Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2006

Contents

Slate industry in Wales

Self-nomination. This is quite a new article, but I think it meets the Featured Article criteria. Rhion 13:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Commment This is actually quite good. But before I support a few things:
  1. there are few wikilinks, many items could be linked but aren't, I fixed a few for you and note you only link the first occurrence, not all of them and that you link to the article title, not a redirect.
  2. spell out abbreviations before you use them (ex: we don't what LNWR means), like "XYZ Airlines (XYZA)"...then you can use XYZA the next time. Rlevse 13:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, there were quite a lot of other terms which could be linked. I have added another 45 or so links. I think I have also removed all the duplicate links, but it's quite hard to remember what has been linked and what hasn't. Also fixed the abbreviations. Rhion 14:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Rlevse 02:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is a curious jump in the opening paragraph: the first sentence is about the Romans quarrying slate; then the rest of the paragraph is about the industrial age, although there's no explicit indication that it's now talking about a different era. Inserting "By the nineteenth century"/"By the industry's heyday" or some such phrase at the start of that second sentence might be an idea. The first image caption begins with the sentence Slates were split using a hammer and chisel., which I think also needs augmenting with a context-setting phrase like "for centuries", "up until 19XX", or whatever works best.
I would welcome a brief explanation of the importance of slate to Welsh industry in general (historically the biggest industry, I should think, in the north, but nonexistent in the south, where coal was king) in the lead section. talk to the HAM 18:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Done, though feel free to rephrase if you think it is needed. I have also added a bit about the economic importance of the industry in the main article. Rhion 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work. A definite support, hoping for this to be the latest in a spate of Welsh-interest FAs. talk to the HAM 21:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with recent improvements this article is in good shape. My one request: let's find an image of an actual slate waggon, rather than a model of one. I say this despite the fact that I uploaded the image and its of one of my models :-) Gwernol 20:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find something. I have one or two old photographs, but they don't show the wagons very clearly. Rhion 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Found one. Though it would be nice to have an image from the Ffestiniog Railway if anybody has one with no copyright problems. Rhion 14:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not yet written to "professional" standard. The opening is a good example of why thorough copy-editing is required throughout.
    • The opening para says nothing of when the facts pertained (e.g., the peak of production—was it in Roman times?). We shouldn't have to go to the reference to find out.
    • "Slate duty" means "government duty on slate", I guess, or is it the "royalty" paid to landlords? If so, use the same term. I was thinking of forced labour by the locals.
    • You use "narrow-guage railways" but "slate producing areas"—decide on a uniform application of hyphens. Americans wouldn't hyphenate these, but UK writers would tend to.
    • At the top, we learn that slate was used in constructing rooves. No other uses?
    • Needs more referencing.
    • "a big reduction in the number of men employed"—add "in the industry". Tony 06:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I have had the article copyedited again and put in the suggested changes, also added a few bits on usage of slate and other matters and added some more citations. Rhion 16:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good article, nice pictures, etc. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps

After a month of work on cleanup and citations, I feel this article is ready for FAC. I self-submit this article and welcome comments. While long, it is a major subject and currently has over 5 spin-off sections that are summarized here. --Mmx1 05:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Sometimes when referring to the Corps vice individuals, you say "Marines". Suggest using "Marine Corps" in those cases as most of the time you say "Marine Corps", should be consistent. Per the portal tag guideline (see template page and its talk page), portal tags go in See also. Rlevse 11:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Moved the portal, though the talk page indicates that it is possible, though not particularly liked, to have the portal at top when the portal and article have the same name.
  • Regarding the use of "Marines", my understanding of grammar is that the definite article "the" makes the phrase "the Marines" a reference to the organization, as under AP style "Marines" is a proper noun. For example, "the Spanish", "the English". My understanding is that it would be appropriate in describing actions of individuals operating on behalf of the Marine Corps; e.g. "The Marines developed amphibious warfare", however, its use in the intro "Only the Coast Guard is smaller than the Marines" should be replaced by "Marine Corps". The line here gets blurry and is a matter of taste. The term "the Corps" is also used interchangeably with "the Marine Corps" for brevity and word variety where apropos. E.g. ,in the intro (revised) "...smaller than the Marine Corps. The Corps is nonetheless larger than...." Thoughts? Have cleaned up the instances where "The Marines" or "Marine Corps" are preferable.--Mmx1 14:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have some criticism:
  • "The Corps is nonetheless larger than the entire armed forces of many major nations; for example, it is larger than the Israeli Defense Forces.[4][5]"
Since when is Israel a major nation with 7 million people? OK, they bristle with weapons, but this does not qualify.
  • "At its founding, the Marine Corps was composed of infantry serving aboard naval vessels, responsible for the security of the ship and its officers by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions and maintaining order aboard ship."
Defending ship and officers only? What about the sailors?
  • "The close integration of different Marine units stems from an organizational culture centered around the infantry. Every other Marine capability exists to support the infantry. Unlike most militaries, the Corps has been immune from visionaries proclaiming the ability of new weapons to win wars independently. For example, Marine Aviation has always been focused on close air support, and remained largely uninfluenced by airpower theorists who proclaimed that strategic bombing could singlehandedly win wars[10]."
If strategic bombing can win wars or not depends on what are the specific objectives. That it is considered no useful tool is another point. Proposed rephrasing:
Unlike many militaries (most militaries are in Africa and they laugh at such ideas), the Corps stayed conservative against theories proclaiming the ability of new weapons to win wars independently (this way the reader judges whether it is a good thing). For example, Marine Aviation has always been focused on close air support, and remained largely uninfluenced by airpower theories, proclaiming that strategic bombing could singlehandedly win wars[10](no personal attack on airpower theorists, just stating USMC rejects their ideas).
  • "This focus on the infantry is matched with the notion that "every Marine is a rifleman", emphasizing the infantry combat abilities of every Marine. All enlisted Marines receive training first and foremost as a rifleman; all officers receive training as infantry platoon commanders. [11] The value of this culture has been demonstrated many times throughout history. At Wake Island, when all the Marine aircraft were shot down, their pilots continued the fight as riflemen, leading supply clerks and cooks in a final defensive effort[12]."
Broadside against airforce and army? Could do with some rephrasing. State that the Marines emphasize their training as riflemen, even when occupied with other duties. (all soldiers know at which end to fire a gun)
  • "Though the U.S. Army now maintains light infantry units capable of rapid worldwide deployment, they cannot match the combined-arms integration of a MAGTF, nor the logistical train that the Navy provides[2]."
Does this refer to the ability of Army soldiers? suggest rephrasing:
The U.S Army now maintains light infantry units as well capable of rapid worldwide deployment, though they do not match the combined-arms integration of a MAGTF, nor have the logistical train that the Navy provides.

