Contents 1 Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works 2 Sverre of Norway 3 Felice Beato 4 Mário de Andrade 5 ATLAS experiment 6 Sicilian Baroque 7 Ormulum 8 Cool (song) 9 Voter turnout 10 Cheese 11 U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program 12 Nicolas Sarkozy 13 Isaac Newton 14 Arsenal F.C. 15 Cleveland, Ohio 16 Microsoft 17 Federalist No. 10 18 Texas Ranger Division 19 Multiple sclerosis 20 Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace 21 Metrication 22 Military history of Canada 23 Acorn Computers 24 Fauna of Australia 25 Herbig-Haro object 26 Theodore Roosevelt 27 MDAC 28 History of Limerick 29 French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools 30 W. Mark Felt (aka Watergate's Deep Throat) 31 Richard O'Connor 32 Peterborough Chronicle 33 Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) 34 Mercantilism

Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works

self nom. This article has been through peer review where the only comments related to bold and link formatting. I've tried to include enough information on the company's history to give a thorough overview. slambo 13:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object 1) Too much bold text in the lead 2) Metric equivalents absent. 3) "Southern Museum of Civil War and Locomotive History" An inline external link should not be linked that way in the text. 4)Kennesaw, GA --> Please expand GA. 4) =Notes= should be a heading, not a subheading. 5) Matthias W. Baldwin and William Norris etc. who were they? Prefix the name with their occupation. 6) ...including nearly every railroad... Needs to be rephrased. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  Thanks for the input. I've addressed the objections as follows:

  1) Unbolded all but the first mention of the company name, which is in the first sentence.

  2) Added metric conversions where appropriate using Google's unit converter.

  3) Removed inline external link.

  first 4) Expanded "GA" to "Georgia".

  second 4) Promoted "Notes" header to a level 2 header, the same level as "References".

  5) Noted the significance of Baldwin and Norris as "fellow locomotive builders" and noted the companies each founded.

  Your last objection is the only one that I'm not sure about. I'm open to suggestions for alternate wording. slambo 18:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  There's an attempt at rewording that sentence. Please review the changes. Thanks. slambo 19:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  including nearly every railroad reads more like a weasel term. I won't be free to review it till saturday.) I'll edit the text then if I'm not satisfied.) One more thing: those footnotes are pretty useless, it conveys no real information. Would you consider using inotes instead? I'll withdraw my objection for time being. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  The Moshein & Rothfus reference cited in the article includes a complete build list for all of the company's products, so exact numbers are available on what the company actually built, but I haven't seen a reference that lists every railroad that existed during that time. Yeah, it sounds a little weasely, but that's also how (IIRC) White described Rogers' industry penetration (I'll verify which reference I saw it in again tonight). On the footnotes, I used notation that I'd seen in other journals that mention the original references' authors and a page number (which is why it was originally a subheading of References). I thought that listing them immediately after the complete citations would be enough, but since it was unclear to you, it's likely unclear to others as well. I'll look through my MLA handbook for further suggestions on footnote citations; I was hoping to avoid reprinting the entire reference citation in the note. I'll also take a look at inote tonight. slambo 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  Okay, I've taken some time to review inote and my MLA guide. The way I've presented the notes in this article is MLA style (in my 1999 copy, it's on page 305) listing the last name and enough information to identify the work being cited with the specifics for the note such as the page number where the information appears; the only real difference is that my first citation to each reference is in the References section immediately above the note texts rather than in the first note text. I've reviewed inote, but I'd rather not make this information invisible. So, my conclusion on the notes is to leave them as they are. slambo 10:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rather a lot of broken links. Tony 13:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  I'm filling in data to clear out the red links as I find the information. slambo 14:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  After filling in a couple more red links, I did a quick count. There are 7 unique red links in the article text, four unique red links in the preservation table, and four in the footer navigation template. Considering the large number of blue links throughout the article (I didn't count the blue links yet), I don't think this number is excessive. If you've got information to fill in behind any of the other red links, I would welcome your input into those articles. slambo 16:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment:
• I've copyedited and simplified the lead, please see if it reads better.
• use of dashes and special symbols are not recommended in the MoS.
• Some areas need a copyedit.
  • Swinburne left Rogers, John Cooke, who later went on to form Danforth, Cooke & Company, also worked at the Rogers plan ordering of events.
  • Please use   between a unit and a number. 39 km/hr , 24 miles etc.
  • Hughes led the company until his own death in 1900. A year later, Jacob Rogers closed the Rogers Locomotive Company plant. In 1901, the year that Jacob Rogers died and the same year that the American Locomotive Company (ALCO) Check the flow & why did it close down?
• Unfortunately for Rogers, does the article empathize with Rogers?
• ALCO and Baldwin were too good at building --> too good? a more encyclopedic tone? Instead of wikifying, please specify the company.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 19:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't see the comments mentioned in all the other updates on my watch list. I'm not sure if I'd say the lead was better, but a couple of ambiguities in the wording are now resolved. On the other comments...

• I've reworded Cooke's departure from Rogers into its own sentence at the end of the paragraph: "After Swinburne left Rogers, John Cooke also worked at the Rogers plant. Like Swinburne, Cooke later went on to form his own locomotive manufacturing firm, Danforth, Cooke & Company,"
• I've added   where appropriate when stating measurements (this is a habit I'm trying to get into for my other editing).
• As to why the company was closed in 1900, my references don't give a reason. I suspect that it may have been solely to avoid absorption into ALCO, and there's a passing reference to that in my resources, but nothing definite. Moshein and Rothfus state: "In December 1900... Jacob Rogers closedthe works. After six months of rumors about new ownership, a notice appeared in the May 17, 1901, issue of Railroad Gazette announcing that the plant had been sold and would reopen as the Rogers Locomotive Works (RLW) with Reuben Wells as plant superintendent...." I don't have access right now to that issue of Railroad Gazette, but I'd be interested in seeing it.
• I've reworded the "Unfortunately..." phrase as "But Rogers was at a competitive disadvantage."
• The sentence is now a little long, but I've reworded the "too good" sentence to use "... held too much of a lead in manufacturing and selling ..."

I think that's all for now. slambo 17:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, looks good. JYolkowski // talk 01:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object Some paragraphs in "1831 to 1856: Thomas Rogers era" too short Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  Could you clarify that? Which ones specifically? Do you have any suggestions for improvement? The shortest that I see is the last paragraph which still wraps around to three lines on my 1024x768 screen; other than that, the shortest that I see is still three sentences that wrap to at least three lines. AdThanksVance. slambo 14:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support--Pamri • Talk 07:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sverre of Norway

Self-nom. Peer review can be found here. I know it's lacking in illustrations, but those are very hard to come by Fornadan (t) 22:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There's another "Trek across Voss" here: [1] but it seems to be scanned from a black-and-white printing and may not be interesting enough to add to the article. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure, basically another interpretation of the same scene. A picture of one of his coins [2] would have been ideal, but those are of course copyrighted. There is a monument of him within walking distance, but I don't have a camera. Fornadan (t) 22:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright on uncreative pictures expires within 25/50 years in Scandinavia and in the U.S. (the laws of which Wikipedia is subject to) it doesn't apply at all for pictures of two-dimensional public domain artwork. A picture of one side of a coin at least arguably falls under that case (read up on the Bridgeman ruling), we should check for precedents.

There are more picture opportunities if people are desparate for pictures. Location pictures are sometimes appropriate - there's one of Kirkjubøur at Commons. A picture of a manuscript of Sverris saga would also be a possible, though perhaps somewhat dull, decoration. But I wouldn't worry too much about lack of pictures - the maps help a lot. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support, a very thorough treatment; a few suggestions, however:

1. The inline links might look better if they were moved to footnotes.
2. The relationship among Eystein Meyla, Sverre, and Haakon as Birkebein leaders should be via {{succession box}}, but I'm uncertain what the proper title would be.

