Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2006

Contents

Natalie Clifford Barney

Self-nom. A minor writer who hosted a major literary salon in Paris and had, in my opinion anyway, a fascinating life. The article has been through a Wikiproject Biography Peer Review. Passed GA recently, and the GA reviewer suggested taking it to FAC. —Celithemis 13:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't currently have the time to read through and critique the entire article, but my early impressions are that it is quite excellent. However, a couple of issues: first, while there are oodles of references, the lead has only one reference; even if these points are sourced later in the article, there should still be footnotes in a lead which makes many claims (such as that most of the important writers on Earth met at her home). Second, there are about a dozen redlinks, and some redlinks occur multiple times; if someone is important enough to link to (especially if they're notable enough to link to twice), either write a stub about them (assuming they pass WP:BIO) or delink them. Those concerns aside, I could very well support this candidate once I can undertake a more thorough reading of the article. -- Kicking222 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere I had picked up the idea that footnotes in the lead were to be avoided. Oh well, live and learn. I've now added citations for the bits that amount to claims of importance, i.e., her roles in novels and the people who went to her salon. Does that cover it? I can add citations for anything that needs them; I'm just trying to avoid creating a thicket of repeated footnotes in the lead.
All red links are now stubbed or removed as well. —Celithemis 04:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Support The whole article looks great. Awesome job! -- Kicking222 14:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Bravo! What a marvelous article. I agree with Kicking's recommendations about the red links, but it seems that everything else in quite in order. Thank you for introducing this fascinating person to me! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I support per Kicking222 and Ganymead, as long as the red links are fixed. Lithpiperpilot 21:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support—what a fascinating lady. But let's be true to her and make the writing more stylish.
    • "over 60 years"—"more than" is classier.
    • There's a redundant "also" in the second para.
    • "Rather haphazard education"—The first word adds nothing and should be removed. Same for "in order to", which should be "to".
    • "reprinted over 70 times"—"more than", and don't we know exactly how many?
    • "Their romantic relationship was also a creative exchange that inspired both of them to write, Barney providing a feminist theoretical framework that Vivien explored in her poetry." Removing the "also" will probably make it stronger—up to your judgement. The second part, after the comma, is ungrammatical and awkward. Try splitting it with a semicolon— ; Barney provided ...

There'll be no shortage of interested WPians who can polish this with fresh eyes. Good work already. Tony 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?)

The next submission from WP:KLF is 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?), about the debut album by The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu. Please accept my apologies for bringing more bad language to FAC, but this should be the last such nomination for a while! :) (We have other potential candidates to work on, but they're mostly profanity free). This article is a GA; it was also submitted to peer review but didn't get much response.

I believe this article is just about as complete as it can be, and well written. To address the criteria individually:

  • Well written. I think so, but, as always, you're the judges. We're not professional writers so if there's anything below par let me know and I'll try to fix it.
  • Comprehensive. I'm fairly certain this is as complete as can be; just about the only missing info I can think of is a series of valuations for the artefact over time, but I think the one valuation is quite enough for now. - this is an enyclopedia not a fact book, and we've made the point that it became a valuable collectible. That ought to be enough.
  • Factually accurate, referenced, neutral: Yep.
  • Stable: Yes. The article was pretty much complete back in June. We were waiting to get hold of an important review (now integrated), cite another assertion (removed), and add a value for the record on the collectors market (done). Other than that it's just been the usual tweaks and copyediting.
  • MOS: Compliant I think. Lead is two paragraphs which seems about right for an album (but let me know if not), appropriate use of sections.
  • Images: All have fair use rationales. However, we currently use 3 fair use images. Two are essential: a cover scan of the album, and a cover scan of the edited version released as a single. I welcome opinion on whether the 3rd image - Image:The JAMS - 1987 (What The Fuck Is Going On?) .jpg, the back cover - should be removed or not, or indeed whether it ought to be used instead of the front cover. You'll see why just by looking.