Wandalstouring 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I've nixed the "major" from "major nations". The intent of the "larger than IDF" is to convey that while it is a sub-service of the American military, it is still comparable to size to many national armed forces. Statement is intended to give perspective on relative sizes. Originally this stated the British Armed Forces, but this is no longer true (they have 10k more people); you could also state it's 30th in terms of manpower List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops, but that's borderline OR. Israel was chosen because it is fairly close in size and is similarly composed primarily of ground and air arms, and that it is fairly well-known (among those close to the Marine Corps in size). Given Israel's abnormally high per capita ratio of troops (23/1k versus 4/1k for the U.S.), I don't think it's population is relevant. Another commonly used phrase is "the Marine Corps operates the 5th largest airforce in the world".
Israel is no major nation (nation = population -> population very relevant, military power not) and is likely never to be one any time soon. Israel is a great military power (major nation no, major military power yes). Why don't you compare it to Spain with ~170,000 professionals, while Israel has a citizen army? or use "significant military powers" instead of major nations, there are some other oversized militaries. Wandalstouring 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it now states "The Corps is nonetheless larger than the entire armed forces of many nations; for example, it is larger than the Israeli Defense Forces" so "major" is a moot point. I would shun the comparison with Spain specifically because it's not as well-recognized as a modern military power; you typically try to compare to things that are well-known, not obscure. I'm having trouble even verifying its size (the Spanish Armed Forces lists 77k; the list of armies stats 150k. I'd accept "significant miliary powers" instead. --Mmx1 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Addressed with use of "entire militaries of many significant military powers." --Mmx1 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "ship and officers": A primary duty of marines in the age of sail (as general doctrine by Western countries) was to protect officers from mutiny; their responsibility was primarily to the ship and officers.
Ok, than make it perhaps clearer that protecting officers against mutiny (discipline, Navy sailors hired for short terms, like on merchant vessels, and were quite international) and the ship (ship + crew) against boarding were the objectives. Otherwise one really wonders about the US Navy sailors. Wandalstouring 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It's worded that way for conciseness; thinking about how to incorporate both brevity and your concerns. --Mmx1 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Protection against mutiny is a role of military police. Perhaps this can help. Wandalstouring 09:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Addressed. Now states "At its founding, the Marine Corps was composed of infantry serving aboard naval vessels, responsible for the security of the ship and her crew by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions, and defending the ship's officers from mutiny"--Mmx1 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Good rewording of the airpower/new theories para, I incorporated it.
  • "every Marine a rifleman" is a core meme of the Marine Corps. The Corps can do so because of its size and that it offloads much of its logistical requirements on the Navy. It's not necesarily "better", just "different".
Sure, from a Marine perspective this sounds OK. Real infantry combat units usually have a lot more gun practice than maintenance units and others, but as far as I know, all soldiers do have frequent training as riflemen. That is the point, could you research a bit what the training standards in other branches of the US military are (especially for soldiers who do not serve among the combat infantry)? This way we can simply compare shedules, numbers or memes, etc. Wandalstouring 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Will have to do some research on specific numbers, but one obvious indicator, as stated in the article, is that basic enlisted and officer training is unsegregated by specialty. In the Army, enlisted basic training separates combat arms from other specialties[1]. Prior to this year, so was Army officer training, though they are now instituting a common curriculum called BOLC II for all newly commissioned officers(emulating the Marine Corps's TBS), specifically to introduce the "every soldier a rifleman" meme.[2] It is, however, still 7 weeks as opposed to 6 months in the Marine Corps, before officers diverge to their occupational training. --Mmx1 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Bingo, numbers. Perhaps telling it with these numbers and the organization of training, things are more sound. Wandalstouring 09:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what the objection is. The "Capabilities" section is not a place to compare numbers on the length of training; nor really anywhere in this article. The institutional philosophy of "every Marine a rifleman" is well cited and documented; it manifests itself in various ways, most clearly in the manner of initial training; the specific length and nature of that training is discussed where appropriate. I am trying to resist the common urge to place the Marine Corps in a side by side comparison with the U.S. Army. As discussed later under "initial training", all officers regardless of specialty or source of commissioning receive common training as infantry platoon commanders; I will clarify the length there. I am aware that the Navy and Army both put professionals (Doctors, Lawyers, etc) through a sort of "military familiarization" course rather than boot; and the Navy specifically has a distinction between unrestricted line (capable of taking command) and restricted line officers (aforementioned specialists, scientists, etc); all Marine officers are considered to be officers of the line in Navy parlance, though I've been unable to source that statement. --Mmx1 18:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "Army light units". That statement was intended to acknowledge that recently, the Army has enacted units capable of rapid deployment, while at the same time distinguishing the capabilities of these units from Marine capabilities. Incorporated the rephrase.--Mmx1 16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed placement w.r.t. punctuation; any issues with location?
  • Support, a very nice article. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks like the objections above (some of which were shared by me) have been addressed. Stability may still be an issue, but it's generally on minor points and there haven't been any edit wars for quite a while. Well cited and comprehensive. Kafziel 15:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I read it through, and I've found that it meets the criteria of a Featured Article. Good job! --The monkeyhate 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I think it defenitly fits criteria for FA. Great job, cleaning it up! Hello32020 21:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Well written, well cited, well worth the time to read. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Auto peer review found quite a few things that can be fixed. The APR is on the articles talk page. Most are easy and should help make the article more readable. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Addressed on article talk page. --Mmx1 04:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Responses on talk page. My main problem is that the article is just too long. It's not intersting to the reader who isn't hardcore into the subject becuase it goes into too much detail. How many readers will make it to "famous marines" in its current state? Not many... -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The article is 82 Kb. I donot think this is too long. A FAC recently passed was over 100 Kb, most of which prose.--Yannismarou 15:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the article is huge, but it is quite necessary given the importance of the subject. I made the remark myself during the PR, but after going through the article for a second time, there is IMHO no way to shorten it further. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support but couldn't there have been an infobox for such an article... I think an infobox would serve well since it gives basic information and quick wikilinks to branching/similar articles. - Tutmosis 22:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
There's actually one being discussed on the talk page. Kafziel Talk 22:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. Looks good, hope you guys put it in. - Tutmosis 23:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Kengir uprising