Fixed the sucession box thing. Could you point me to a how-to for the footnotes? Fornadan (t) 11:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There are several different formats described at Wikipedia:Footnotes. I personally prefer the first (using {{ref}} and {{note}}), but you can use any of them. Kirill Lokshin 13:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Notes are now in place Fornadan (t) 17:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Overall, a very good article. Kirill Lokshin 23:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent article a sucession box would be very useful. Support. Falphin 01:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment there are a lot of red links. Could you fix some of them? Renata3 12:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've not had much time for editing lately. Will try to write some basic stubsFornadan (t) 20:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Good luck with that. I think a short text on Sverris saga would be especially helpful for the readers, giving them a better idea of the historical sources for the events related in the article. I've watched you put a lot of effort into this article, Fornadan, and I hope to see more of your work in the future. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Will support article as is since I think it's very good. However I think it's a bit heavy on red links. Could you at least make the two red links on the lead stubs? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Felice Beato

self-nom When I first came across this article it was named "Felice A. Beato", but having done a lot of research on the photographer, I moved it to "Felice Beato", the name he is more accurately known by. I then added quite a lot of information that has recently come to light regarding Beato's life, clarifying a number of issues and filling in a lot of gaps. Pinkville 00:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Great work on this article, the references are especially impressive , but there are still some important problems. The lead is too short, and needs to be expanded. Somewhat ironically the article is also incongruously lacking in images. The article needs a picture of Beato, and should also include more examples of his works. In parts the writing also needs work. There are too many one and two sentence paragraphs, especially towards the end of the article. - SimonP 02:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Support SimonP 14:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• If the article is on a 19th century photographer, can't we add lots of images with no copyright worries? Everyking 09:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. Lead section is way too short. And it needs more images. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  Support. The concerns have been dealt with. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Fair enough on the lead and towards the end. As for the images, although Beato is a 19th century photographer - the copyright on his images is held by the institutions which own his photographs. Frankly, I'm not even sure the image I used (which I found on Wikipedia) is legal. Is it? I'm not clear about the use of his images. I know that the photographs in the collection of the Canadian Centre for Architecture, for example, cannot be used (unfortunately). There is only one portrait of Beato in existence - Tony Bennett reproduces it on his site - again maintaining all rights. To compensate for the lack of images in the article I provided the extensive list of linked photographs at the end - but I too would rather see them in the article. Pinkville 18:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

    While the institutions might claim copyright on the images, under U.S. law, which is what Wikipedia falls under, all of his images should be public domain. - SimonP 14:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've rewritten the lead and other sections and I've added some images (thanks SimonP!). How does it look to you all now? - Pinkville 00:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think the concerns of the above have been dealt with. I like it, Support. Broken S 22:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Mário de Andrade

Self-nom. Recently went through a very productive peer review (available here, including summary of changes)—thanks to those who commented. I've been working on a number of articles related to the São Paulo "Generation of 1922," of which Mário de Andrade is the central figure. Chick Bowen 02:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak object, and I do mean weak. The only thing I see that needs improvement is that the major works section should probably be turned into prose, rather than simply a list. Everything else looks fantastic, and I'm sure to support given that one improvement. PacknCanes | say something! 14:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd love to comply, but I'm not sure what you mean. All I intended for the "Major Works" section was a simple bibliography such as that in H.D. or Robert A. Heinlein (I bring those up only because they're FAs). I didn't call it bibliography only because it's not complete (and a complete bibliography would be difficult to assemble without a great deal of research). Can you be more specific about what a prose section on major works would include? Thanks. Chick Bowen 14:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a personal preference more than anything, but given the precedent I'm going to change my vote and support the nomination. You're right, a complete bibliography does take time (although I think it would be well worth the time here, but it certainly isn't necessary to attain featured status) and the major works list is probably sufficient. My original intent was to get some rationale as to why those works were considered "major", although the more I think about it, that would probably turn the focus off of de Andrade himself and onto the works, which isn't the point of the article. So just ignore that comment...good work, and I'm glad to support it. PacknCanes | say something! 14:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved the section in question further down and renamed it as "Partial bibliography." Chick Bowen 01:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Will support when it's fixed. It's a worthy article, but needs a copyedit. I've done the first page or so, and will return to do the rest. As well as correcting the language, I've softened some of the hype and removed the low-value chronological links, which, in any case, were inconsistently treated. (See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting for the reasons.) Tony 02:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and comments. I rewrote the two sentences in the lead that you had marked, and made them clearer, I hope ("organizer" referred mainly to the Week of Modern Art and Dept. of Culture position mentioned in par. 2, so I took it out). Let me know if there's anything else I should do. Chick Bowen 03:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Mild support. I've gone through the rest: please attend to my inline comments. In particular, you might consider providing one or two sentences about his pioneering ethnomusicological (fieldwork) techniques. Specific reference numbers are required, sometimes with and sometimes without mention of the author of the source in the body of the sentence. This is how you increase the credibility of the information. 02:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. Thanks particularly for your edits. Your inline comments are useful--I'll work on them tomorrow. Chick Bowen 03:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've taken your advice on all inline comments. I've provided references as links to my "references" section. I also expanded somewhat the field recordings paragraph. I think it's improved. Chick Bowen 01:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Support. The bibliography is well-organized and representative, even though it is not comprehensive. The snappy and crystal-clear prose, the proper ref/cite footnote formatting, the involved and analytical tone all considerably boost the article's FAC. The literary criticism component of this article is especially appropriate, especially the parsing of the Paulicéia Desvairada. On a more general (superficial) note, I like the well-balanced paragraphs and the placing of the works section between the early and late life sections (this is not always the case in other homologous articles on great poets). Great work. Just a minor note: maybe you should create a "Notes" section (like the one in the George F. Kennan article, and include small excerpts and/or quotations from the referenced materials so that readers do not need to consult those sources directly to authenticate that dovetail with your article's statements. If you don't want do this, it's no big deal at all. Saravask 01:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

ATLAS experiment

Note that this article was called A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS when the featured article candidacy began. The name was changed in response to comments. -- SCZenz 04:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Self-nom. I didn't get much feedback in the peer review, so I imagine this may need some work before being ready, especially regarding readability by non-physicists. Please make objections, but please also check back to see if I've fixed them. I've worked hard on this article, and I plan to do more if necessary. -- SCZenz 22:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Object, lack of references. KingTT 23:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I added some links to the technical proposal and technical design report. How's it look? -- SCZenz 23:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This looks like a rather well written article, but one of the conditions for FA status is stability, and this article is about a structure that will be completed in 2007, which says to be that at that time, the article will have to undergo some fairly big changes, have additions, that sort of thing. I'm not sure an article about such a thing qualifies for FA status, even though it is a good article. Is there precedent? Fieari 01:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article describes what it will be like when it's built. Thus there's no need for changes in that regard when it's completed, and there are very unlikely to be significant physics results that would be noted for perhaps a couple years after that. That seems stable enough as Wikipedia goes, doesn't it? -- SCZenz 01:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

As for precedents, you might consider articles about currently-used software, like Firefox, that are likely to undergo major upgrades over the span of a few years; also biographies on still-living people, who may accomplish more stuff in the future. -- SCZenz 01:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the stability requirement refers to changes that may take place in a few years at all. From Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article: "'stable' means that an article does not change significantly from day to day (apart from improvements in response to reviewers' comments) and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars". -- SCZenz 01:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