--kingboyk 18:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't read the article, but if the back cover is relevant to article text, then it should be kept. The Duke of Copeditting, Bow before me! You can't control me! I'm a P. I.! 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)]
Thanks for the comment. The back cover, as you can see, has "1987" in big letters, whereas the front cover doesn't show the name of the album at all and is quite generic (it's just The JAMs logo). The interesting point raised in the caption to the back cover is that it uses the typeface and stark white lettering on black background that would characterise their later promotional antics, right through to the concerted (and expensive) press campaigns of the K Foundation. However, I don't think that's mentioned in the body. Without prejudice to the continuing possibility of removing the back cover scan, I'll try to work something on that theme into the body. --kingboyk 12:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
On reflection, I think this would be a bit fancrufty and out of context to talk about typefaces in an article on an album. We already mention it in The_KLF#Promotion and in the K Foundation articles. Therefore, my original fair use question stands :) --kingboyk 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, The lead feels a little weak. It doesn't even mention the KLF (except by alias) or the fact that it was part of a larger pattern of releases from them that heavily used sampling. "deliberatively provocative" doesn't tell me much about the music itself; the first couple sentences of the composition section tell me far more. Also, the flow of the prose was confusing on first read through. The main body starts before the record was released with the release of a different record, and then sort of speeds through the events without signposting "hey this is the release this article is about." At first I was confused because it mentions a record that's actually the focus of a different article, and I just assumed it would begin by talking about the article's subject.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the thoughtful comments. In 1987 they were The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu, and The KLF name had not yet been debuted; referring to their body of work collectively as the work of "The KLF" is something that's happened over time and not necessarily with their consent, following their rise to fame under that later name. Indeed, in their last hurrah of 1997 ("Fuck the Millennium") they called themselves "the artists forever known as The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu"). Nonetheless, I think for consistency and to inform readers who access this piece in isolation we ought to be referring to their more famous incarnation - and their real names - in the lead, so I'll attend to that.
  • The "Context" section is quite heavy on "All You Need Is Love", their debut single which is featured on this album. Of course, we want to set the scene so this article works in a standalone fashion, and "All You Need Is Love" is a key work on the album. Again, though, you make a fair point so I'll see if I can polish the section a little bit to address your concerns. Will post back again when it's done.
  • Thanks again for the comments, they're really helpful. --kingboyk 12:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Regarding "deliberatively provocative backdrop": The lead of course should be a summary. If - as you confirm - the Composition section is telling you in a satisfactory level of detail how the album is constructed and what it sounds like, I think the only thing we need to do is be sure that there's an adequate summary of that section in the lead. We don't have to provide detailed compositional info in the lead, I'm sure.
      "The album was produced using extensive unauthorised samples that plagiarised a wide range of musical works. These provided a deliberately provocative backdrop for beatbox rhythms and cryptic, political raps." I think that's a fair, concise, nicely written summary. It covers samples, plagiarism, confrontational attitude, beatbox, political messages and rapping in a mere 2 sentences. If you don't think it's a fair summary, please let me know a little more specifically what you think is missing so I can attend to it.
    • I've made some changes in the Context section, clipping a short section of text, removing a quotation about the construction of "All You Need Is Love", and (hopefully) making the narrative clearer. I've also trimmed the Drummond quote to focus entirely on the recording of the album, removing commentary on the single and his dig at the music industry, and moved it to the Composition section.
      The net result is that we have one paragraph on background, and then get straight into detailing the album release. Much better, I think so thanks for the suggestion. I'm feeling a little unwell so may not have done a perfect job; more comments are certainly welcome.
    • I'm having second thoughts about mentioning The KLF, or even the guys' names, in the lead. "All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song)" is an FA and doesn't do it. The problems with mentioning The KLF are that The JAMs is just as valid an identifier for them, and I don't want to lose the early-1987 "vibe". This album was released in June 1987. KLF Communications was "born" in October 1987, and the first record by the duo as "The KLF" didn't come until 1988 ("Burn the Bastards"). We do mention The KLF in the first sentence of the Composition section, where we contrast the styles of The JAMs in 1987 and the duo's later work as The KLF. I think that's enough. Do you agree with me or are you adamant that the lead must mention The KLF?
      With regards to slotting in "Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty" into the lead, I'm just (perhaps because under the weather) not seeing how I can do it:
    • Do you like any of those?
    • Diff for changes in response to above comments: [1] · Revision at FAC · Current Revision --kingboyk 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've attempted to address the concerns regarding sampling and the notion that this was a continuing theme in their work (another excellent comment by the way). I've also included my favourite option from the above list for identifying Drummond and Cauty in the lead. Diff. I'm not entirely happy with the use of brackets "(included on the album)", but I think we should mention that "All You Need Is Love" is included on the album. Your comments please. --kingboyk 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: we cannot be putting obscenities on the Main Page. Madman 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Not actionable. Going onto the front page is decided at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Here we simply decide if an article is of the highest standard or not, with no prejudice. Whilst I personally have no current intention of seeking a front page placement for this article, should the request ever be made you can object then. --kingboyk 19:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Has Wikipedia become so process-bound that we are devoid of plain old common sense? I have opened a section on the Talk page to discuss this. Madman 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • No, it hasn't, on the contrary. Plain old common sense says that articles on Wikipedia are not censored. Plain old common sense says that articles may include profanity and still be Featured ("Fuck the Millennium"). Plain old common sense says that an article's quality as a piece of writing is entirely seperate from it's suitability for placement on the front page: an article may be an FA and never get onto the front page.
          Also, when this article was new we considered a "Did You Know" submission and were told that it could go on the front page, but would just be called 1987 (1987 (album) is a redirect. --kingboyk 20:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Much of the composition section is sourceless. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Right. That's because it's mostly based on what the recording sounds like; the record is the source. (All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) is the same). We're stuck between a rock and a hard place really - don't describe the sound in detail and folks will complain, describe it in detail and they'll say where's the sources :) Of course, there are still citations in that section for facts which might be controversial (mostly usage of samples).
      Look at it another way: No source describes the record in this much detail except the record itself. If a source did provide this much detail, we'd still have to paraphrase it otherwise we'd be copying verbatim and violating copyright.
      If there's anything which looks to you like original theory let me know or tag it with {{fact}}, please. --kingboyk 09:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • In other words, it's original research... JimmyBlackwing 12:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't think so, no. That's a pretty bold accusation. This is no more original research than current FAs about songs and albums. We cite when we say a sample is used. We back up the descriptions with some cited quotations. If you think anything there needs a citation please tag it with {{fact}} rather than making sweeping generalisations. --kingboyk 13:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Very well, I have done so. JimmyBlackwing 13:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Blimey that was quick. Thanks very much. I was working on a breakdown on the talk page; I'll have to now see what you've marked and how it compares. --kingboyk 13:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Fair cop. I'll attend to it. Thanks ever so much. --kingboyk 13:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
                • No problem. Reading through the section, the original research wasn't as bad as I had first feared. Once those things get cited, it shouldn't be a problem. I just jumped in to make sure it wasn't overlooked, so I'll just bugger off now and let the nomination take its course. JimmyBlackwing 13:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Yes, I think we were both about 50% right there (you were right, it needs more cites, I was right it's not an opinion piece :)), so apologies for biting your head off :) I think I can source everything you've tagged, and will work on it this afternoon. Your followup comments will be most welcome when it's done (it's not always easy to get comments on these pop culture articles). Thanks again. --kingboyk 13:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've now provided the requested citations. I think it's as well referenced as a composition section on a 20 year old underground deleted album can be :) The section was written by my cowriter at WP:KLF, and whilst he clearly used the published sources he didn't fully cite them (and also left a few juicy details unincluded). I've gone through the sources again today, so am now fully confident it's comprehensive and well referenced. The Composition section will now need another copyedit and a read from top bottom with fresh eyes, which I'll do tommorow.
    • Any further comments or criticisms please let me know.
    • Diff: [2] Previous revision Current revision. --kingboyk 00:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Pending two concerns...
  1. The audio samples should probably be in boxes per Wikipedia:Music samples. It makes them easier to find and doesn't disrupt the text as much.
  2. The composition section consists of many one or two sentence paragraphs. Shouldn't they be combined into fewer, longer paragraphs?