Self nomination. This article has just been peer reviewed and I got some encouraging words and much constructive feedback. Two points made there still remain somewhat unresolved, but it's not clear to me if either will prohibit it from advancing. One was that there are red links at the bottom of the article (I intend to make stubs for them in the coming days) and the other was that majority of the article comes from one source (for whatever its worth, the one source is itself an aggregate of other sources and, as mentioned previously, its essentially one of the only major sources on this rather esoteric event). In whatever case, I hope to come out of this nomination with an substantially improved article, FA or otherwise Thanks in advance for your time, I really appreciate it. --Clngre 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Image:Arch gulag cover.jpg has compression artefacts, is a better quality version available? Image:Kazakhstan-Kengir camp.jpg looks like it is created from Image:Kazakhstan-CIA WFB Map.png, but some of the placenames on the old map are not completely erased, also it should not be in jpg. Could a better version be recreated? Thank you. WP 02:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, WP, thanks for the quick reply. In answer to you comments: I was under the impression that book covers had to be of a low quality so that they could, for whatever reason, better qualify as fair use? I have a different edition of the book and will scan it right now at a higher resolution and await your comments on that issue before putting it in the article. (It is a different cover from a different edition, though.) Secondly, I created that Kengir map and will go through it, clean it up, and save it as a png right now. (Would it be more desirable to leave in some of the major place names for context? I'm not sure on this one.) --Clngre 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the rules, fair use book covers should be low resolution (ie small), not low quality. So you can and should use a high quality picture. Thanks. WP 04:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, done! --Clngre 11:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
"The significance of the temporary freedom enjoyed by those prisoners, where for forty days several thousand prisoners possessed a freedom unknown not only within Gulag, but even within the whole country outside the camps walls – a veritable island of freedom, in a prison no less, within a sea of repression – was not lost on many." Very bad sentence here. It's obviously POV to call the Soviet Union a sea of repression. This just stood out to me as the most glaring issue. Everyking 06:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Another major problem is the lack of diversification of sources; there are only a couple and in fact Solzhenitsyn is the source for virtually everything. I suppose reliance on his account makes sense, but it would be nice if more sources could be used. There seems to be nothing representing a viewpoint other than that illustrated by the "sea of repression" quote above. Everyking 07:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello there. I agree that that sentence is bad, not only because of the POV of statement but just because it sounds so wonky. I'll edit it now to something better. Secondly: I too am made uncomfortable by the fact that Solzhenitsyn is the primary, and almost sole, source on this. This is a tricky issue: the uprising is, like I mentioned, quite obscure and even if you search Google or Google Print for it you don't find too much. There are other serious writings on it but they're all, to my knowledge, in Russian or Ukrainian. An earlier incarnation of the article cited a different book, in Ukrainian, and I've since tracked down the editor and left a note on his talk page asking for him to elaborate on that source but he isn't replying. One major source that I have to check out, though, is Anne Applebaum's book on the history of Gulag, which I hear talks about the uprising in some length. I can go to the library today or tomorrow for that. But I suppose the real question is if one primary source, however good and for however obscure a topic, is ever enough and if things, as a rule, have to be checked and balanced by another primary source. --Clngre 11:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok I added three more sources, one of them major. I personally think that this is a fair, appropriate number of sources for such topic, but if it isn't I'd gladly go back to the library and look for more. If the interest is just to have more corroboration of the information, I understand, but I think that for that, at this point, I'd have to enlist the help of a Russian or Ukrainian speaking wikipedian. I'm eager to bring this up to FA level, so please spare no criticism! The better the article is the better it is for all of us. --Clngre 13:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - So what now? This nomination has seem to stagnated and, while I certainly appreciate the very constructive feedback I've received so far, I'd like to resolve the status of this article as soon as possible because I won't be able to devote much time to it in the near future and fear that, that being the case, I might have to abandon the nomination attempt because I wrote virtually all of the article and will be unavailable. Is this pace common pace for a nomination? The past two articles of mine that I had put to the vote graduated relatively briskly, as I recall. I don't know what to make of this. ??? --Clngre 22:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - per nom --Ineffable3000 04:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Inline citations go straight after punctuation without a gap between the punctuation and the inline citation. I see many mistakes (gaps, citation before punctuation, typos, wrong punctuation). You must fix them.--Yannismarou 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, done. I hope I didn't miss any--Clngre 18:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit concerned about the number of sources. Just 5 of them. Aren't there any more available. Because of this, you have from me not the full but just a weak support. Full support.--Yannismarou 19:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand your concern and you're right to make that an issue, because it generally is. In this particular circumstance, though, I think five is not only sufficient but virtually the limit. I think the number of sources deemed sufficient for an article is somewhat relative to the breadth and quality of sources that are available for it. For this article, for instance, the topic is quite esoteric and has a limited amount of stuff written about it in English. The sources I did include are of pretty high quality, though. Applebaum included a large footnote for the chapter in which she discusses the uprising, stating the sources she used and found to exist. She sourced her account from interviews, the governments internal records, Russian and Ukrainian texts, and so on, so I find her account to be authoritative. --Clngre 22:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok!--Yannismarou 06:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support awesome read. Rama's arrow 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A very good article, but I think it has way too many quotes for an encyclopedic entry. Quotes should be minimized as much as possible. Resolve this problem and I'll gladly support.UberCryxic 17:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean and that's a valid point. Some of the quotes have a lot of merit and should be kept I believe (the transcript of their propaganda, for instance), some are just usefully illustrative, and some are, like you said, superfluous. I used my best judgement and removed a bunch of quotes in the last category, but let me know if you still believe it could use some more pruning, as I'd be happy to do it. Thanks for your kind words as well. --Clngre 00:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Very Small Object pending fixing of the refs. For example there are five references for page 501 from Applebaum's book. They could all be merged into the one. Just to tidy it up. Good read though. Todd661 23:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I never thought of that, I just went through and paired up all of the doubles. Feel free to let me know if I missed. Thank you --Clngre 00:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I am always right :) 9 & 10 are the same. Support Todd661 02:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
. Ok, I got them. Good eye! --Clngre 04:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ladakh

