpful suggestions. The article currently cites (35) different sources, and covers the Musical's intitial inspiration, production and development, a plot overview, lists the first few performances and interesting incidents that occurred during them, and goes over responses received in the press regarding both the play and the cast recording. I now submit this article to you as a Featured Article Candidate. Cirt 08:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Support, as nom. Cirt 08:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Comment The reception section is excellent. Should the lede maybe add a qualifier, such as satirical musical or some such?-BillDeanCarter 10:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. What do you mean exactly by qualifier, or how so? Feel free to do it yourself if you wish. By the way, thank you for your recent Wikignome edits, I really appreciate them. Cirt 10:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Nevermind, I added the qualifier, per your suggestion. "Satirical" works very nicely. Thank you. Cirt 10:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Yeah, that probably works. Some kind of qualifier so that people figure out that its object of satire is Scientology, and not official Scientology doctrine.-BillDeanCarter 10:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you agree that that does it, then great. Thanks again for your help. Cirt 10:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Yeah, that probably works. Some kind of qualifier so that people figure out that its object of satire is Scientology, and not official Scientology doctrine.-BillDeanCarter 10:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Any particular reason the tracklisting for the cast recording is hidden in a show/hide box? Also, "See also" shouldn't list links already in the article. There are at least two in there. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The track listing is formatted that way because of a suggestion from the Peer Review, actually. Which entries are you referring to in the See also section? I will go ahead and remove them. Cirt 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Done - You were correct, I went ahead and removed three duplicate entries from the See also section that I had not noticed on a quick initial look through. Thank you. Cirt 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Done - I removed the show/hide box in the Cast recording section, so that the tracklisting is no longer hidden. Cirt 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
- The track listing is formatted that way because of a suggestion from the Peer Review, actually. Which entries are you referring to in the See also section? I will go ahead and remove them. Cirt 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Question I noticed that in the section regarding the recording, the AllMusic Guide review mentions the song title as "The Way It Began" (which is the way it is in the source), and the listing mentions the title as "The Way That I Began". Is this a discrepancy? Did AMG get the title wrong? Are there recordings with this title? Was the song rewritten? My assumption is that AMG got the title wrong, and, if this is true, it should probably be noted with a [sic], or something along those lines. — MusicMaker5376 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Fixed it, thank you. Correct title is "The Way That It Began", AMG said incorrectly: The Way It Began", without the "that". Cirt 21:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC).
Any chance of getting some free images? Raul654 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, a good question. I am going to work on that myself, I cannot guarantee it within the next couple days or so, but hopefully/most likely within the next few weeks, yes. Cirt 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Update: - I will have one or more free-use images for this article, in the near future. Thanks for the suggestion. Cirt 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Per Raul654 (talk · contribs)'s suggestion, I replaced two fair-use images in the article with two free-use images from Wikimedia Commons. DiffCirt 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
- Also, removed a third fair use image, so now there is one fair use image (the CD cover), and two free-use images from Wikimedia Commons. Cirt 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
- Update: - I will have one or more free-use images for this article, in the near future. Thanks for the suggestion. Cirt 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comments:
- The plot synopsis contains a lot of information that does not belong in the plot synopsis, but rather belongs elsewhere in the description of the play. The plot should be described act by act, to give a chronological summary of what happens during the musical.
- The "Production" section is mostly History or Background and should be titled as such.
- The list of historical productions needs headings so that it is easy to separate one major production from another. There is little or no musical and textual analysis.
- Each reference should be examined to see if you have really mined the information in it. Some good quotes from the best sources would be helpful.
- Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. This is a good article, but I think you have more work to do here before this is a FA-quality article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for these suggestions! I will address them and note each point as I try to best address your comments. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Addressed one point from above, changed a section heading from Production to Background. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Moved some info out of plot section, into background section. Thank you, this was a good idea. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Added headings of year-ranges into productions section. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - I checked - there is only one act in the play, so the plot section cannot go act-by-act, it can only describe the one act. And the plot section is organized in a chronological fashion. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Ssilvers (talk · contribs) left some good suggestions about the plot summary section on the article's talk page. I incorporated some of those points to expand that section, and add a little more information from some of the songs in the play as well. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Expanded the plot summary section more. Added some more information on the music/songs used. Looked through the sources used in the plot section, and added some more quotes from the best sources. (All as per suggestions from above.) Cirt (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Moved some info to create a Musical analysis section, as suggested by Ssilvers (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Expanded the Background, Plot summary, and new Musical analysis sections a bit more, with more info from existing sources. Removed some passive voice syntax from the Plot summary section. Removed some wording from the lede, to prune it down a small bit. (As per FAC reviewer suggestions.) Cirt (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
- Thanks for these suggestions! I will address them and note each point as I try to best address your comments. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
- Comment: - I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge Ssilvers (talk · contribs) and the other FAC reviewers on this page, and thank you for providing your feedback. I don't think I got a chance to do this at the last article I successfully got through FAC - I was probably too busy (or perhaps too frustrated) while implementing changes and suggestions from everyone who commented on the FAC page. No matter what becomes of this particular FAC - the article itself looks much, much better because of all of your suggestions. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
- Support - You have worked hard to implement changes suggested here, at the article's talk page and on your talk page, and I agree that the article is much improved. I can support the advancement of this article now. I think a bit more could be done to clarify the prose, especially regarding how the songs in the show relate to the songs on the cast album, and whether the songs in the 2003 version are different from those in the 2006 version. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Of course, as I find more information in other sources, I will continue to add to the article. I will certainly keep in mind the suggestions you have already made, and this new point about potential differences between the songs in the various productions is another good one. Thanks again for all of your help. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 28 November 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.