Overall, very nice work! Wickethewok 05:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, I'll look at the audio boxes. The composition section was already fairly short paragraphs, but I split it into one paragraph per song after adding extra citations and a little new material yesterday when working on JimmyBlackwing's suggestions. #1 on my todo list today was to give the Composition section a further edit and to decide on the paragraphs issue. Looks like you've pre-empted me :) Will attend to it later today (and may be asking for some advice, we'll see). --kingboyk 10:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. "Composition" section consolidated into paragraphs with the following themes: Overview, Side 1, Side 2, Drummond and Cauty, postscript. --kingboyk 16:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very comprehensive, well-written and well-sourced. Although I knew absolutely nothing about the band or album before reading this, I found the article particularly helpful and informative. I noted a few minor issues (a contraction outside of quotes, and some minor wording issues that occasionally caused NPOV violations), but nothing serious. Excellent article. JimmyBlackwing 10:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Were those problems addressed in yesterday's edits or do they still exist? I'd prefer to nail them, an FA ought to be damn near perfect. --kingboyk 10:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If you want the FAC to be perfect, then here they are:
  1. "People did indeed hear about 1987, including the management of Swedish pop group ABBA" - Improper voice. Something like "However, 1987 became well-known, with the management of Swedish pop group ABBA unamused by the album" would be better.
  2. "a prostitute with a very vague resemblance to Agnetha from ABBA" - Could use a citation. Otherwise, it's kind of original research.
  3. "They were, by their own account, towed back to England by the AA." - If it's a direct quote, then "towed back to England by the AA" should be in quotation marks. Otherwise, it could use a re-wording to make it more formal.
  4. "The JAMs were not entirely sure what they would have said to ABBA if they had been able to meet them." - Minor informality issue. Something like "The JAMs were unsure of what their comments towards ABBA would have been, had they been able to meet them" would improve this.
  5. "This served Drummond and Cauty's newly-emerging legend-making aspirations well." - Minor NPOV violation. No idea how you would go about fixing this one.
  6. "1987 is built around samples of other artists' work, 'to the point where the presence of original material becomes questionable'." - Improper voice makes this seem slightly POV. Quote should be attributed to its source to fix this.
  7. "A "stunning audio collage"..." - I would assume that the inline citation at the end of this sentence takes care of this. It would be great if it could be placed directly after the quote and attributed to its source, to ensure proper voice.
  8. "NME's Danny Kelly was not so impressed." - Would be better as "was unimpressed".
  9. "Anybody who actually returned the album got rather a raw deal" - Improper voice, POV. Not sure how you would go about fixing it, though.
  • And that's all I could spot. I can't imagine that there's much more than that in the article. JimmyBlackwing 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You're thorough man :) Thanks for taking the time to explain what you meant, I'm sure subsequent reviewers will appreciate it.
  1. That sentence has bothered me too, with your suggestions I can fix it.
  2. That one's not original research. I've never seen the lady in question and wouldn't dare suggest any resemblance if it wasn't from the source :) That's covered by the reference "Brown, J., "Thank You For The Music", New Musical Express, 17 October 1987, passim.", written by the journalist who accompanied them. Note the passim which I think (if my fading memory from school days is correct) means "used liberally throughout this block of text". If you can improve the placement of the footnote to make this clearer please go ahead, with the caveat that footnotes are preferred to be after punctuation and most preferably after a full stop.
  3. It's paraphrased from interview quotations in Melody Maker:1
    Rockman: "Two minutes later, we were in the outside lane doing about a hundred and there was this huge explosion - the whole engine just blew up. A bullet must have hit it. In the end we were towed all the way back to England."
    King Boy: "Luckily we'd just joined the AA the day before. We got five star cover cos I was an associate member. It cost us 40 quid and saved us 400."
    I don't (in ignorance) see how the sentence is informal, and I think that "by their own account" is the responsible thing for the article to say; I'm presenting their account not the verified account of a neutral 3rd party. (I will, however, check the NME article again by the journalist who accompanied them; if he says the same we don't need a disclaimer. Checked. As I recalled, he mentions the shooting and the breakdown, but doesn't say how they got home.) Given that info, if you can find a better wording please edit the article directly or inform me here.
  4. I think "comments" is unneccesarily formal. We are, after all, discussing the attempts of 2 slightly unhinged, and at this time obscure, plagiaristic DJs who had driven to Sweden on a whim (in a vintage American police car) in an attempt to "reason with" one of the most successful (and therefore, in industry terms, powerful) pop groups in history. We're not talking about a meeting between Gorbachev and Reagan :) However, looks like you've identified a punctuation issue. I'll add the missing comma and see if I get any insipiration to improve the wording without making it dull.
  5. It's paraphrased from the source, but it's not perfect. I'll attend to that. Removed that line; I wonder if the whole paragraph should go? Or should it be beefed up with a quotation from the source to replace what I zapped?
  6. That quotation style (original writing leading into a quote, with the source of the quote being only in the footnote) has IIRC been used in our 3 other FAs in similar contexts without comment, and I think it's appropriate here. The article is brimming with citations saying this album is chock-a-block with samples; it's not my opinion it's a recurrent theme in the sources and, with citations, the article. The quotation itself is cited and it takes one click for the reader to see where it came from. I'll pass on this one for now but will amend it if others think it's incorrect.
  7. The entire sentence, including the quotation, is sourced from ""All You Need Is Love" review, Sounds, 14 March 1987.", the footnote for which appears at the end of the sentence (the generally preferred location). I think that's the correct placement.
  8. If an article is to be "brilliant prose" it needs to take a little poetic licence. If we just go review, quote, review, quote, it's rather dull. I try to get a little narrative going by contrasting Kelly's opinion (slight disappointment) with the hugely enthusiastic Sounds (Sounds compared the work to T.S. Eliot; Kelly thought it didn't even bear comparison with other contemporary DJs.) The reader then gets Kelly's actual words, so they can see for themselves that Kelly was (largely) unimpressed. I think these little touches, providing narrative, gently guiding the reader but then giving them the direct quote so they can make up their own mind are something which seperates brilliant articles from the merely good. I might be wrong; I usually am :)
  9. Again, poetic licence backed up by the sources. Anybody who'd held on to their original (as was their right, consumers can't be forced to return an album) would now be in possession of a valuable collector's piece. The figures quoted bear this out. That said, whilst I think the statement should stay it might be a little better worded. It's not a big deal but if anyone has better wording then (to quote The JAMs), "OK let's hear it...".
--kingboyk 12:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Smith, M. E., "The Great TUNE Robbery", Melody Maker, 12 December 1987 (link).
  • I see what you mean about "poetic license". The articles I write tend to be extremely formal, but unfortunately dry. No big deal about the things you disagreed with me on, since they're so excessively minor that I had to do some deep digging to find them. Good luck on the rest of the nomination, but it's hard to believe that an article this good won't get through. JimmyBlackwing 13:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support and for the detailed analysis. This diff reflects changes resulting from these last suggestions and a few other tweaks. --kingboyk 18:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This is your typical GA, nothing more nor less. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Having reviewed GAs, I think this is well above that standard and heartily disagree; this is as comprehensive a piece as can be found anywhere on this subject, it seems to me to read very well indeed, and it's fully referenced. You're entitled to disagree of course but it would help if you could be a little more specific about what's wrong with it? --kingboyk 13:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion Ghirla's objections aren't actionable. He / she must make specific FA criteria concerns to make his / her objection valid. Having said that, I'm voting Support for this article as I feel it meets FA criteria. LuciferMorgan 11:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The subject does not pass my notability criteria, but this is hardly actionable (except by having it prodded). What may be changed is prose (only teenagers would find it "compelling") and lack of illustrations. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Lol. If you're not interested in articles on popular culture why did you even read it?! And as for not being notable that's just laughable. It's the debut album by a chart-topping band and has 40 citations! FAs don't need images and I fail to see what images are missing anyway: it's an article on an album, and we have the album cover illustrated. --kingboyk 09:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The last time I checked FA criteria, it didn't mention anything regarding notability. Illustrations don't matter. This thus means all those points aren't FA requirements. The only FA requirement is "compelling" prose (1. a.) which I feel the article meets - I invite anyone to provide actual examples from the text of where the article fails in this. LuciferMorgan 12:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think this article is well-written. It has excellent sources and makes good use of inline citations. I also found it very informative, as I had no knowlege on the sunject prior to reading the article. Good job. Jay32183 03:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnard's Star