The article is comprehensive, informative and stable. It seems to meet all FA criteria. A good amount of literature and images are available with me to hopefully take care of any shortcomings found out during this candidature. deeptrivia (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: On first glance, you have way too many images. Consider taking about half or more of them out. --Dark Kubrick 20:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've commented out a whole bunch of images. Reading the article should be more comfortable now. deeptrivia (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not completely sold on that the fact that you have at least 1 image in every section, and in most at least two. But it's better. (What does "commented out" mean?) --Dark Kubrick 21:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it means that instead of deleting the text related to the image, I've made it into comments for now, so that it would be easier to put it back if it is desired to remove some other images instead of the ones I removed. Please feel free to remove other images you feel are unneccesary. deeptrivia (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to remove any images myself, as I have not read the article, and I don't want to mess it up by removing some image that vitally illustrates the text. I'm sure other users will give you better suggestions. -Dark Kubrick 22:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think you have a few too many images. I would think you would hardly need two pictures per section. Maybe take out one of the pics in Demographics and Flora and Fauna? -Dark Kubrick 19:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The demographics image was to fill the odd looking empty space besides the table. Anyway, the images are out now. deeptrivia (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Much better. I think the images are fixed for now, although others might object to it. Good job. --Dark Kubrick 21:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • SupportObject pending fixing these: the refs in the body (footnote numbers) should be immediately after the punctuation-not before it and not with a space in front of it and if more than one in a row, all adjacent with no spaces. I'd prefer to see the refs in cite php format, at a minimum they should be consistently formatted. For instance, for the web refs, some currently display the URL and some the title. Other than this, I think it's pretty good. Rlevse 00:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have fixed the concern raised regarding references positioning. However, I have similar concerns. The references beyond the ref#24 are incomplete. Also, Wikipedia/Wikitravel articles aren't considered as references. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • All references problems are now sorted out, including completeness. Material cited from other wiki pages has either been removed, or an alternate source is cited. deeptrivia (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made further changes in the number and size of images. Does that look okay now? deeptrivia (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you make the web ones cite php? Did some work to help on the refs for you. Rlevse 18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what exactly that means, and how it's done. Can you do it once, and I'll follow the example with the rest? Thanks, deeptrivia (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
All references have been converted to cite php. deeptrivia (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Several problems exist:/s>
  1. Trim the size from 47kb to 40kb.
  2. History The partition of India did not automatically give Ladakh to India. Only after Kashmir's accession did the area come to India, and that was after Pakistan's invasion. What effect has the Kashmir militancy had on Ladakh? What is the present status of the boundary dispute with China?
  3. The "Government and politics," "Economy," "Transport" sections should follow after "Flora and fauna." "Culture" should be the last, preceeded by "Demographics."
  4. "See also" section is necessary - along with Ladakh-related topics, place the GeoSouthAsia template there.
  5. "Notes and references" is wrong title - just "References" if the "Further reading" books have not served as references themselves.
  6. Copyediting please thoroughly check for spelling and grammar problems. Rama's arrow 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. I'd like to know how the Shia Muslim and Buddhist populations get along in political, economic and communal issues. I'd like to see more data on the Shia Muslim population. Rama's arrow 18:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment At this date, the article only has about 4,900 words, which is well below the maximum number suggested by Wikipedia:Article size of 6,000-10,000. The use of tables and in-line php cites makes the old rule-of-thumb of looking at storage size misleading and thus of limited use.--Paul 04:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm looking into what I can do. Would probably need to split the Notes and references section into a Notes section and a References section to retain accuracy of title. Is there any other way? deeptrivia (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Objection to size of 47K is not a legit objection.Rlevse 12:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Size issues are part of FA criteria - I believe that the size can and should be reduced, although not by much. Rama's arrow 16:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
No they're not. The word size doesn't even appear on the FAC criteria page. It only says "appropriate length" and how do you justify the arbitary size of 40K? Furthermore, how do you explain FAs on games over 100K? Rlevse 18:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"Appropriate length" is all that needs to be said. 40kb is a good figure to aim for - obviously 43kb will not be a problem. I wrote a 69kb FA myself, but its tolerable only becoz the prose is ~ 40kb, and as long as there is valuable information that must not be removed. This article needs trimming - the more distant an article's size is from the 50kb-mark, the better. If there are 100kb FAs on "games," there had better be a good reason for it, for most people will not bother to read the article in completion. It is not advisable for any article to exceed 80kb - most will be a significant load on people's internet connections. Rama's arrow 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Often efforts to reduce size help editors slash repetitive info and long-winded sentences. This is a good way to copyedit an article. Rama's arrow 21:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Then you'd better talk to Raul654 because there are several FAs way over the length you consider appropriate, see Final Fantasy VII (92K) for one. Your decision on a 40K limit for this article is capricious and since you don't make the final decision, it's only your opinion.Rlevse 23:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
When did I claim to express anything but an opinion? There is nothing "capricious" about my comments - learn WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL before you make future comments. Rama's arrow 23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Update
  • Trim the size from 47kb to 40kb.
A significant part of effort on this article since early June have gone into condensing the article, and several sections now are much shorter than previous versions. In any case, after your suggestion, I reduced the size further to 45kb, but the single act of replacing direct referencing with the cite php templates throughout the article took the size back to 50kb (I brought it down to 49kb again by removing some information.) In other words, I think a bulk of memory size in articles written in today's style goes into latent text that is invisible to the reader. (If I have 30 different references in an article, and I'm using a cite template with 10 fields, I all of a sudden add 300 extra words (fieldnames) to my article that are invisible to the reader.) The total visible text in this article is 38kb (including references.) I agree it still puts a load on internet connections, but well, a single decent image is going to be around 500 kb by itself.)
History The partition of India did not automatically give Ladakh to India. Only after Kashmir's accession did the area come to India, and that was after Pakistan's invasion. What effect has the Kashmir militancy had on Ladakh? What is the present status of the boundary dispute with China?
I've now added some information regarding this in the history section.
The "Government and politics," "Economy," "Transport" sections should follow after "Flora and fauna." "Culture" should be the last, preceeded by "Demographics."
I've made this change.
"See also" section is necessary - along with Ladakh-related topics, place the GeoSouthAsia template there.
Added the section.
"Notes and references" is wrong title - just "References" if the "Further reading" books have not served as references themselves.
Split the section to have a separate notes section.
Copyediting please thoroughly check for spelling and grammar problems. Rama's