YES! Good job...Scott 01:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. It's very well-written, and the prose is a little tended toward the scientific side, but I think that's excusable since it's a scientific article; also, you're correct in assuming the intent of the stability criterion. That said, here's some stuff I'd probably do:
  • Merge the subsections under "components" into their parent. For example, rather than having three subsections of "Inner Detector", just make those one big section.
  • Following from the above, make sure to stay away from one- or two-sentence paragraphs. Either expand them into something more substantial, or just merge them into a neighboring paragraph.
  • A few more references wouldn't hurt—maybe a newspaper or magazine article from somewhere? (This isn't necessarily essential, but it would certainly improve the article's case)
  • I'd like to see a little more somewhere in the article discussing exactly what scientists are expecting from the accelerator. Is it something that will verify experiments, or will be used to perform first-run experiments, or...?
• Good luck! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. PacknCanes | say something! 03:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi PacknCanes, I've addressed your comments as follows:
    1. Merging of paragraphs and smaller subsections is done. It does look better that way.
    2. I put in a magazine article, but pop articles on an experiment two years away are fairly rare.
    3. I'm not sure I understand your last point. The article is about the detector, not the accelerator, and it is an experiment. It is looking mostly for new things nobody has ever seen before. Can you clarify for me what you'd like to be changed in the article?
  • Thanks so much for your comments! -- SCZenz 04:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • OK...I was misreading it. I thought that the accelerator was going to be used to verify other experiments, rather than be the experiment itself. Sorry...science turns the brain into spaghetti sometimes...hope you don't mind. :) The PhysicsWorld article does lend a lot of credence to it, if only to verify that it really does have scientific value (not that I was doubting it, but it does help). Overall, very well-written, could still use a couple more sources but you're right, finding sources on something to happen in the future can be difficult sometimes. Weak support -- thanks for addressing the earlier issues. Take care -- PacknCanes | say something! 04:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I could cite articles in physics journals that mention what problems LHC can investigate, but likely nobody here would read them. And CERN is the world's largest center for particle physics; it seems reasonable to assume that information they host on physics experiments is accurate and credible. Anyway, thanks for your support. :) -- SCZenz 04:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't think you really need another low-tech source, but it'd help, A possibility is something like a Physics Today article if there is one, which would be about at the same level as your Physics World one, or even a news brief type article from Science or Nature. I searched around a bit and couldn't find what I was looking for, but I thought you might know of one already. — Laura Scudder | Talk 15:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't know of anything and can't find anything, yet, but I'll keep looking. For credibility's sake, I've also put a link to a review article from Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics in under references. -- SCZenz 15:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Ok, I found something in the New York Times, and put it in. -- SCZenz 17:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Excellent! That makes it much easier to comprehend, plus gives it an air of legitimacy. Support unconditionally. PacknCanes | say something! 17:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Good find. I like that there's now a range of places to go to read more. — Laura Scudder | Talk 18:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is good stuff. I've copyedited it; please see a few inline queries I've inserted. I've no problem with the stability factor mentioned above. I agree with the comment above about short paras and subsections. Oh, BTW, why not go with the advice on the discussion page and change the gobbledygook title: 'ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS)' would be easier. Tony 03:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, "A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS" is the name of the experiment, and the gobbledygook is still in your version too, but it's not a big deal to me. Except that I'm rather frightened of technical difficulties in moving the article during the FAC proceedings. -- SCZenz 03:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Idea: it could be moved to "ATLAS experiment"... What do people think of that? -- SCZenz 03:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
• Ah, 'ATLAS experiment' is much nicer, and will attract more hits, I think. Tony 03:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC) PS Silly me: 'matter symmetry/asymmetry'—I guess it's obvious in retrospect! Tony 03:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • How do I go about moving the article without screwing up this FAC? -- SCZenz 04:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Just move this page to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ATLAS experiment. It should automatically redirect everything else. Just make sure to check for double redirects when you move the actual page! PacknCanes | say something! 04:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It was more complex than that, but I think it's done now... Thanks! -- SCZenz 04:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Support. I made some comments some time ago on another page. The article has improved a lot since then.Count Iblis 12:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A really well-written article. I like the title change, and it's improved a lot with the comments here. — Laura Scudder | Talk 15:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object.
  • Too-short of a lead section for the topic, in my opinion.
  • Far too many quite-short sections and subsections. One-paragraph subsections and two-paragraph sections are too short.
  • Inconsistency with units. Example: Sometimes "cm", sometimes "centimeters". I believe the common units should be spelled out in text. Overlinking too; I don't think linking "cm" or "meters" is called for. Spell out numbers under 10.
  • Numbers and units should be separated with an   — see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Measurements

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Can I have some clarification on what should be done and how i would improve the article? Specifically:
  • If you want the lead-in to be longer, what else should it cover?
  • The structure of the headings and sub-headings are very well-suited to making the topic clearer. What's the advantage in changing them because they're "too short"...?
  • Yes, the units should be consistent, and I'll unlink the SI units, but why should they be spelled out? Spelling them out in some places would be awkward--would uniformly using abbreviations be ok?
  • Spelling out numbers under ten would be a disaster for consistency, I'd end up saying, for example that the Inner Detector is "1.2 m by seven m". Can you suggest what I should do about this?
• Thanks for your comments. -- SCZenz 22:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Lead-in: I could be flexible on this one. Ideally, I'd like to learn a little more about who is building ATLAS and why.
• Subsectionitis: Clarify and organize more through prose than through a lot of outline-style headings. This is a stylistic matter, but that is the style that seems to be preferred by most here.
• Spelling out units: The same Manual of Style for measurements page says "Spell out source units in text. Use digits and unit symbols for converted values and for measurements in tables. For example, 'a 100-millimetre (4 in) pipe for 10 miles (16 km)'".
• Spelling out numbers:Take it case-by-case, sentence by sentence. The example you give shouldn't be changed, but a sentence like "The inner solenoid produces a 2 tesla magnetic field surrounding the Inner Detector" definitely should. It's a matter of readibility.
• Caveats — I'm not a hard-core language wonk and some of the specifics here might be debatable. But I did find reading many of the numbers and units in the article awkward, so at least my heart's in the right place. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object Pretty much the same as grapes

1. Lead too short
2. "Background" - structure could use some work - maybe kill the subsections and write it out, maybe an intro, not sure
3. "Physics program" - I don't like the list here - is there a pressing reason why you need it? I think it should be written out...
4. "Components" - one-sentence paragraph lead-in
5. Some parts of it are hard for a layman to read - "straw tracker" etc. sections like that are pretty short anyway so a short explanation might be in order...

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Ryan Norton seems to be taking a Wikivacation or to have left altogether, according to his user page. :-( No edits from him since 10/22. I'm pretty confident that his objects have been addressed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• That's slightly annoying, but thanks for putting the note in. Out of curiosity, since this FAC seems not to be getting any more comments, how much longer does it sit here until someone acts on it in some way? -- SCZenz 16:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• After it's been listed for about a week, Raul654 usually comes through and promotes it if appropriate. The wait is agony, isn't it? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've addressed most of RN's and grapes' comments. Here's my update:
  1. Lead expanded to three paragraphs, with history and the general idea of the detector.
  2. Unnecessary subheadings in "background" removed, I think it'll be good now, especially with greater context in lead.
  3. There is a pressing reason why the list of physics goals is needed; these are six different things being looked for, and if I wrote it out as works it would still read like a list. Note that I could expand the physics program section substantially, but I am not sure this would improve the article. (Even in a FA, I ought not to be explaining all of the current mysteries of particle physics, or all of how to do data analysis; the article is about the detector.) Any comments on this?
  4. Components now has a proper lead-in
  5. Basically all of the detector systems are now explained in more detail, which incidentally makes them long enough to qualify as proper subsections (I hope). The exception is the muon spectrometer, which is of equivalent rank to the other components in the scheme of the detector, but about which there really isn't much more to say. It's still too short, but I think under the circumstances forcing a length increase or artificially merging it with another section would hurt the article.
  6. Units are fixed up as per grapes' suggestion.
• The upshot of all this is that I've added so much the article probably needs another round of copyediting. Please let me know what comments you still have! Thanks again. -- SCZenz 09:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent work; I've struck most of my objections above and don't think this article has much farther to go now. It really feels like a meal rather than a snack now. I did quite a bit of copyediting just now — better check that I didn't make any errors. A couple issues still:

1. (Minor) "The energy-absorbing materials are lead and stainless steel, sampled by liquid argon, and a cryostat is required around the EM calorimeter to keep it sufficiently cool." What does "sampled by liquid argon" mean? I thought maybe it was a typo, but wasn't sure.
2. I'm with RN on the Physics program list. I think the section should be removed, actually, and the list of physics questions ATLAS hopes to answer should be moved into the Background section. I think it would read better as list-like prose, but it's OK by me if it remains a bullet-list. However, if it stays a bullet list, the list items need to be cleaned up to each be talking about the same class of thing... right now the list reads in a choppy manner, with each bullet starting with a different part of speech.
3. (Very minor) I was a bit confused by the use of radians to measure the precision of the calorimeters; maybe this is an area that could be clarified for non-physics-people?

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• I made more big changes, which likely means more copyediting. Here's what I changed.
  1. I reworded slightly the liquid argon bit; what sampling means is explained in the first paragraph of the calorimeter section. Is that ok, or is it still confusing?
  2. I've now substantially expanded the physics program section, after deciding that the details of what physical ideas are being looked for are pretty important to the experiment and how it's put together, and merited a better treatment. Please read it over and let me know how it looks, and also whether the illustration is helpful--it's complex, but conveys a pretty accurate sense of the things that physicists really have to look for.
  3. I wrote a better explanation of what the use of radians means, let me know if it's comprehensible now. Do you think I should put the numbers in degrees as well?
  4. I've also expanded the data systems section, and added more details about how analysis is done.
  5. The muon section I've still got no inspiration on; hopefully you'll forgive me one short subsection. ;)
• Thanks yet again for your help! -- SCZenz 05:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Enthusiastically Support this FAC now. Just a few comments now:

1. I still don't really grasp what it means for liquid argon to be the sampling material. That might be OK.
2. I think this sentence could use a little polishing: "The Higgs mechanism, which includes the Higgs boson, is invoked to give masses to elementary particles—in particular, explaining the differences between the weak force and electromagnetism." I think I know that interactions with the Higgs field are what give the elementary particles mass, but the relation between that statement and a lack of symmetry between the weak force and EM escapes me.
3. BLACK HOLES! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!! Oh, sorry. :-)
4. Radians are fine, I was just suprised to see an angle and not a distance. The new diagram is good.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• 1. Really we need an article on particle showers and an expansion of calorimeter (particle physics) that would explain what's going on there better; but I don't think I ought to take up more space for it (since it would have to be a whole paragraph).
  2. I expanded somewhat better the situation with the Higgs mechanism; is it good enough now?
  3. Yeah, I almost put in an explicit statement that they're not dangerous, but that's discussed all over the place at Hawking radiation... ;)
• Thanks so much for all your help and support! -- SCZenz 17:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• You're are very welcome; thanks for making such good improvements during this process! I suspected something like that was going on with the calorimeter; that's OK. The change you made to the part about Higgs mechanism is good enough: I still can't honestly say I understand it, but it no longer reads like a non-sequitur. Finally, life was more exciting before Hawking: worrying about a micro-black hole slowly eating the earth out from its core was a good time. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Question. I realize that the article isn't completely consistent on wikification, largely because I added a lot of new material before the previous uses of certain terms. Before I go through and make it consistent, I'd like some guidance. Should a term be wikified only the first time it appears in the article, no matter what, or if a term reappears again much later and is important should it be wikified again? -- SCZenz 17:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikifying it again, especially in a new section, is fine, escpecially if the linked material really helps in understanding the topic. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, I disagree with Bunchofgrapes's response to the query about repeat linkings. Please see See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting for WP policy. Many WP articles are overlinked. An analogy to repeat linking within an article is the spelling out of acronyms on each occurrence through an article, rather than the standard practice of spelling out on first occurrence alone. Tony 16:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links does say you shouldn't link more than once, then parenthetically although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence. There's room to disagree here, certainly, but I feel strongly that relinking a technical or obscure topic in a new section, when it was last mentioned more than a few paragraphs earlier, is good practice. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think there are a few cases in the article where it would be very helpful. I will go through carefully and remove any repeated links for which this is not true. -- SCZenz 18:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps once, but not repeatedly; that might be irritating. Tony 01:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque

Nominating Giano's masterpiece, the one article that's been calling out to be written ever since he started his series of Featured architectural pages. Long? Yes, but it would surely be destructive to amputate anything here. Note that all the individual architects (listed at the end) have been spun off into their own articles. Special thanks to the photographers Urban (on Commons) and Elgaard, and please bear in mind that Sicily with its stunning architecture welcomes rich American tourists! Bishonen | talk 18:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Wow, those pictures are beautiful. The text needs some work, however. For example "Until recently little studied, recognised or appreciated, in spite of a pioneering study by Anthony Blunt, its Baroque gives Sicily a unique architectural individuality." is awkward. "the newly fashionable neoclassicism" is clever, but the word "newly" isn't doing its job. The sentence "To fully appreciate Sicilian Baroque one has to identify one or more of the above characteristics, then appraise the composition as a whole, and then if the building postdates the late 1720s determine if the architecture has a flowing liquidity in its curves, scrolls and flourishes, which produce the indefinable "joie de vivre"." needs polishing. All this needs, I'd say, is a thorough copyedit by someone familiar with architecture but who hasn't yet read the article to put some of the "liquidity" into the prose and remove some of its "flourishes". I look forward to changing my vote. Jkelly 19:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with Jkelly's comments regarding readability, which is an issue throughout the article. Suggest moving this to Wikipedia:Peer review for a tune-up, then resubmitting for FAC.--Lordkinbote 22:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above as well. I'll Object until after it has had a good tune-up, but otherwise it is a very fine article on par with your own very fine articles, Bishonen! *Exeunt* Ganymead 04:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

**Comment. There have been some improvements, but there are what I would describe as unsourced aesthetic judgements remaining in the article. I left an example on the talk page. Jkelly 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have replied on the talk page. There are many footnotes, and many references. Giano | talk 22:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object. Very nice images, but they've got a few problems:
  1. The image Image:Il gattopardo.gif has no source or copyright information.

     Now reuploaded as Image:Visconti56.jpg Is a screen shot, permitted, 1 per article. Giano | talk 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

     Yes, copyrighted screen shots are permitted in articles. They are not required, and I see no reason to use a copyrighted, restricted-use image in what is otherwise a free content article. --Carnildo 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's gone Giano | talk 07:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• 1. The photograph Image:San giorgio ragusa ibla italy.jpg is licensed under the GFDL, but does not indicate who the creator is. It was probably created by the uploader, but this needs to be verified.