Brownhills
My normal area of operations is football articles, but my wife made me promise to work on the article on her hometown in exchange for spending so long on the computer! :-) So I've been hard at work on this for a while now, have put the article through peer review and successfully put it up for GA, but I now feel it's at FA level - what do you think.....?
Thanks, ChrisTheDude 12:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment After a quick glance, it looks good but maybe the Famous people section should be renamed Notable people, as "famous" is a bit too subjective. Full dates in the footnotes also need linking. Could the history section be expanded? Epbr123 13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Famous" people are now "notable" and (I think) all the dates in the footnotes have been linked. As for the history section, I will have another look through my books tonight and see if there's anything else that can be added/expanded -- ChrisTheDude 13:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've significantly expanded the history section, what do you think now (BTW all your copyediting is much appreciated!!!) ChrisTheDude 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Epbr123 12:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Famous" people are now "notable" and (I think) all the dates in the footnotes have been linked. As for the history section, I will have another look through my books tonight and see if there's anything else that can be added/expanded -- ChrisTheDude 13:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - As the article’s GA and peer reviewer, I have no qualms in this being featured, and I’m sure Chris will do an excellent job in dealing with any issues that others may bring up. Cheers, — H2O — 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: a couple of things - first, there's a typo in a date in one of the refs, which results in a redlink. Second, you might want to consider going for a right-left-right-left format with the images, rather than leaving them all on the right. You managed to get that many references on a town? Wow! I'm impressed. Carre 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Many thanks for your comments, I've made the changes you mention..... ChrisTheDude 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Quick response, and now I'm slightly embarrassed since some of the new image locations look odd to me at my computer resolution (1024 x 768, Firefox browser), and it was my suggestion that caused you to move them in the first place! The miners postcard, in conjunction with the {{cquote}}, and the Brownhills Common/Brownhills bridge ones are the ones in question now, but in other resolutions may well be perfectly fine. I think I should leave this to your better judgement, and get me coat :) Carre 15:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is it any better now.....? ChrisTheDude 15:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yup – thumbs up from me on the images now. I haven't actually read the article properly yet, so can't give it a support or oppose, but you've addressed my comments perfectly. Carre 16:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is it any better now.....? ChrisTheDude 15:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Quick response, and now I'm slightly embarrassed since some of the new image locations look odd to me at my computer resolution (1024 x 768, Firefox browser), and it was my suggestion that caused you to move them in the first place! The miners postcard, in conjunction with the {{cquote}}, and the Brownhills Common/Brownhills bridge ones are the ones in question now, but in other resolutions may well be perfectly fine. I think I should leave this to your better judgement, and get me coat :) Carre 15:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your comments, I've made the changes you mention..... ChrisTheDude 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I like this article very much, and it's one of the best FA noms for a UK settlement in a while! It's consise, direct and proffessional. I think it's close to the FA standard. However, I have a few suggestions, hailing mostly from the WP:UKCITIES standard, namely:
- The infobox should have the distance and direction to London (add |london_distance= ) - see Shaw and Crompton or Chew Stoke as examples. Done
- Geography and climate should be renamed Geography, as climate studies are a part of geography, and this approach is taken elsewhere in the UK. Done
- Demographics should be renamed to Demography - the rationale is that it's poor grammar - the other sections would otherwise also be named geographics and economics. Done
- The thumbnails shouldn't generally have their sizes set to a particular size. They should really have that tier of formatting removed. Done
- I would personally prefer (but wouldn't necessarily oppose) the article if it took a more uniformed layout to match that of Dundee, Manchester, Shaw and Crompton, as recommended by WP:UKCITIES. It's nice to follow a House style to keep these settlements consistent. Done
- In Governance be careful not to confuse councils with divisions of land - "The Brownhills District established in 1877 remained in existence until 1894 when it was superseded by Brownhills Urban District Council" - I know what you mean, but the district is a territory, whilst the council is a group of people; they cannot merge! "Council" should be dropped. Done
- Is it possible that the co-ordinates of Brownhills could be added to the Geography section? (see Manchester as an example of this). Done Also is there nothing about Brownhills land use, urban structure and built environment that could be added? Done - I think.....