arrow 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrected whatever I could spot.
I'd like to know how the Shia Muslim and Buddhist populations get along in political, economic and communal issues. I'd like to see more data on the Shia Muslim population. Rama's arrow 18:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added some more information regarding this in the Government and Politics section. deeptrivia (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I would not like to object for that, but it should be swiftly fixed: In the notes it is nice you've used the Greek alphabet, but the order is absolutely wrong! First, the symbol for 6 (sixth note) is not σ but either (στ) or stigma (Ϛ). Then, η is before κ. Μ is absolutely wrong! After ι is ια not ιβ! Is there any reason for this mess that I miss? If you have no objection, I can edit and fix it for you. But I donot want to spoil your work and undo something that it seems to me wrong, but it has a reasoning I donot understand.--Yannismarou 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I fixed the notes. I think it's OK now. But just check for sure. So, I support.--Yannismarou 07:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the heated exchange with Rlevse has given the impression that I am a "sizist" or something - I absolutely am not. I often find it frustrating to contain size in FAs myself, but one has to make an effort to assure that the article is of an acceptable length - thru this way it benefits by helping extricate repetitive info and copyediting, making the article a simpler, better read. However, you (Deeptrivia) did a fine job in addressing all other points. Rama's arrow 12:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Mr Tan 13:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment footnotes are not proper, as Rlevse has pointed out. Still there are instances where there is a space between the punctuation mark and the footnote number.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Have done some copyedits to properly place footnotes. Also some copyedit for formatting units, ndash, wikilinking etc. Please see if I missed something.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: Needs a copyedit. Many examples of choppy prose such as: The council has put forth ... and Baltistan (ends as an anticlimax). Proper nouns need to be wikified and stubbed: eg Phugthal, Sani, Stongdey, Shyok Valley, Sankoo, Salt Valley. Fill all such red to make it look neater. said to be the highest fields in the world. -- weasel terms, needs a reference. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've done some edits fixing some references, making a bunch of more stubs, providing references, fixing some language, etc. About the weasel words used for describing Karzok fields to be the highest, I have at least three reputable references on that, but all use weasel words "said to be", "considered", etc. I guess we'll have to live with this language in this instance. However, according to Wikipedia guidelines on weasel words, providing sources, as I've done should be considered an improvement. If there are other problems like these, let me know. deeptrivia (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Recent history seems to be absent 1947-2006. Also what could be added is the rise in narcotic trading in the area. I've also embedded comments in the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Recent history is covered in the politics section. I have now, however, added a summary of it to the history section. I've also taken care of the inline comments. About narcotics trading, I couldn't find much information. Is this a significant issue? I've read about the Karakoram highway between Pakistani and Chinese administered territories being used for narcotics smuggling between those to countries, but nothing about Ladakh. It would be very interesting if it's significant, since in the present situation (with Tibet borders closed), Ladakh doesn't lie on any trade routes, and the army closely watches the only two highways to access the region. deeptrivia (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Are there any other suggestions/objections? deeptrivia (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Sex ratio should be defined, and linked to; the article appears to be using men per thousand women, but should say so - and if it is not, it must say so, to avoid misleading the reader. Septentrionalis 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It's the usual females per 1000 males definition. I've linked sex ratio and provided a note. deeptrivia (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Good enough to be a Featured Article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I was pleased with the first two paragraphs of the lead, but then I found problems.
    • "borders into Tibet and Central Asia in the 1960,"—"with", not "into", which indicates motion. "1960s".
    • " Since 1974, the Indian Government encouraged tourism in Ladakh."—"has encouraged".
    • "The largest town of Ladakh"—nope: "in".
    • "A majority of Ladakhis are Tibetan Buddhist, with most of the rest being Shia Muslims." Pluralise "Buddhist". "With" is a poor link-word. Try "... are Tibetan Buddhists; most other Lahakhis are Shia Muslims". Easier to read?
    • "in recent times"—code for just "recently". But redundancy here is overtaken by the need for precise info, not vague chronological notions. Since when? Later in the sentence, "its" is ambiguous.