     If the uploader says its GFDL that's good enough for me, but I have asked the uploader to confirm. Giano | talk 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• The uploader "Giac" has now ammended this, and credited himself with taking the foto. Giano | talk 08:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• 1. The image Image:Palazzo Biscari..jpg is claimed as "public domain", but does not indicate a source.
     • Its an ancient dog eared print, probably 200 years old, owned by me and about 1000 others who have equally old copies. Giano | talk 21:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
       • All right, so who was the artist? When was the print created? --Carnildo 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  --Carnildo 20:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would immagine in 1715/16 - like many provicial prints. artists its unsigned Giano | talk 06:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that the description page has that information, it looks good. --Carnildo 07:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support: The article is structurally sound and the pictures are exquisite. I have done some mild copy-editing to try to allay the concerns of those like Jkelly. However, feel free to add more liquidity to it where desired. :) Brisvegas 05:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support- I love the pictures, and I think it is an extroardinary aritcle. I'm not much on the first paragraph though. I'm not fond of the long list. If its neccessary thats fine, but I like prose better. Falphin 20:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I like prose better too, but these distinctions need to be listed clearly in order to stand out from the text, and then be explained in context within that text, and related to the images. Giano | talk 22:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object - same grounds as Jkelly. Some particlar sentences demonstating the problem:

1. "Until recently little studied, recognised or appreciated, in spite of a pioneering study by Anthony Blunt, its Baroque gives Sicily a unique architectural identity."

altered Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

...Subsequently reintroduced in Giano's Oct. 26 rollback to the "true" version. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "The phenomenon that was true Sicilian Baroque lasted barely fifty years, but gave the island an architectural character that was to last into the 21st century."

altered Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

...Subsequently reintroduced in Giano's Oct. 26 rollback to the "true" version. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "The earliest examples of the Baroque style in Sicily were generally clumsy, ill-proportioned versions of what travelers to Rome, Florence, and Naples had seen."

altered

...Subsequently reintroduced in Giano's Oct. 26 rollback to the "true" version. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "If the building postdates the late 1720s, it is advisable to determine if the architecture has a flowing liquidity in its curves, scrolls and flourishes, which produce the indefinable 'joie de vivre.'"

...Subsequently reintroduced in Giano's Oct. 26 rollback to the "true" version. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

altered Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "While each facade of Quattro Canti is pleasing to the eye, as a scheme it is out of proportion to the limited size of the piazza, and like most other examples of early Sicilian Baroque can be considered provincial, naive and heavy-handed, compared to later developments."

This is true Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

OK —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "At this stage of its development, Sicilian Baroque still lacked the warmth, joy, and freedom that it was later to acquire."

altered Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

...Subsequently reintroduced in Giano's Oct. 26 rollback to the "true" version. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "This is not because of a disdain for the masses, or an indifference to their heritage, but more a bunker mentality; for years subject to punitive taxes, it is only today they and the state are waking up to the possibility that if action is not taken soon, it will be too late for this particular part of the Sicilian heritage"

Changed Giano | talk 22:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Still reads "For years subject to punitive taxes, it is only today they and the state are waking up to the possibility that if action is not taken soon, it will be too late for this particular part of the Sicilian heritage". POV both with the "punative" taxes and the implicit assumption that the architecture should be preserved.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I fixed a ton of typos, grammar, and style problems, but there are still more to be fixed. Some things to remember: try to maintain the same tense throughout a sentence and, if possible, a paragraph. Don't start paragraphs with "Thus". The previous paragraph should flow into it, rather than it flowing from the previous paragraph. Also, try to cut down on the number of lengthy sentences and uses of "thus". Some of the sentences can convey the same thing with many fewer words. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 00:14
  • Brian, I'm sure Giano appreciates the advice and the genuine fixes, but IMO most of your edits are pure matters of taste that make no difference either way. (I don't want to get into minor squabbling on this page, but a few are actively detrimental, especially some, perhaps hurried, word order changes.) Also, this is a place where people put up their babies for scrutiny; criticism is part of the purpose of FAC, but please be considerate and polite when giving it. I honour your good intention and wish to help, though. Bishonen | talk 01:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • So I don't make the mistake again, which of my changes are detrimental? I went back and checked, and most, if not all, appear to be changes to fix verb use, wordiness, split infinitives, sentence structure, passive voice, etc. You don't have to go through the whole document, but just give me a couple of changes with which you disagree. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 02:12
      • Sure. I'll do it on your Talk. Bishonen | talk 02:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Alright, those were fixed. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 03:05
  • It's really good, but will need more copyediting. Tony 02:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Truly a masterpiece of an article ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object—I've just performed major surgery on the lead. The prose is not yet good enough for a FA. I'll try to come back to it. Tony 03:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I love this article, particularly the way the images are beautifully integrated into the text. Give me time to edit it, please, and address my inline queries. (In particular, why do we suddenly learn that Sicily was ruled by the Spanish in passing, in the list of stylistic characteristics? Isn't this important enough to mention further up?) Tony 05:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment A page failing FAC is always disappointing to its principal editor, and this has failed miserably. That I can endure, it's happened before to me. I've had a lot of good luck here, and a little bit of bad. Taking out a film clip, verifying an image, a little POV etc. no problem. What I cannot endure is the dumbing down of language, and distortion of fact. So I have reverted Sicilian Baroque to the version Bishonen first nominated. It may have some minor style faults but since being here it has been pounced on by a, self appointed, hoard of style editors, (excluding Geogre) who seem to live here, each no doubt well meaning, but in their endeavours to stamp on the page their own uniform style, have altered, albeit, unwittingly the essence of the page. Facts which should be clear are no longer clear, other facts are now misleading or distorted. It is no longer, in my opinion accurate. I have spent most of today trying to clarify changed paragraphs etc. After a further two hours this evening I realise it is hopeless, even as I edit (with an inuse tag) style gurus from FAC are messaging me with their opinions, so I realise they will just return, so further edit is futile. The nominated version was the most accurate and true. If that is not what FA is about, then so be it. That is how I leave the page. I shall edit it no more.

This is obviously (IMO) the path of future FAs, so I shall be writing no more of them. I'm not flouncing off in a huff, (So please no "Oh come back dearest Giacomo on my page" - I flatter myself) I shall be around for ages but working on smaller pages which have no risk of nomination. Just one thought what happens to a page that fails FA, and has been distorted and become false by the FA style edits. Giano | talk 21:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you keep at it, it'll be featured status. It's only been in FAC for 5 days. Norman Borlaug took me over 2 weeks to get cleared through FAC. That's the point of FAC. It's not make-or-break. It's the final step to collaboratively turning an article into a featured article. Cut the drama. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-27 01:17

And how many hours of my time wasted? What a nerve. This has made me think twice about spending any time helping to improve articles like this one that were, and now are again, poorly written. Giano appears to be too lazy to integrate my numerous changes into whatever further changes he requires. It's lovely seeing all my work just dissolve into nothing. Strong object: it's nowhere near good enough for a FA. If it goes through without 'compelling, even brilliant prose', I'll be listing it at FARC as soon after as is allowed. Tony 01:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC) PS Giano, I'd appreciate an early warning if there's even a remote possibility that you're going to trash my hard work. To do otherwise is, frankly, rude. Tony 02:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My objection above, never entirely addressed, now firmly stands as well. And if it walks, quacks, and smells like leaving in a huff, it probably is leaving in a huff. Please do reconsider. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ormulum