Self-nom. I've brought this from 5 to 25K, adding virtually every paper to be found on the star. I think the planet controversy and Project D. set off the dry numbers and make for an interesting read. I'm not the best with numbers and User:RJHall has helped out during its peer review; if I needed to, I'd simply copy a clause from an abstract to make sure I was representing it properly. Also, thanks to User:DogNewTricks for working on images ("I wouldn't have uploaded the file unless NASA told me I could" :). Marskell 10:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - about as comprehensive as one could get, I thought. The only possible weakness is the prose may be too technical and sentences a little long in places but these are minor. I found it OK to read though others mightn't.Cas Liber 11:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I wasn't as relaxed as Cas Liber about the English and started listing the flaws. After a short while I found it was quicker to do an edit myself. My first problem was with the title: shouldn't it be Barnard's Star? It is a proper name and so deserves two capital letters. I also pondered whether it deserved to be called the second closest system. To me 'system' implies that there is more than one object and yet the article goes to great lengths to say that there is no evidence of a system at all. The reference to 'system' was therefore deleted. After that I ploughed on, clarifying where I could. There may be places where I have changed the intended meaning. This is not my fault; it is because I was trying to clarify something that wasn't clear to begin with. There are also now a couple of places where red links have appeared because something was not explained ('ARCINS', 'bolometric' and 'space motion'). I hope you find the changes useful, if not please reverse my changes. Because I have now had an extensive input, I should not vote. However if you reverse most of my changes, I will oppose only provisionally support until similar changes are made. JMcC 13:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC) and JMcC 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Provisional support English is unclear in many places and suggested improvements have been completely reversed. It needs a full edit to remove its ambiguities. JMcC 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC) and JMcC 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, patience. For now, I have reverted because there were obvious errors—that it's too faint to see has nothing to do with its age; Star system quite commonly refers to an isolated star; the sentence in the intro that listed stuff in the body was rm'ed. I will try and re-incorporate your improvements and do, by all means, present a list. Maybe hold off on the "vote"--we're around hour 3 of a week. Marskell 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right about the proper noun; it had been hanging around in my head for a while, but I never systematically compared the sources. A large majority (though not quite all) use upper case. I have changed it, including changing instances in the body (no doubt missed a couple). Marskell 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Its apparent magnitude is 9.57." This sentence could use more information, the number by itself does not convey anything to the common reader. I suggest adding that the Sun's magnitude is -26.73 and that the faintest stars observable with naked eye has a magnitude of 6. This would help support the preceeding sentence and give more info. Joelito (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point. A bit has been added. Marskell 19:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "In general a gregarious and well-admired man, he may have become embittered toward colleagues who disputed his findings." Is this supported by the reference found later in the paragraph? To me this sentence appears as too much editioralizing, especially the "may" claim. Howewver if supported the by the ref then it would be OK. Joelito (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I changed "may have become embittered" to "may have felt betrayed", as "betrayed" is used in the source (in a quote from a colleague). The source in general makes it clear the relationship deteriorated completely when Heinz questioned the findings. Marskell 08:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support My concerns have been addressed. Joelito (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support- I don’t know what qualifies for a “significant contributor”, but as Maskell said, I did make a few calls and emails to find a picture. However, I did not edit the text. I support this article because it is very informative. I do not think the information is too in-depth, and can be understood by the majority of readers. Also, the .gif image shows clearly what the “proper motion” means, and how extreme Barnard’s Star is (relative to the surrounding stars).-- ¢² Connor K.   12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support — It's a good read and an interesting bit of history, at least to me. (I've always had this odd fascination with astrometry and nearby stars.) Just a few minor comments:
  • The first sentence could mention that this is a "very low-mass star", where "very low-mass" is understood in the literature to mean below about 0.4-0.2 solar masses.[3][4]
  • I would like to ask that the introduction state this is the second closest known star system. There is always the possibility of some very faint nearby star that has yet to be discovered, such as Nemesis (star).
  • The image comparing the dimension of this star to the Sun and Jupiter looks a little rough. In particular Barnard's star has the appearance of an irregular orange blob, rather than a star. Could this graphic be improved?
Thanks! — RJH (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I made the intro changes. The pic looks a little rough because I did it myself in photoshop :). I'll try and tweak when I get a chance. Marskell 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: JMc placed a list of grammar & diction suggestions on my talk. It's quite massive, so I've placed it on the talk here to avoid putting people off if they want to stop by and comment. Don't want to divert attention at all. The list and my replies are all there. Marskell 10:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Here, I respectfully disagree. I think it's enough to link to this info in See Also. I realize "The Hitchhiker's Guide..." and others have mentioned Barnard's Star, but I think this page should be about the star as it is, mentioning all of the points that are effectively "timeless". I will have no objection if someone drafts a three or four sentence section re "In Fiction", but I don't think the absence of such should be held against the article. "In Fiction" is momentary. The numbers have an "absolute" importance, and the planet controversy is, if nothing else, an interesting "history of science" narrative that should make for intereseting reading ten or a hundred years from now; something like "Star Trek mentions it as a refuelling stop for the Enterprise" is just trivia, by contrast. Marskell 23:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Marskell. I did some reading on Barnard's Star in fiction, and most of it is trivia. If it served a monumental importance to a story, then maybe. But right now, all that is on that page is trivia. There isn't enough to write any text without it seeming like a poorly put together paragraph made out of a trivia section (which it would be).-- ¢² Connor K.   00:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • support -Pedro 11:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Pixies (band)

Self-nominating again; I feel the article has improved since it's last FAC nomination, and I addressed many of the issues raised (for example, I added a Musical Style section, noting their influences). CloudNine 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support CloudNine 16:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Haven't read the whole article yet, so I can't support or oppose yet, but the album covers each appear in the article twice. I'd recommend converting the table of albums at the bottom to look more like the table of singles, as fair use images in a "gallery" are typically disallowed by Wikipedia, even if the use could be justified under the law. Jay32183 21:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment addressed Converted to a table format. CloudNine 16:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Unless I missed something, I'm pretty sure this article meets the FA criteria. I also would like to request that the redlink in the singles table be made at least a stub. Jay32183 17:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment addressed "Allison" now a stub. CloudNine 19:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - All direct quotations need to be inline cited. LuciferMorgan 23:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks like the citations are there, but come before the quotation rather than after. Jay32183 17:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as I think it is excellent. Good job! Tuf-Kat 08:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Tuf-Kat, this is an excellent article. Trebor 10:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I've read through the article twice before today, and I must admit that it is superb. I must also admit that I hate to say how great the article is, because I absolutely despise the Pixies. They're my best friend's favorite band, and perhaps my worst favorite band. When "Bam Thwok" came out, you can't imagine how much I razzed my best friend over how terrible that song is (and he had no response, because he knew it was awful). I literally don't think I've ever heard a Pixies song I enjoyed, but with that said, the article is such a triumph that I can't not support it becoming an FA. -- Kicking222 15:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I don't like the Pixies that much, but this article is great. Well done, good and faithful servants, er, contributors (Matthew 25:24). I'm not sure if it's accurate, since I'm not familiar with the Pixies, but it's [[|Accuracy and precision|more than precise]]. It's direct, and its length is due to its plethora of content, not wordiness. This deserves to be an FA, in my opinion. Gracenotes T § 18:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. As per Wikipedia:Music samples, it is preferable if you put the samples nest to text in boxes rather than grouping them in the end. CG 20:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment addressed - Well, the song samples are included in the prose (as in Pink Floyd) as well as in the end (I put samples at the end so it's easier to sample how the band progressed through their career). CloudNine 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 22:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Amchitka