The article needs copy-editing before it can be called "professional". Tony 06:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit. [3] Is it better or worse? — Ravikiran 20:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ravikiran: thanks for implementing my suggestions above, and for making some nice improvements. But more of that is required throughout. If this is to be a FA, I shouldn't be able to easily spot things such as:
    • "In early 17th century" (the). Also, consider inserting a comma after a sentence-initial preposition or adverbial phrase; it's not mandatory, though.
    • "eventually making Ladakh a country inhabited by a mixed population, predominantly Tibetan". This is unidiomatic, or is it a matter of logic - "making" is too forceful and/or implies a direct agent, rather than a characteristic that just arose because of the movement of people. "Thus, the population of Ladakh became ethnically and linguistically mixed, predominantly by Tibetans." or something like that? And the next sentence:
    • "The dynasty spearheaded the "Second Spreading of Buddhism" importing religious ideas from north-west India, particularly from Kashmir". "Spearheaded" is kind of modern and extreme, so maybe just "prompted"? Comma before "importing" almost mandatory. "Northwest". Remove the second "from".
    • "During Islamic conquest of South Asia around the 13th century". No, "the Islamic ...". Can you be more definite about when this occurred?

Well, that's from one small section, and it seems that just about every sentence needs massaging. It's such an interesting topic, so where are your colleagues? (There are several good Indian copy-editors hiding on WP.) Setting several of them on it might do the trick.


Ravikiran's comments

I am copyediting the article section by section. As and when I find sentences that need someone who knows about the topic, I will add them here with my doubts. — Ravikiran 07:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

History

  • "Neolithic rock carvings have been found in many parts of Ladakh, showing that the area has been inhabited from early times." — "Early times" is vague. Can it be replaced by at least the millennium since when it has been inhabited?
  • "Some descriptions are also available in the accounts of the 7th century Buddhist traveler Hsuan-tsang". — The "also" is redundant as no other description has been mentioned. But more importantly, some descriptions of what? The advent of Buddhism or the practice of Buddhism?
  • "In the 8th century, Ladakh was involved in the clash between Tibetan expansion pressing from the East and Chinese influence exerted from Central Asia through the passes." — and then what happened? Did it come under Tibetan rule? The next sentance suggests that. But adding a line to that effect wouldn't hurt.
  • "Ladakh sided with Bhutan in its dispute with Tibet,..." — When? The context suggests that it was in the mid-seventeenth century.