Semi-self-nom: I wrote it and did a lot of the early research, and with the aim of getting a second medieval literature FA, but the quality of the article took off with the intervention and ministrations of Haeleth. At this point, I honestly think this is the prettiest article on an ugly book ever. Geogre 02:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. A well-referenced and informative article. The red links are a minor concern however, do you have any info on Jan van Vliet and the Ayenbite of Inwyt? The pictures also look good; well done! Brisvegas 03:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have anything on Jan van Vliet. Haeleth might, but I'll see if he rates an article in the Dictionary of National Biography in the next few days. The only information I personally had was a substub ("A Dutch antiquarian and book collector"), and that wouldn't make an article. The Agenbite/Aygenbite is one of those big pieces that needs an article, but to do it any kind of justice requires a substantial effort. It will happen, but it's kind of a big pull. Geogre 03:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Franciscus Junius is a substub just like that right now... that should probably be even more of a concern! I've stubbed van Vliet, and provided a reference that looks like it should be useful, if anyone can find a copy. — Haeleth Talk 14:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. It's a very detailed article, with all the right foci. My only issue is that you seem to use Bennett disproportionately. Perhaps you can add some more information from other sources? Superm401 | Talk 05:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  It's difficult. Specialists are interested only for particular bits of morphology or instances of Old Norse, and, with Parkes, the debate on when and where it was written sort of ended (for the time being). We're at the mercy of the few scholars who wrote large works on Middle English and those preparing early Middle English anthologies. That, at this point, leaves us with Bennett. Bennett owned the field of early Middle English philology to a surprising degree. The other sources would be various other encyclopedias, and most of those are derivative of the sources already given. The fact that Ormulum doesn't light the fires of the imagination doesn't help, either. Geogre 12:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Simply marvelous and a wonderful read! This will be very nice beside the Peterborough Chronicle. You have just become my new Wikipedia hero! Well, next to Bishonen, that is. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 06:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctantly object. I think that this is about as close as an article can get without receiving my support (which means not much work for you!!). There are a few instances of POV writing: "despite its lack of literary merit" -- according to whom? "although Orm's poetry is, at best, subliterary" -- again, who's to say? and so forth...these are easily fixed, though. Also, the lead needs to be a little more substantial. Two sentences is a bit light for an article with over 11,000 characters. I'm OK with one paragraph, but there needs to be a little more to chew on in the lead. But the prose is excellent, and I'm sure to support given these improvements. If I can help in any way, please let me know! PacknCanes | say something! 06:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  It's mentioned multiple times throughout the text; it was not intended to be great literature, but rather a biblical companion. The modern equivalent would be a study guide to course literature or something like it. Even Orm himself confessed that it wasn't high-standing prose. From the text:

  The work is unusual in that no critic has ever stepped forward to defend it on literary grounds. Indeed, Orm himself was aware of its flaws: he admits in the preface that he has frequently padded the lines to fill out the meter, "to help those who read it", and urges his brother Walter to edit the poetry to make it more meet.

  Peter ^Isotalo 10:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  I see where you're coming from; it still looks POV to me, but I did consider what was in the article and I can see where it can go either way. I'll withdraw that part of my objection altogether, and I'll go ahead and support the nomination even though I still think the lead can be expanded a little more. I don't, however, think that something that minor should be the only thing an objection stands on, so I'll support it. Thanks -- PacknCanes | say something! 12:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  It looks POV, I agree, but it's the standard description used in every textbook and course I've seen. Some more citations:

  "The modern-day critical response to the content of the Orrmulum is less than enthusiastic. It has been labelled 'soporific' and 'tedious'" - Treharne, p. 273 (although she's quoting Bennett there - that's how influential his opinions are.)

  "His lines are, however, monotonous to read, since they are absolutely regular in metre. Students of literature do not place Orm high on their list" - Dennis Freeborn, From Old English to Standard English (London 1992), p. 88

  And, as we say in the article, we have been able to find no instance in which any literary aspect of the work has been praised. It is difficult to prove a negative, but it's also decidedly unusual for an author not to have any prominent advocates. Compare the romances. — Haeleth Talk 14:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Mahvelous. Well-written, well-referenced, to the point and comprehensive enough without being overly excessive. / Peter ^Isotalo 10:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, great stuff from the Geogre workshop, that remarkable place, and congratulations to Haeleth, too. The author urged his brother to edit it to conform to a higher standard of quality? He listed it on Cleanup? Fantastic. :-) Bishonen | talk 11:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, wonderful article! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Object Support. This article has been making me uneasy for reasons I've had a hard time putting my finger on, but I think I've got two actionable things:
  • The lead leaves me very, very hungry for more, but then I have to wade through three sections before I find out what had me so intrigued: Just how does a 12th-century written manuscript provide pronounciation details? I'd suggest either adding a little more to the pretty-short-right-now lead, answering that question in brief, or moving the Orthography section up. I hope that one of these suggestions or the other is acceptable; maybe I'm just fixated on the pronounciation issue, but it seems like it is the most important thing about the manuscript, and deserves more prominince. (If neither of those works for the article, maybe consider renaming the Orthography section to something dullards like me would recognize as being about the pronounciation question?)
  • (Stupid detail, and maybe ignorance): In the Origins section, in the little tables showing source and translation, why is the source center-aligned? Is that a standard formatting decision? I find it unpleasing to the eye. This is fine, now that it's been explained to me.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Because of the unique phonetic orthography adopted by the author..." is about as clear as you can get, Grapes. I wikified both "phonetic" and "orthography" to make sure that people who aren't familiar with the linguistic jargon understand what they mean. I can't agree, though, that reading three paragraphs should be considered a chore. It's just not a big article.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Never say never; Geogre has expanded the lead beautifully to address my issue. And it's 15 paragraphs across three sections. If this is going to represent wikipedia's best work, it needs to acknowledge that a lot of people aren't going to read even that much of the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Bunchofgrapes, I think you're right that the lead is stunted, and a couple of folks have mentioned it, so I'll attempt to make the lead slightly longer and more thesis-like. Thanks for the kind comments. Geogre 11:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. Objection struck. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• • For your second point, the source text isn't centre-aligned, but rather each second line is indented slightly. The effect is clearer in the longer quotation at the end of "contents and style". This is the way the text is formatted in Bennett & Smithers; it's intended to show that the indented lines are subordinate (i.e. to avoid people asking why what's printed as short lines of alternately 8 and 7 syllables is described as long lines of 15 syllables). At any rate, it's more aesthetic than semantic, so please feel free to remove it if you're not convinced it's worthwhile. — Haeleth Talk 13:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Just EXCELLENT!. Tony 07:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support: the kind of article that makes me jealous. Now why can't I write like that? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  That is entirely Haeleth's doing. My version was choppy and repetitive. Geogre 11:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)}

Cool (song)