I hope these suggestions help, -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Many thanks for your comments, I have actioned some and will look at the others when I have a bit more time available over the weekend...... ChrisTheDude 11:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I added the name of the canal to the caption of the bridge photo since it isn't mentiuoned in this section. It also explains what the bridge is going over (ie a canal) without having to search the text. I think the Economy section should restate the date of the demise in the coal industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Andrews (talk • contribs) 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Done ChrisTheDude 13:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, nothing more, nothing less! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Very well sourced. You might want to expand the Lead/Intro a teensy bit more, and use an Article History template on the talk page instead of the GA and Peer Review boxes separately. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
-
- Done I've slightly expanded the lead as requested ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent, well-written article. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 23:11, 27 November 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.
East End of London
(Self nomination, with other collaborators) I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it now meets the featured article criteria. The article has been through two GA's and a peer review. Issues that were raised have been addressed. I would also welcome further input on the development of the article. Kbthompson 10:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Nearly thereOppose for now- looks very good and prose, layout and comrehensiveness all look good. A little comma-happy in the prose in places. I'll try and catch a few but it'll be a fall over the line soon. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- (can't find the damn commas now...but anyway..) OK, Community tensions have often been raised by racist events. - eww. People are racist, not events. Would look better if it were described as race-driven event (?) or if you can think of some other adjective highlighting it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
-
90&95% of it looks great, but two sections (and lack of a third) let it down.The disasters section should be turned into prose and paragraphs - I'd have two, a pre-war summary of bits and pieces and one on the blitz, which is a pretty iconic event.
-
- The last bit really needs some work - the literature subsection needs some refs and could do with a little embellishment,
the TV and really obvious TV show needs a few lines on its importance in UK television - only one of the biggest soaps over the past 20 years and is named for the place and tries to be as 'east-endy' as possible(doesn't have to be too long, a note about Walford and real analogue would help too (though not a deal-breaker))
- The last bit really needs some work - the literature subsection needs some refs and could do with a little embellishment,
::There is nothing on cockney apart from a seealso (?!) - this really needs a paragraph pr two under east end culture or somesuch. In the seealso section Jack London and Orwell need to be incorporated into literature.
Overall, though it is a terrific read and you should get over the line this go round, but just need to plug a bit
-
-
- Comment Thanks for that. Very helpful.
-
-
- I rephrased and re-ordered the population section to get around the awkward expression.
- I'll fix the disasters section today. I think by four paragraphs, general, first war and second, post-war. I want to try avoid to further sub-headings.
- Not concentrating on Cockney was really something that arose from the discussions when we started expanding this article, about a year ago (my god). The definition we agreed was geographic, rather than linguistic. Cockney being something that started in the City and concentrated in the East End as a linguistic remnant. I realise that you're right and it is a related, if not conterminous term.
- East Enders - anyone watch it? I'll do what I can.
-
-
- No, again, thank you very constructive. Kbthompson 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
-
Comment moving right along, and not indenting:
- There is now an extensive section on the second world war, with emphasis on the blitz. Some detail was previously buried in ... built environment and ... disasters, they've now been incorporated into a new section. There's other material, I have in mind for that section, but it's almost looking like a separate article! (Basically looting - most ARP wardens and about a third of the London Fire brigade were charged with looting at some time during the war, strikes - the worst record for days lost to strikes in Britain (apart from the General Strike), occurred during WWII. In fact, possibly the General strike should get a mention somewhere, but this is not limited to the East End (where do you stop?).
- The plan for Cockney is to mention them in the intro, and briefly state the relationship of the tongue to the area. Then expand as the lead into culture, as the stereotype - partly built on war-time propaganda - has a major impact on 20th century images of the area.
- I have been asked to provide more detail in the intro to the history section; I'll put in a para' or two about ecclesiastic lands, crown seizures and labour conditions.
- Lastly, I'll tidy up the rest of the culture section.