Nominating article which is well sourced and appears well-written. Open to any suggestions, which I will implement as soon as possible. CynicalMe 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support now that all the issues raised in the WPMILHIST peer review have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm impressed. Well written, and though it doesn't mean anything in terms of it being an FA, it was practically completely written by Jakew. drumguy8800 C T 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very good, appears comprehensive, well-cited. Interesting topic too. Tuf-Kat 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's a bit incomprehensive and choppy in my view. Each section comprises three paragraphs which are made up of only two sentences. Orane (talk • cont.) 08:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe that this fascinating subject is explained in a manner that fully conforms to policy. (Note: I'm responsible for much of the work on this article.) Jakew 10:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a very nice article deserving its star :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Just fixed a little spelling error; there might be more of them, but the article is well-referenced, nicely imaged and comprehensive. Batmanand | Talk 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—1a.
    • "miles", again and again. What about the other 95% of the world's population?
    • "It is about 42 miles long, and varies from 2 to 4 miles in width."—Spot the redundant word. We're told this again in the next section.
    • "though it is monitored for leakage of radioactive materials."—The leakage. "Although" is more usual in formal registers.
    • "oblique subduction"—Is there a link for this?
    • Why are some of the plain years linked? Gee, 1920 starts with "Babe Ruth is traded by the Boston Red Sox to the New York Yankees for $125,000, the largest sum ever paid for a player at that time." Is that relevant?
    • "The U.S. Army established bases on Adak and 13 other locations." Should that be at 13?
    • "in order to prevent"—Spot two redundant words.

Needs a thorough copy-edit throughout. Tony 16:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed the concerns you raised. CynicalMe 17:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Lots of short paras. Section on geography is little more then stub section, most of the article is devoted to history. Seems to be missing important sections entirly: fauna, flora, human inhabitants, more detailed map would be nice.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I have just a few small concerns about the text:
  • The introduction should link the terms "tectonically unstable" and "maritime climate" as these may not be familiar to every reader. Later the elements "americium" and "plutonium" can also be linked, since they are important to the controversy.
  • When was the last estimated volcanic activity on the island? The Alaska Volcano Observatory web site has some information on the island geology.[5] There is plenty of interesting information, including a geological history, in the PDF text document.
  • The claim is made that the Russians "exploiting the indigenous people". But it does not explain how. Were they put in slave labor camps? How was the exploitation linked to the population decline? I would suspect a decline either due to disease or economic hardships, but it is unclear.
  • I think the sentence that begins, "Three tests were conducted:", should use semi-colons as separators between the three tests to clarify the comma usage.
  • The World War II section references the names of several islands without clarifying where these are located with respect to Amchitka. A map of the vicnity would help here.
  • Is "Vancouver" in the state of Washington or In B.C.?
Thanks! — RJH (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Cynical, but throughout was my critical word. I had a quick look and found (1) In order to, (2) trivial year links, and (3) "publically" in one small section. Can you find someone else to go through it with fresh eyes; that's what I'd have to do in your position—use the value of unfamiliarity. Do you know how to locate the right person/people for this purpose? Tony 02:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed all year links.--Rmky87 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with RJH. A section on geology, fauna and flora... is necessary for this article. CG 20:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Ceresole

Another quite obscure (but very interesting) battle. I've tried to make the narrative as easy to follow as possible, as the events themselves were rather confused. The article has undergone a peer review by the Military history WikiProject; I look forward to comments from a broader audience! Kirill Lokshin 15:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Support I support it, many details, and written very well. (I am in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history though I didn't participate in the peer review.) Hello32020 16:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The Cryxic would definitely hit it. FA in every way.UberCryxic 17:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article, easy to read deserves FA. Kyriakos 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Another quality submission by Kirill. Rlevse 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, another great article from Kirill! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support'. Well annotated and referenced. Nice supplemental graphs, charts, and images. Good structure and balance. --Randy Johnston 23:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Guys, "We belong to Military Project, hence we always vote for each other" principle is not very helpful. I would like to have an illustration of the battle. Has it never been painted? --Ghirla -трёп- 07:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    As far as I know, it hasn't. (Or, in any case, any paintings of it aren't actually labeled. There's plenty of period engravings with titles like "Landknechts in battle" and the like, but it's almost impossible to guess what actual battle—if any—they depict.) Kirill Lokshin 12:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    I still would like to have one of these engravings illustrating the article. That said, I support the nomination. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    I've added Image:Bad-war.jpg, and I'll see if I can find one with arquebusiers in it. Kirill Lokshin 15:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not part of the MILHIST project and I do not always vote for their FACs and I resent the insinutation that I do. That being said, I've found Kirill's (not the project's) FAC submission of the most consistent and highest quality.Rlevse 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am part of the MILHIST project, but do not always vote for their FACs. Very well written overall. But what is the significance of the battle. Granted, the current WP:WIAFA does not require that an article have some broader relevance. But I strongly believe that the difference between a really good article and an article worthy of being a featured article is some commentary on its context and significance. Give us a few lines about:
  • The causes of the war – the French-Habsburg Wars of 1521-1529 and 1535-1538) — the French goal of recapturing Milan.
  • Alliances - Tell us about the French alliance with England’s Henry VIII of England and it's relevance (or link us to the main article).
  • The denouement - was this important in the later development of the war — in the peace treaty of 1544 (you'd think) — the Council of Trent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamborg (talk • contribs)
Hmm, wouldn't such material be more appropriate for the actual Italian War of 1542 article? WP:WIAFA calls for the article to be "focused on the main topic", and that topic happens to be this specific battle, not the broader Franco-Habsburg rivalry of the preceding half-century. As far as your specific points:
  • I've added some comments to the "Prelude" section about the specific strategic situation in 1543–44; but the entire sordid history of the previous few decades needn't be rehashed in every individual battle article, in my opinion.
  • Umm, what "French alliance with England’s Henry VIII"? France hadn't been allied with England since 1528, by this point. In any case, I think that issues of broad politics are best dealt with in the article on the entire war.
  • No, it wasn't really important to any of those (i.e. "the battle proved to be of little strategic significance"). The war as a whole was relevant to Trent, but this battle in particular was not, having led to something of an anti-climax.
Broadly speaking, the battle—beyond getting an inordinately high number of people killed—wasn't really significant in any long-term sense. Kirill Lokshin 05:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the reasons you rose are very valid. Nothing that can't be fixed, and I will look into working on it. If they are, I hope you would support. Thanks for your input.-- ¢² Connor K.   17:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Kirill Lokshin 18:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I mean that you made a good point, but they are fixable. So i hope that after they are fixed, you can support this article.-- ¢² Connor K.   18:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well written, but not in a language that is incredibly foreign to me. Many sources, very NPOV, complies with MOS, and interesting. Great pictures. Strongly believe it of the quality.-- ¢² Connor K.   17:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose!!! The FA criteria are totally inadequate for this article. Why did you submit it here? This article is beyond FAC criteria. First create a new category for such superb articles and then submit it there... Anyway ... Until then I support!--Yannismarou 18:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. No useful external links?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    Sixteenth-century warfare seems not to be the most popular of topics on the web. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just glancing through, I saw many red links, could they be at least stubbed? btg2290 02:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    Down to four redlinks now (three in the navigational templates and one in the footnotes); I'm not certain if I have enough information to make meaningful stubs for these. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    And now down to just two redlinks. Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    In any case, red links are not an obstacle for FA status.--Yannismarou 17:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Well written, but largely based on a source in which accuracy in (especially Italian) names is like brain for George W. Bush (nearly zero). I think it needs strong revision to check all such names and location errors on which I didn't surf on. --Attilios 23:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