Government

  • "The Ladakh Union Territory Front (LUTF) still demands union territory status for Ladakh. However, this is opposed by the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, which supports trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir. According to the Kargil Autonomous Hill Development Council, LUTF's demand for UT status is confined to Leh district only. The council has instead put forth the demand for a Greater Ladakh which would include Gilgit, Skardu and Baltistan." — This is confusing. Doesn't "trifurcation" also mean that they do want UT status for Ladakh after all? How did the "Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council" in the second sentence change to "Kargil Autonomous Hill Development Council" in the third? Is Greater Ladakh also supposed to be a UT?

Culture

  • "...the elders of a family, as soon as the eldest son has reached years of discretion". What exactly is "years of discretion"?

I am trying to fix the above problems. Having read the sources in more detail, I don't think I'll be very effective in finding passages in this article that are unclear to someone who's been presented just this article, but I could (hopefully) easily add information to clarify any ambiguities. So with more fresh minds looking into the article, and pointing out problems, we should be able to improve the prose. deeptrivia (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made changes to clarify the above ambiguities. I'm sure there must be some more. We'll probably need more reviewers to point them out. I'll be willing to fix them up. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to tell you that I was fascinated by the place when I read the article, and that is what prompted me to go copyedit it. Support for FA. — Ravikiran 18:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Its a great effort. Took me a while to finish reading the article -- Lost(talk) 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support All the constructive comments and work have made this FA material. Very interesting too. Sumoeagle179 12:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Very interesting article about an interesting place. Kudos. Mark my vote as support when on going copy-edits are finished.--Blacksun 15:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
We're not voting here, and it's not a numbers game; it's a process of gaining consensus. Tony 09:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
And my opinion is that the article is FA material once the copyedit suggestions made by you are taken care of. Whats your point? --Blacksun 00:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
My point is that you referred to "voting"; that would be appropriate at RfA, where it is a vote, but not here. Tony 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Try to take things in context once in a while. I can write you a written apology if you like for using the word "vote" by mistake. Sometimes, I am busy and make slips like that. Anyways, enough time wasted on this line of thought. --Blacksun 20:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • In the first paragraph "Lahoul" is mentioned first, then "Lahul" is mentioned. Are these same? Jankit 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Several transliterations are common. Now, I've changed both of them to "Lahaul", because that's the spelling on the district's official website, http://hplahaulspiti.nic.in/ . deeptrivia (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's quite good, nice work, but I can't support until a few relatively easy to fix things are taken care of. One is that the languages spoken and understood are not given enough coverage relative to some other topics which are probably given more coverage than their importance dictates. And the demographics section seems like the more fitting place to cover the languages. It should be one solid paragraph telling the approximate numbers or percentages of speakers of the main languages and what scripts are in most common use. What language are government services conducted in, most media, etc. Second is there are very short orphan paragraphs throughout which either need to be merged with related material, expanded, or removed. It looks like you've got some great sources, and everything I can think an article like this would need is there. Perhaps the geography section could be renamed geography and climate to reflect it's contents. - Taxman Talk 17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to fix all of this tonight. deeptrivia (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I have reorganized some paragraphs to have some uniformity in their size, and have added some more content about languages and scripts. I have also moved it to the demographics section. I am confident that no information about percentage of speakers of languages in Ladakh exists. Last census conducted after 20 years does not provide such information, nor do any of the books I have on the subject. It would have been possible to estimate this if we at least knew the population of various nomadic groups and their dialects, but this information has never been collected either. Ladakhi is not even an official language. Climate is a subject matter of geography, just like geology, so it has not been explicitly mentioned. deeptrivia (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Much better. I see your point on the geography, and if there simply is no information on the language distribution so be it. I was just about ready to support when I realized there is nothing on communications, media, or other technology infrastructure in the article. Maybe it's not widespread enough that it couldn't be covered in a small section, but it needs something. How is phone service, access to computers, etc. Sorry I just noticed this. - Taxman Talk 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I know some things about internet, telephones, etc. from personal experience, but I don't have any sources yet. There are no contentious facts that can be disputed, though. Airtel is the sole provider of mobile phones, and the service is available only in Leh. Internet too, is available only in Leh, and is very expensive compared to rest of India (Rs. 2/min). Cable television is available and popular in Leh. As far as villages are concerned, most of them have no modern communications facilities. Even Lamayuru, very popular with tourists for its monastery doesn't have a single telephone. There are all these bits I know, but haven't found any sources to cite yet. Will be looking for them.deeptrivia (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Max Weber