Self-nom. Originally abandoned to the seagulls, I decided that this single had potential for featured article. "Cool" is a song with a message of a past relationship that ended up resulting in an interesting way. Although it did not perform unbelievably well on the charts, it had fair success worldwide, and is notable for all of these reasons. It has been through peer review, which went well, and has brought us to this. The rest is up to you. --Winnermario 20:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Great song, great article. PedanticallySpeaking 20:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support, wouldn't mind seeing it expanded a bit more (if possible), though. Everyking 21:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Amazing work. I'd love to see this become a featured article. --DrippingInk 21:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, that's certainly complete! You've got my vote! 201.137.188.56 23:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
• Minor objection. Format references in APA format, with author, publisher, year, place of publication, and (where applicable) page. See Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations. --FuriousFreddy 00:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • References have been formatted the same way they are in the "Yesterday (song)" article. --Winnermario 00:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    • "Yesterday" became an FA over a year ago, during which time the rules have evolved. At the very least, you should place authors and publishing dates of sources which were not used to find statistical data. --FuriousFreddy 01:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I went ahead and did the formatting myself for the references section (sort of overwriting Extraordinary Machine's version, sorry). While looking up the info, I found this at Napster.com: Billboard chart information may not be published, broadcast, displayed or redistributed without the prior written agreement of VNU eMedia, Inc. If this is inforceable on their part, this might be a problem for our entire project. I sent Billboard an email asking if it was okay to reprint their data here, since we are no-profit and informational, and we'll go on from there. I'm withdrawing my objection, as it has been fulfilled. --FuriousFreddy 16:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        • My prior reservations over such level of detail in articles aside, I don't think using "permission only" chart trajectory information on Wikipedia would be applicable to the goal of creating a free content encyclopedia, i.e. one that can be redistributed by anybody. Also, all edits to articles are licensed under the GFDL, so I'm not sure. But anyway, this issue should probably be discussed further at User talk:Jimbo Wales, not here. I've replaced the tables with a chart I made on Microsoft Excel, and moved the tables to its image description page. Extraordinary Machine 20:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support Very very cool article :p OmegaWikipedia 03:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object - It's good, but I don't think it's quite there. The writing style is awkward in places - a mixture of short choppy sentences, along with some long, poorly structured sentences. I think that will be easy to fix. Try reading the article out loud and the problem areas should identify themselves. If it doesn't flow absolutely smoothly when you read it - rewrite the sentence, and keep rewriting it until it does flow absolutely smoothly. The musical style is barely discussed and needs to be expanded, and critical comments/review comments would help achieve this. A sample would help greatly - I'll add one if you like. If using "Fair Use" images you need to provide a rationale as per Wikipedia:Image description page and there are too many screenshots. Use only what you absolutely must use. Select the best and delete the rest. They need to add significantly to the text, and not merely be decorative. I'm not sure about quoting song lyrics. I would say it's in violation of copyright and it does not seem to be essential to the article. I would remove them. Minor points - Stefani's "ex". Used several times. "Ex" is unencyclopedic/colloquial and should be replaced. Also the bit about Itunes "for reasons unknown"... that's not exactly true. I'm sure someone knows the reasons, it's just that you and I don't. Surely the sentence could stand on its own as a fact without the "for reasons unknown" which has the odd effect of making the comment irrelevant. Finally a complete copyedit is needed as there are typos and spelling mistakes. Rossrs 11:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - This is not the same article it was two days ago! A very fruitful community effort has improved it significantly - it looks great to me. Rossrs 13:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Rossrs, I uploaded the files, so I'll speak on behalf of this. I believe these sceenshots are needed in this instance here to help corrleate with the message of the song. There are essentially two parts to "Cool" as a story. The first signifies how the couple became "uncool" when they broke up. The second signifies how years later, the couple was able to make up and still be good friends, yet move on romatically. The third screenshot signifies a theme that is expanded upon in the music video, but not related to in the song, about how even though Stefani claims she is cool, at times, she does regress and becomes "uncool". That said, I agree that there were too many images, and the image of Stefani lying in the bed will be removed as it essentially the single cover. Is that fair enough? I will also be justifying these reasons on the pages of the respective pictures. OmegaWikipedia 05:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Omega, what you've done with the images is very good. I personally don't think the article needs so many, but that's just my own viewpoint, and as far as I'm concerned you've satisfied my objection to those particular images, and I appreciate that. Winnermario should do the same with the image Image:Stefani performing Cool.jpg which is still lacking the necessary rationale etc. Thanks Omega. Rossrs 09:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That image is actually from an inaccurate source that was displaying images under false identities. Apparently Stefani is performing a song by No Doubt, despite the presence of her Harajuku Girls in the background. I was unaware of this, so the image has become useless to the article. I say it be voted for deletion, as I don't know any proper copyright laws because of the inaccuracy. --Winnermario 20:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Object It's well illustrated and energetically written. (In some places it needs more work: for example, I really don't understand the sentence "Cool" being written close to ten years after "Don't Speak" is seen as an appropriate gap between the two pennings.) However, it seems to me to suffer from the defects of many articles about pop songs: (i) Virtually all of the introductory section is about chart performance. If the song is worth a longish article, the introduction should surely indicate how this is so. The mere facts that this is single number X by a certain singer and did so-and-so in the charts seem feeble. (ii) The first section is "Song information". But wait: This is an encyclopedia article about a song; surely we expect that an encyclopedia article about a song should give us information about the song, aka "song information". Perhaps this is just a matter of titling: could this be retitled "Composition and instrumentation"? (iii) "Chart performance" is hugely bloated. The song did pretty well, presumably well enough to keep the record company, singer, fans, etc., all happy. Does anyone need to know so very, very much more? And note that we don't just learn what happened: we also read what (unnamed) critics "assumed" would happen, and how they were "proved wrong". If popularity (relative to that of other songs that the record companies cared to promote at the same time) warrants ten or more times the verbiage that's expended on the music, this does rather suggest that this is an almost purely commercial product, more akin to (say) a brand of candy-bar than to, uh, something by Verdi for example. (iv) Billboard is not part of the "World". (v) Two tables have a superfluous column: We read "2005" in every single cell. (For points (iv) and (v), see my thwarted attempt at a discussion here.) (vi) If "Chart trajectory" isn't mere fancruft, what is it? (Is this trivia really supposed to be "encyclopedic"?) -- Hoary 11:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC) PS I still think the "chart trajectory" is over the top, but won't use it as a reason to object. As has been pointed out by others, the article has changed a lot since the time it was first nominated here. At that time it was ho-hum; now it seems excellent. Well done! Hoary 02:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object for now. Some of the sentences seem awkardly worded (The lyrics of "Cool" describe a failed relationship that did not result tragically) and I, like Hoary, don't understand the one about a gap between pennings. I'd like to see the lead describe the nature of the song and its genre - for all I know from the lead this is jazz or country music. Perhaps some of the chart position information could be removed from the lead instead. I have never heard this song, never (as far as I remember) heard of this singer and the article doesn't tell me much about what kind of music this is. I don't mind the chart information or even the chart trajectory tables - I'd just like some more musical information as well. Oh, and the tables have some superfluous columns - better fix that too. All the faults I found have been remedied. I feel the article is now much more balanced and informative. There are still some seams showing where new text has been spliced onto old, especially in Composition and meaning where the text gets a bit repetitive. And there is still a redundant "year" column in the (now unified and better for it) chart table. I'd suggest getting rid of it and changing the "Position" heading to read "Position (2005)". Assuming those details get straightened out I now Support the nomination. Kudos to the people who have been working on this! - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Object:
  1. The lead needs work. Is a chart peak of #13 really the most significant thing about this song?
  2. Too much detail on chart performance, and not enough on the song itself.
  3. The "US" and "World" chart listings shouldn't be separate.
  4. References section needs proper formatting.
  5. Too many non-free images. I'd suggest reducing it to the album cover, Image:Stefani performing Cool.jpg, and one representative screen capture from the music video.
  6. No source information or fair-use rationales on any of the images. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale for what's needed.