1933 Atlantic hurricane season

Self-nom, I recently finished expanding this article, and I believe it now adheres to the featured article criteria. Support. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • A few things:
    • What happened with reference #6?
    • What was the link to 1933's ACE? The table is filled out, but there weren't any advisories that I know of... we still need the ref for that, though. Titoxd(?!?) 05:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your copyediting. I fixed ref 6, though I'm not sure what to do about the ACE. I cannot find a reference for that info. Should we just remove it? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Reference for ACE: the best track!--Nilfanion (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Hmm... mind providing an inline citation for that one? I don't remember where to find it, and I imagine most users won't. Titoxd(?!?) 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment can all the infoboxes be the same size please...and do something about those ugly white gaps. Todd661 12:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how we can do that. The infoboxes are in template form. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think that anything can be done about the white gaps. Without them the layout would be really messed up. Jeltz talk 15:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • All of them appear to be the same size in my browser... which ones are giving you problems? Titoxd(?!?) 02:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, my mistake, all the hurricane boxes are the same and all the tropical storm ones are the same. I've strike out that comment Todd661 07:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Support. íslenskur fellibylur

#12 (samtal) 13:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I think this is of featured status but shouldnt be an article but a list. The page lists all the storms with a summary just like List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. 2005 Atlantic hurricane season talks about the season itself not individual storms. 2005 Season talks about the overall statistics of the season as a whole while this article gives each storm a section with a short summart. If you were to make the page List of storms in the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season how would it look different than this article? For some reason its hard to put this in words but hopefully you get where I'm going. I do agree though that this article definetely models after 2003 Pacific hurricane season but this brings about another point:2003 Pacific hurricane season doesnt look like 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Personally I feel 2005 season should be the model article but my point is the inconcistency in the layout of this articles. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, each season article should give a "short summary for each storm". 2005 Atlantic hurricane season does not comply to this since it merges all the storms into the overall text rather then just meriting them their own section/subsection. I hope a general guideline for layout should be decided upon since this is getting confusing: some articles and lists look the same. - Tutmosis 20:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The 2005 season was very different. There was too much information to have it as a normal page, which necessitated the list of page. For 1933 AHS, there's not a terrible abundance of information, so I based it off the only normal FA season article. Every season article, excluding 2005, has the same format as being articles. Changing all 350 or so season articles to lists would require a lot of effort and is probably not necessary. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay thanks for clearing that up. But List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is pretty similar to this article, shouldn't it be an article not a list? - Tutmosis 21:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Indeed, we have picked a layout: 2005AHS is the exception, as there are several orders of magnitude of difference in the amount of information available, and there are more storms to talk about. Originally the "List of storms in the 2005AHS" page was an article, then someone asked if it should have been a list... so we're getting mixed signals here. What should it be? Titoxd(?!?) 22:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, this article look like a list but in a way isnt since most lists do not have much prose but just present names in some order. This is a tough issue and Wikipedia:List guideline isn't much help on giving a definition. As originally I am going to lean more on the list side but it's not up to me and would like to see what the rest of the community thinks. - Tutmosis 23:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I still have an unanswered question in my mind. How come the featured List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season looks the same (format wise) as this article and a lot more season articles. You mentioned you renamed it to "List" on someones request. So what was its name before that? Wasn't it only purpose to list the storms since 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is the article which talks about the season itself. So why is that list is similar in format as this season articles? Is it just me or is this not making any sense? - Tutmosis 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The list of 2005 storms was originally what the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season looked like. Prior to being at that location (list of 2005 storms), it didn't have its own article. It was just part of the season article. For a long time, the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article looked the same as every other season article. Basically, you should ignore 2005. It was extreme circumstances that should not be the model for anything. I hope that makes sense, but this article resembles every other hurricane season article, including two "Good article" season articles and a featured season article, excluding 2005. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It was originally created as 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms, after the 2005 season article was split after a long debate (see its talk archives about January). Before the fork it looked like this; the consensus was that it was excessively long and had a disproportionately large storms section. The greater the amount of info available on a season, the more non-storms sections in the article. In the case of the 1933 season, there is relatively little info available beyond what is currently embedded in the storms section. I would like to see a more complete discussion of the season's impact though; not just through the individual storm descriptions.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Well it's still confusing but never the less I'll vote support. This article is of FA quality and changing it to a list would make matters more confusing. Personally I feel the 2005 is quite a model article, especially the storms section that has all the storms merged together and organized by month. < I can't see how other season articles can not do this. Anyway, hope to see more storm related FACs. :) - Tutmosis 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. These kind of articles should be a summarise of all the individual hurricanes articles. Therefore, many sections are missing: "Impact", "Forecasts", "Preparations"... Even the FA 2003 Pacific hurricane season is missing these sections, and, I think, it doesn't deserve the FA status. CG 16:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • There's only two indivdual hurricane articles for the season, and I believe it summarizes it well. You have to understand that the season was 73 years ago! I doubt there were any pre-season forecasts. As for impact, forecasts, and preparations, the season summary section summarizes those aspects, but there's not enough info for separate sections. I don't know why a featured season should have to have those sections. It wasn't 2005, after all. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to mention, that it is the exact polar opposite of the approach WikiProject Tropical cyclones is taking, which indicates that season articles should be the priority, and then, only if these articles are going to be overwhelmed by excessive information on individual storms, the season article becomes a summary of the individual articles. In this case, the historical record gives us only this amount of information about the entire season. We don't have the benefit of satellite imagery, or in many cases, even damage reports; simply put, the information doesn't exist to warrant as many sections. Titoxd(?!?) 23:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments. I haven't gone through the article in detail, but have still found some possible issues:
    • {{1933 Atlantic hurricane season buttons}} is used in only one article (this one), why is it not substituted? Also, {{Atlantic hurricane season categories|1933}} can be substituted unless the category divisions are expected to change often.
    • "Sources" should be changed to "References".
    • A one liner intro to the timeline in "Stroms" section (either as a caption or a paragraph) would help. (At least mention it is a timeline)
    • In the lead: "It is important to note, however, that [...], especially those [..]." Too many guarding terms.