That should keep me busy. Kbthompson 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Done Thank you for your support. I think the current version meets all the requests for more explication and covers the deficiencies you had identified in your review. I hope any further changes on my part will only be tweaking. Any other comments? Kbthompson (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I've done some tidying, and I think most of the comments above have been dealt with. Question for the experienced FA reviewers: Does the article need to include (birth-death) dates next to blue-linked people, as it does now? Good work! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment with such a broad time-scale dates have been included against people in order to give some appreciation of the era being talked about. Where possible events have been dealt with chronologically, but sometimes it also makes sense to mention what (and who) happened next. I shall, of course, accede to wiser heads. (... and thank you for your efforts). Kbthompson (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Nicely written, well referenced. Would prefer the image sizes removed per the WP:MOS though. Frankly this is of a standard that WP should aim for across the board. Regan123 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Good article. The Further Reading section needs some tidying (i.e. missing comma after surname on a few entries). Question for experienced FA reviewers: would a different citation style, such as APA, Chicago, Harvard, MLA, or Turabian, where the surname precedes the first name, be preferable? Rosiestephenson (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - thank you. I've added those commas. I think you would be right about citation style for an academic work, however such a style would make linking to authors wiki articles quite onerous. I think the templates {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} provide some element of further standardisation but again would increase the article size (the additional size doesn't count for the purposes of assessment, but there is a practical limit). WP:CITE gives specific guidance on citing sources and in my understanding provides considerable latitude in the way they are presented, as long as the information is there. If I work on another, I'll certainly consider using that style and tools. Kbthompson (talk) 12:52, 28 November 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 20:06, 28 November 2007.
M62 motorway
I'm nominating this article because it's gone through two PRs, and I can think of nothing much to improve this article, except maybe the prose, and short of anything big happening in the next few months/years, there's very little verifiable information I think I can add. Will (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - the article lacks any mention of rugby league even though the sport has a long association with the road. Even though I offered to reference any statements, they were still deemed unsuitable. I can't see how this article can be considered for FAC status with a huge area completely uncovered.-- GordyB (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, I will not "give it up". The article is not yours to decide what content should go in.GordyB (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The second I read the first word, I see problems.
- The lead is way too short. It needs to adequately summarize what the article is going to mention, like the route description and history.
- The infobox is way too long. I recommend using {{Infobox road}} and cut back on some of the information there, since they are only supposed to be sources of quick information.
- Please see WP:ELG for how to format exit lists. You may adopt it so that it fits the UK's format.
- Please give readers a real prose description of the route.
- Done, or at least tried. Will (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Should be a lot longer and in its own section. It should not be with the exit list. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:19, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- Why should it be longer? There's not much you can write about 30 miles of flat semi-urban land, 40 miles of moor, and 30 more miles of flat semi-urban land. Will (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because the current description lacks any interesting meat besides location. Give the reader a bird eye's view of the road. It's boring right now; spice it up a bit.
- Why should it be longer? There's not much you can write about 30 miles of flat semi-urban land, 40 miles of moor, and 30 more miles of flat semi-urban land. Will (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Should be a lot longer and in its own section. It should not be with the exit list. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:19, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- The entire References in music section is unsourced. At least put refs for the lyrics so that it can show how it relates.
More as I find them. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:12, 16 November 2007 (GMT)
- Most of these are based upon what works for US Roads, which doesn't necessarily work for UK roads. But still... Will (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of WP:ELG, it's purely a WP:USRD style guide. It was moved after an editor asked (IIRC) its creator to move it into Wikipedia-space, and I don't think the agreement of two editors is enough to move the scope of a guideline from national to international. The article (and A500 road, for that matter), would not've passed GA as it would've failed the MoS criteria. Will (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not anymore. While it may look like a purely USRD style guide, it is actually for all limited-access road articles. The only thing is localisation to the road it is covering. You may want to initiate a discussion about international applicability on the talk page. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:19, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- More problems at the moment:
- I've noticed that a lot of the article relies on a source called the CBRD. It's unfortunately not reliable, since it is a personal website. Find newspapers, maps, and atlases instead.
- Why is the section "Development after opening" where it is? Seems a little disorganised from the rest of the chronological history. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:05, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- CBRD is reliable. Interesting reading on why it is. Will (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah—Chris's British Road Database??? You have got to be kidding me; it's no more than a personal website. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- "To cap it off, the Highways Agency and Department for Transport have been known to refer some queries here when they couldn't provide the answers themselves." (emphasis mine). You're seriously not suggesting that the British goverment has standards for reliablity lower than Wikipedia, are you? Will (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah—Chris's British Road Database??? You have got to be kidding me; it's no more than a personal website. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- Done - development and incidents switched Will (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- CBRD is reliable. Interesting reading on why it is. Will (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose- seeing the rugby thing above was what made me click the article. That link appears out of nowhere, and a line about why it's there should be included in the article; I suggest renaming "references in music" to "references in culture" and make note of the rugby connection there. --Golbez (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)- More stuff:
- Doesn't the UK use the metric system? If it is so, shouldn't all primary units in the article be in km instead?
- A citation for the exit list is needed.
Doing...; thinking of a way to cite it. Will (