  --Carnildo 19:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Better, but there are still problems. The biggest one I see right now is that there's no link to the description page for the sound sample. --Carnildo 19:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Extraordinary Machine 20:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Rossrs, Hoary, Haukurth, Carnildo are all objecting for inappropriate reasons. First and foremost, Hoary has been following myself and other editors around the site with the pop music articles. The problem is that he (and some others) don't like what we're doing. A chart trajectory is not fancruft because it is extremely encyclopedic. If a person wants the trajectory for a song, it's right here in the article. Also, the images are all self-created images, and are all fair use as per User:OmegaWikipedia. The previous images that were added to the section were also all fair use, as they came from Gwen Stefani fan websites. Another problem here are the charts. There is an ongoing discussion about whether the charts should be separate or unified, and it appears that Hoary is objecting because the style is not in his preference. This is unacceptable and he should not be using this reason against the article's nomination. These issues have been brought up before with Hoary and others, but they have failed to process our side and story, and retreat to their own. Also, the infobox clearly states that the song is of the pop genre. --Winnermario 20:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - Winnermario, we have given clear reasons for objecting and every single objection is actionable and therefore by Wikipedia rules must be actioned. Carnildo has also taken the time to point you to Wikipedia policy pages and I think it would be a really good idea if you read those pages. I've also pointed you to a policy page. We've told you exactly how to elevate the quality of this article. It's a shame that you're disappointed by the fact that a few people have not given you the unqualified support you were hoping for, but we've actually given you something far more important - constructive criticism. The only thing inappropriate here is your reaction. The idea of an article being made a Featured Article is that is represents the very best work that Wikipedia has to offer and the nomination process should be stringent and exacting, and it should not be automatic. Stop bleating about how mean we all are and deal with the issues we've highlighted. I'm sorry that I wasted so much of my time trying to help you improve the article. Rossrs 21:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Winnermario, you should not strike out other's comments just because you feel they are a "useless argument". Rossrs 21:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for addressing this to me, as I previously did not know this. But please do not mock me calling the situation a "useless argument", I was doing it in good faith, but with unknown knowledge. So thank you. --Winnermario 21:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Winnermario, I thought, and still think, my comments are valid. I'm not mocking you. You dismissed everything I said, without even extending me the courtesy of a reply, and you described my comments in your edit summary as a "useless argument". Believe it or not, I have tried only to improve the article by objecting to it, and I have made some edits to the article, in good faith and with the same aim, so I'm surprised by your negative reaction. Let's each assume the other to be acting in good faith from here on. Rossrs 02:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. Fishing for votes is also generally frowned upon. Extraordinary Machine 22:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Fishing for votes is actually quite irrelevant. As long as there is at least one unfixed major objection, an article will not be featured. --Carnildo 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
          • There is no rule that states you cannot ask for votes. Plus, even if I had not "fished" for that vote, the article would still be in the lead with supports. I would also like to take the time to ask the people who opposed "separate charts" not to vote in this FA, because so far that is the only matter I have come across. User:Hoary was against it, and has specified above that they should be unified (along with other reasons) for this article not to be featured. If you ask me, the mentioning of that ongoing issue is quite irrelevant. --Winnermario 23:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
            • There's asking for votes and there's asking for votes. The way Winnermario did it in that linked instance -- which might have been, and I hope was, unique -- really brings the value of votes here down to that of, say, positive feedback on Fleabay. -- Hoary 04:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        • It appears as though User:Extraordinary Machine has been following me. Although the fact that "fishing for votes" is completely irrelevant, I'd like to know how he knew about this? --Winnermario 23:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • We read: These issues have been brought up before with Hoary and others, but they have failed to process our side and story, and retreat to their own. Winnermario may care to link to some page where the proponents of separate tables with columns whose every cell is identical argue at all convincingly. The argument here for what I regard as bloat may be less convincing than average, but if so then not by much. -- Hoary 03:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Hoary enjoys bringing that talk page into numerous discussions. In case you haven't noticed, there are a number of people who do not support unified charts. So why do you claim our charts as POV when we see yours as POV? --Winnermario 20:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very, very good. This is certainly one of my favourite songs and articles. Also, if I may comment on the way charts are formatted: does it really matter? The case is small, and should be resolved quite easily. Anyhow, I vote support. -64.231.70.46 20:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The song is pretty lousy, as most popular songs are. Which is neither here nor there. The article is very precise, very much to the point, provides all the necessary information, and meets every possible criterium as an encyclopedia entry. An excellent effort. Ricardo the Texan 21:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support - The article is well-written. --Anittas 23:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Minor Object. Compared with other pop music articles, this article is actually fairly balanced; congrats Winnermario. However, I have to object for the following reasons: (1) far too much in-depth information about chart performance, (2) unsourced quotation (see Song Information, second paragraph), (3) too much speculation about song meaning/origins, with too little concrete facts (see Song Information, first paragraph and Lyrics and Meaning), (4) World and US chart stats don't need to be separated, (5) chart trajectory is excessive information and not necessary. With some pruning in some places, expansion of others, and inclusion of legitimate sources, I could support this with few reservations. Volatile 00:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Unified charts and no chart trajectory are not good enough reasons to object. However, the rest of your reasons are acceptable, so thank you for your input. :) --Winnermario 01:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I placed the unsourced quote in its appropriate place. --Winnermario 01:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. It appears that someone has dealt with the separate charts situation; and I'm willing to drop the chart trajectory objection until further debate/comment can be made. The only reservations I continue to have are with the song meaning/interpretation and the chart info, both of which could be easily remedied. Volatile 13:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. My efforts to remedy some of the criticisms of the article raised on this page have been reverted (see [3], [4], [5]). Extraordinary Machine 02:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

And rightfully done so, as there are people on this page who will object to this article if charts are unified. OmegaWikipedia 06:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Then "Cool" will not become an FA for as long as editors of the article continue to ignore objections. Extraordinary Machine 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As the subject over chart views is subjective and a POV, I seriously don't think it should be counted here. If Mario can answer all other non chart related objections, would that be fair enough for everyone here? By the same token, if this article has charts unified, I will not support the article. Im sure other people feel the same way, and it doesnt make sense to withheld a good article from being a FA because people disagree over how charts should be noted OmegaWikipedia 05:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps if each chart section and trajectory heading had a couple of sentences that served as both an introduction of the section and explanation of what the information is, it would help. At the moment I'm sure there are people looking at "trajectory" and thinking "what the hell is this?". I think there is a trend towards providing excessive chart information that is not always relevant. We've discussed this elsewhere and I respect and understand your viewpoint, but I don't completely agree. I wouldn't use it as a basis for voting either for or against, unless it was particularly "bloated", and in this case I don't think it is, so it doesn't bother me. I have to say this article is improving substantially as a result of some excellent editing and additions over the last day or two. Everyone involved should be congratulated. I'm very happy that Winnermario nominated this, and that there were some objections - if the article had attracted nothing but overwhelming support, all of these great edits may never have happenned. If Winnermario (and others) deal with my objections, as they have been, I'm more than happy. Rossrs 09:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If all else is accounted for and some of the language/prose copyedited, I'd support this article. Volatile 13:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. As Rossrs said, there's been a lot of work done on the article over the last day or so. Here's a summary of it:
  1. References have been reformatted.
  2. The prose has been tidied and tightened in places.
  3. One music video screenshot has been removed, while the others have been given fair use rationale on their image description pages.
  4. The lead section now focusses less on the song's chart performance, and more on its influence and interpretation.
  5. The "Song information" section header has been retitled "Composition and instrumentation".
  6. The "Chart performance" section has been trimmed slightly.
  7. The chart tables have been merged, and the superfluous "Cool"/"Cool"/"Cool"/etc. column removed.
  8. Quotes from music critics about the song have been added, which help to explain what the song sounds like and what it is about.

  Extraordinary Machine 14:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • 9. And I've added a sample of the song. Rossrs 13:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The chart table that was added to the section documenting the trajectory is preferrable. My compliments to whomever designed it. However, I would also like to note unified charts. I'm still unsure if I want to go along with them, as they create a disturbance to the eye in reading. Suddenly, out of nowhere, from reading all these country names, we're into Billboard charts? --Winnermario 19:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll edit the table so that the U.S. charts are all one after the other (in other words, in their own "part" of the table), and before other countries. Also, I've trimmed the "Chart performance" section a little more and replaced the speculation of the relationship between "Cool" and "Don't Speak" with a comparison of the two songs (the statement that "Don't Speak" was also inspired by the Stefani/Kanal relationship is supported by a source). Extraordinary Machine 20:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Better-looking, I suppose. It's getting there. --Winnermario 20:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Very commendable effort here. Only criticism is the slightly bloated chart performance section, however it doesn't overshadow the rest of the article, so I have no problem letting it stay. Great job WM, EM, and all others involved. Volatile 22:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak support. Okay, I'll finally move out of the way. This is a pretty cool article! I must insist, however, that the char