    • Also in the lead: "These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the Atlantic basin." (This can go to footnotes. Doesn't seem worth including in the lead. I may be wrong here.) — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I got all of them but the lead problems. Should I just delete the guarding terms? Though I did not add it, I feel it does serve a purpose, as there could well have been more than 21 storms. We just don't have today's technology to determine it. Also, the "These dates..." appears in every tropical cyclone season article, so, in conforming to the layout already set up, it should remain there. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Substing some of the standard templates TC WikiProject uses strikes me as sensible (a AWB run will sort that). I dislike with the "These dates..." start to the lead; that may be the standard format, but the notable exceptions are the two seasonal FAs (2005 Atlantic hurricane season and 2003 Pacific hurricane season), where the lead sentence gives an interesting (DYK-style) fact; and the boring "the season ran from X to Y" is relegated to paragraph 2.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I couldn't find the promised template substitution. I have given the article a copyedit, but there are a few more issues. The article is inconsistant on use of non-breaking spaces while refering to casualities. The article, at places, has words like 20&nbsp;people and at others 20 people. Consistancy is required (either way), and I personally feel that since "people" is not a unit of measurement, there shouldn't be non-breaking spaces. I have also edited the lead article I pointed out. Feel free to revert if you feel it got worse. One question possibly un-related to the article (showing my lack of knowledge): How did storm 11 start before storm 10, and 14 before 13? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I added the missing nbsp;s, as I had missed them the first time I gave a pass-through the article; since there were a few users that insisted on not having numbers + anything that could be remotely construed as a unit, I just went through the safer route and added all of them. As for the storm formation: 10 did form before 11, as well as 13/14... they are named/numbered when they reach tropical storm status. Titoxd(?!?) 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Support. Since there appeared a consensus on template substitution, I went ahead to substitute them. I would also suggest to discuss this in the WikiProject page, so that (if recommended), it can be done en masse to all relevant articles. Tito has already fixed the non-breaking space issue. So it is time I give my support to the article. Good work, guys. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. This article is not comprehensive. For example, a hurricane that killed 184 people gets only a brief paragraph. I've heard that this is because there simply isn't enough information available. Looking through the references it seems that all of the information was gleaned from the internet. Indeed, only three contemporary sources are cited (all from the noaa.gov archives). Of course there isn't much information available about the 1933 season on the internet. The internet didn't exist in 1933. I guarantee there are dozens, if not hundreds, of news articles available about these storms in microfilm reels at your public library. This article should incorporate the numerous newspaper articles published about these storms at the time, not just the smattering of secondary sources available at the NOAA's website. Kaldari 23:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • As an example, I have added a paragraph about the destruction caused by Hurricane 14 based on a contemporary New York Times article. Kaldari 02:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, I just finished adding newspaper info on several storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Kaldari brings up an excellent point. The article can and should be fleshed out a lot more from microfilm and dead-tree sources. -- BrianSmithson 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking good. I've copy edited the article, but I still have a few concerns. First, there are several places in the text where we are told that "damages, if any, are unknown." Some of these statements are footnoted, but many are not. This makes we wonder: Are these unreferenced declarations of unknown damages there because damages are really unknown or because the editors couldn't find anything? In short, I think these statements should all be sourced or they should be removed. Secondly, a few places state that a particular storm "lost its identity". This sounds really strange to me; what is it supposed to mean? I was tempted to replace all of them with "dissipated", but I wasn't sure that this is what was meant. Can these be changed? Third, I question whether the See also links to List of notable tropical cyclones and List of Atlantic hurricane seasons are needed. For the former, certainly the fact that a few of the storms on the article page itself have articles about them (linked to per summary style) should be enough. Why is it pertinent to have a link to a list that includes Hurricane Betsy and Hurricane Hugo? It's like adding List of African Americans to the Michael Jordan page. As for the latter link, we've already got links to the 1931–5 seasons in the infobox. Is it really necessary to have links to 1993 and 2004? I'd ax both. I've also left an invisible notation where there was some weaseling going on. Over all, it's a good piece, and I will glady support once these issues have been addressed and/or dealt with. — BrianSmithson 13:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair points. First, I tried looking high and low for damage or impact, but some I did not find anything. As such, I removed the "damage is unknown" from the storm sections. For the sections where I said lost its identity, I changed the first one to last observed, as we don't know for a fact the storms actually dissipated then, and the second one to dissipated, as the article did say it dissipated. The See also links is project wide standard we use; all season articles mention the List of notable tropical cyclones and the list of seasons, just for reader's ease. I guess so if they're curious about checking other seasons, but don't feel like going to the top. BTW, thank you for that good copyedit. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Have you taken a look at the one use of weasel words I identified? If that's taken care of, I'll ignore the "See also" business (which someone should change project-wide, I think). — BrianSmithson 22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Oh yea. I know it's a weasle word, but the source (monthly weather review) says it was one of the most severe in the Mid-Atlantic. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Support. I took care of the weasel word. — BrianSmithson 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • See above, I just finished adding newspaper info on several storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A ProQuest search of the Historical New York Times database for the word "hurricane" during the year 1933 returns 400 articles, many of which would be helpful here. And that's just one newspaper—there's plenty of reliable source material out there. --Spangineeres (háblame) 17:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • But if the newspaper requires a subscription to access the archives, that isn't exactly free. This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, right? I only prefer to use sources that anyone can access. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Then you're restricting yourself to using inferior sources in virtually all cases, because you're making it impossible to use newspaper articles (which usually require a subscription after a week), magazine articles, journal articles, and most importantly, books. Wikipedia makes information free by using free and non-free sources to write the best possible summary of a subject. Restricting ourselves to using freely available information as sources would be extremely damaging to our mission. Rather, we must find the best sources, regardless of their availability (within reason), and use them to create the best free summary of the topic possible. Getting NYT articles is certainly within reason in this case—any decent-sized library in the US should have them, and I'd imagine that many large libraries around the world have them as well. --Spangineeres (háblame) 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, ok. Well, I checked in my school library, and their newspaper records don't go back that far (~1970). Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Try your public library. They usually have microfilm archives of major newspapers going back into the 1800s. Kaldari 22:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
            • OK, I just finished adding information from an internet based newspaper archive, located here, so they are completely verifiable. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose, I feel that there is very little information on the impact of most of the landfalling storms in the article, they cannot really be said to be comprehensive. Whilst NOAA sources are canonical for information on the storm, press coverage is the primary sourcing for impact information. The 400 articles that Spangineer refers will be freely available at libraries; as will other articles from other major newspapers. It is unfortunate that they are not online, but that's life. While it is likely that a signifcant number of those articles will be redundant to NOAA's information, there undoubtedly will be some useful articles there. This article cannot really be said to represent Wikipedia's best work if an afternoon in a public library could turn up a significant amount of new information.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, with all the changes including to the lead I think this is enough now.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is not enough information on the impact of the landfalling storms. If more information is found at libraries, or online still then it may qualify for featured. I however would support an upgrade to A-class or Good article status, because it is only rated B-class at the moment. Hello32020 01:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm working on it. I found a newspaper database online so anyone can verify it, and I'm in the process of searching through the various newspapers to get some impact. I recently expanded storms 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll now Support due to the large amount of information added by hink. Deserves featured status now. Good job hink. Hello32020 00:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Object—1a. Someone going to fix the first sentence?
    • "... though one storm existed prior to the start of the season." (1) This tortured use of "existed" seems to be cropping up all too often on WP. What does it mean? Did it exist for all of eternity before the start of the season? I think that you mean "... though there was one storm before the start of the season." But please give us a more precise idea of the time—then it may qualify as encyclopedic language: "in the month before the start of the season"? (2) Most style guides say to use ALthough in formal style. (3) "prior to" is an ungainly Latinism for something simpler and native: "before". (4) The article is about hurricanes. Was this storm a hurricane?
    • "... on record, with 21 recorded ..."—awkward repetition.
    • "prior to 1960s (before technologies such as satellite monitoring were unavailable), historical cyclonic data may be inaccurate, and tropical storms or depressions that did not approach populated areas or shipping lanes, especially those of relatively short duration, may have remained undetected."—Here's the "prior to" thing again. And shouldn't it be the 1960s? Do you mean "available"? "And", not "or" before "depressions". Remove "relatively". "Remained" --> "may not have been detected".

Well, that's the first paragraph. The density of problems, and the inattention to detail that they demonstrate, suggest that the whole thing needs an hour or two by a proper copy-editor before we take it seriously as "professional" writing, as required. Tony 15:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Not enough information on each storm. I'd move it up to A-class and I would definitely support a GA nomination though, but this is one step too far IMO at this time. CrazyC83 22:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Now support, due to the new information found. CrazyC83 01:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - The new information that has been added needs a good copyediting. There are several grammatical problems, for example, "During the storm, there were at least 10 cases of looting, all of whom were executed." Kaldari 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. While this is indeed an excellently researched and presented article, I do not believe the first criterion is filled, "(a) Well written means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant." On the contrary, there are many instances of awkward wording, run-on sentences, and sentences that do not convey their meaning very well. I have some examples:

The season was consistently active -What does this mean?
For hurricane 2,the hurricane brushed southern Tobago and made landfall on northeastern Venezuela on June 28, becoming the earliest known tropical cyclone in the area. -earliest in the year, or the first ever recorded there?
For 3, The rainfall led to flooding and washouts -explain what a "washout" is, in lieu of discriptive wikilink.
For 10, Due to uncertainty in its position, tropical storm warnings were issued for portions of the southern Texas coastline. -this could use some further explanation, something like "Because forecasters were unsure what the impact would be," or something to that effect
For 11, a tropical storm was first seen to the east of the northern Lesser Antilles -this really isn't accurate, tropical storms aren't seen, they are deduced from ship reports and such (at least, they were back in the day)

These are just a few examples of course. I did a copyedit of the opening paragraphs, but the entire article could use one. In addition to these problems, the individual storm sections do not do a very good job of segwaying between the storm's timeline and its impact. If these issues are fixed, I will support. -Runningonbrains 22:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Just went over it with a fine-toothed comb. Any other issues? Titoxd(?!?) 06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Now better? Titoxd(?!?) 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast: your fine-toothed comb has left problems in just about every sentence of the lead:

    • "The 1933 Atlantic hurricane season is the second most active Atlantic hurricane season on record." "Was" would be more natural here.
    • "The season, which began on 1 June 1933 and lasted until 30 November 1933, is surpassed only by the 2005 season, which broke the record with its 28 storms." Flabby. Try: "The season, from 1 June 1933 to 30 November 1933, was surpassed only by the 2005 season, with its 28 storms." Of course 2005 broke the record if it was the only one to surpass 1933.
    • "The 1933 season saw tropical activity before its start, as one storm formed prior to the start of the conventionally delimited season; by the time the season ended, twenty-one tropical cyclones were detected that year." Very flabby, and illogical to boot. Try: "There was already significant tropical activity before the start of the 1933 season, and by the end of the season, 21 tropical cyclones had been detected." Note that "21" is used in the next paragraph: consistency is required.
    • The status of the next two sentences in this problematic first paragraph is illogical, both in relation to the previous material and to each other. "Because technologies such as satellite monitoring were not available until the 1960s, historical data on tropical cyclones from this period are often not reliable. Tropical cyclones that did not approach populated areas or shipping lanes, especially if they were relatively weak and of short duration, may have remained undetected." Try reversing the sentences, so that our poor readers first understand why you're making the point. Perhaps parentheses around the second sentence will do the trick—you decide. "Tropical cyclones that did not approach populated areas or shipping lanes, especially if they were relatively weak and of short duration, may have remained undetected. (Because technologies such as satellite monitoring were not available until the 1960s, historical data on tropical cyclones from this period are often not reliable.)
    • "Several of the storms had significant impact on land; seven storms killed more than 20 people. All but one of the 21 known storms affected land at some point during their lifetimes." The "land" point is repeated.

This is not good enough, and these problems are not buried further down, but right at the top, which you'd have paraded as one of our best on the home page .... Tony 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of that is based on preference. I personally believe that "... is the second-most active Atlantic..." is more natural, that saying there was "Already significant tropical activity before the start of the season" implies there was much more than there actually was, and that the order for "Because technologies... tropical cyclones that did not approach land" doesn't really matter in the context of the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That's right, it's based on my preference for logic and ease of reading. You can use "is" in the first sentence, but it conjures up the act of looking at records (in the present tense), rather than what actually happened in 1933. I still think that this historical topic should be introduced with "was". King Henry VII haS more conflict with Rome than any other English monarch ... hmmmm, looking at a grid showing this info, perhaps. Reword my suggestion for the second sentence—you know the topic—but it's no good at the moment. I don't comprehend your objection to my advice about reversing the order of the last two sentences in the first para. They certainly don't flow smoothly at the moment. Let me know when you fixed the lead, and I'll have another look. Then, we'll deal with the rest of the text. Tony 05:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I switched the last two sentences of the first paragraph. I left it as "is", because at the time, the season was the most active at the time, but it still is the second most active. I also fixed the redundant "land". I disagree with the location of where the total number of storms formed, so I changed it. Before it came after 2005's record number, so I put it in the first sentence. As such, I altered the sentence mentioning the preseason storm to give a different fact; a tropical cyclone was active for all but 13 days from the formation of the second storm to the dissipation of the 18th storm. It probably will need a bit of rewording, though the content is better now, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep going. My eyes should not be able to rall at random on problems such as:
In northeastern Venezuela, the hurricane destroyed many houses, businesses, and boats, while strong winds downed power lines. Many people were killed, and property damages totaled to over $386,000 (1933 USD).[1] In Cuba, the storm killed 22 people, while damages amounted to $4 million (1933 USD).[5] Finally, the hurricane caused severe damage and several deaths in northeastern Mexico.[1] In all, the hurricane killed 35 people.[6]
    • "While" is a problematic connector. Do you mean that at the time the power lines were downed, the hurrican destroyed many houses etc? No, I think "and" is what you mean. Same in the subsequent sentence. "Totaled to over" is ungrammatical (remove "to", but why not something simpler: "was more than". "Damage" is standard, unless you're a materials engineer (even then, it's awkward). "Finally"—Do you mean at the end of the storm, or the end of this paragraph? It makes the readers feel tired, so just get rid of it.
    • In the subsequent section, every sentence starts with "The storm" or an equivalent item. See if you can use semicolons to join them into one structure, removing the need to trot out the subject each time. Where is the metric equivalent for "nine inches"?

Can you find fresh eyes to go through the whole text? Tony 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UT