My first Featured Article from November'04 was recently defeatured for insufficient inline citation, a defeaturing critieria I strongly support. I have finally found time to go over ol' Max and add inline citations to the article; this with some other minor changes (expanded lead, removed unreferenced essayish sections that others added to the article (now split and mentioned in see also)) make it FA-worthy again, IMHO. Your comments, as always, much appreciated. Some links of interest: Old nomination from Nov'04; unsuccesfull FARC from Apr'05 (addressed then); Ancient PR.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. Don't use italics for quotes, per the MoS
  2. The article needs a copyedit and there are several single sentence paragraphs floating around on their own
  3. The caption on the 1917 image is a bit dull, do you know what he was doing?
  4. I'm not opposing on this point, but according to WP:CITE books refs should probably provide page numbers where the information is paraphrased from the source; it would make ref 2 a whole lot easier to navaigate should someone want to follow up from this article. For long sections all form the same source (like much of the Sociology of religion) its probably easiest and less dispuptive to the flow of the text just stick the ref at the begining or end of each section with the page range (unless it's a direct quote).
--Peta 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Addressed 1st and 2nd. For 3rd, I am afraid I don't know much about the photo, caption comes from the sourced page and that's all it sais, IIRC. As for 4th, I thought about adding page numbers, but honestly, I found it too time consuming (separate ref for almost all of those 30+ refs, I did it once for Józef Piłsudski and I am not doing it again for any article until we get a better WYSIWIG references editor which we talked about at Wikimania); and besides I didn't have access to the edition I used in Poland, and Google Print had two editions (different pages...) - I couldn't decide which one I should use :). On a sidenote, page referencing is so 'old tech' - I am really looking towards some kind of 'semantic book referencing' future :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, support --Peta 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object for now, although it's reeeeeeally close. Enthusiastically support! Referencing is now top-notch. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support. Meets, and in some cases exceeds, all important criteria. Most of the minor objections have been addressed. Petty quibbles should not be allowed to hold back such a fine article on one of the fathers of modern social sciences. Another great job, Prokonsul!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 04:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - Excellent article. Well cited, seems to meet all FA criteria. Kaldari 01:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per Kalderi. Rama's arrow 03:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Wow, great article! Sources are particularly impressive and it's very well-written. -Bluedog423Talk 19:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice comprehensive article. Well-sourced, appropriate length. --Delta Tango 11:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen

Is currently a GA, was last nominated for FA in September 2005 (see archive). Much improved since, and ever topical with the presumed advent of the hydrogen economy. Looking forward to your suggestions. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support: until that "citation needed" tag is replaced with a citation. It's a pretty clear scientific article but should definetely be checked over by other experts in the field. For some reason though I feel some information might be missing from the article. The only thing that caught me is the 1 or 2 sentences where water is mentioned. Can you add why/how oxygen and hydrogen merge together to become water? Also were there any discoveries by the space programs where an abundant amount of hydrogen was found on a planet? if there was might be a good thing to mention but I'm just throwing out ideas here. - Tutmosis 15:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned up two out of three, and corrected a misstatement (since there is no such thing as pure orthohydrogen, any physical property measurements compare the para to the normal form). I'm not sure the remaining unsourced statement (on the solubility of hydrogen vs oxygen) really needs to stay, since the next sentence is about metal adsorption. Regarding your first question, molecular hydrogen and molecular oxygen don't just "merge" to make water, although hydrogen can undergo combustion in the presence of oxygen to form water and heat. Opabinia regalis 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh I'm ashamed to say I have no idea how two elements become a compound. I hope I got that right, Anyway thanks for replying. - Tutmosis 23:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It's just that "merge" is so much gentler a word that what actually happens. This reaction is used in rocket fuel :) Opabinia regalis 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support: Pending citation to the solubility of hydrogen in water. Otherwise a generally great article -- Nbound 03:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Solubility claim has been replaced with new, sourced information more relevant to the matter of hydrogen storage and metal adsorption. Opabinia regalis 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment "Adsorption" is the correct term, properly spelt and all? Non-science major that I am, I thought at first glance it was a mangling of "absorption". The very thought of such a crucial term being mispelt in a FA was...unpleasant. --Fsotrain09 04:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, adsorption is the right term in this context. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Per above fix i fully back this article as an FA (vote changed) -- Nbound
  • CommentOppose: For general tidyness, I'd like to see a reference for the synthesis of the 4H - 7H isotopes. The "Role in history of quantum theory" section may need a bit of 'dumbing down' without losing content. Further elaboration of the catalysed orto-para interconversion may be useful (i.e. why is it done? and please cite a source there too). The cause of the Hindenburg explosion in the Combustion section should also cite its source (and thanks for avoiding the rocket fuel meme there!); the last paragraph in that section (rxns with halides) seems a tad out of place and should probably be relocated. The "compounds" section would benefit from general citations to a standard organic chem textbook. My greatest complaint, however, is the Applications section, which should be greatly expanded and provide actual examples of use (preferably in industrial processes). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I neglected to post after I did this, but the isotopes, compounds, and Hindenburg sections now have more thorough references. Also, Samsara has rewritten the applications section. Opabinia regalis 21:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Overall, it is quite good. I would prefer that the Applications section be converted to prose from a list, but I don't feel terribly strongly on that. Maybe one or two more photos would jazz up the article too - maybe the Sun or a Hydrogen bomb or a plant where H2 is produced or something.--DaveOinSF 18:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: great article, covers every detail of the subject (and there are many!).igordebraga ≠ 22:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Generally good article, but the bulleted list in Applications lets it down, particularly the repetition of "H2 is used..." If this is converted to prose I'll have no qualms about supporting. Oldelpaso 18:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support good article. Rama's arrow 00:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support/Comment — Overall it's a good article. I just saw three items that I think need to be addressed:
    • The word "emmissivity" should be changed to "emissivity".
    • These sentences have some redundancy: "Thus hydrogen is both ubiquitous in the universe and difficult to produce in concentrated form on Earth. Although H atoms and H2 molecules are abundant in interstellar space, they are difficult to generate, concentrate, and purify on Earth."
    • More importantly there appears to be no mention of 21-cm line radiation, which is very important in radio astronomy.
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I've addressed the first two points. I don't know anything about the third, so feel free to add something about it! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. It looks like the last is already covered adequately by the 21 centimeter radiation and Hydrogen line articles. I added a link to the "See also" section, so that should cover it. — RJH (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Boone

Self-nomination. Listed as a "good article", assessed as "A-class" by WP:MILHIST, has gone through a couple of peer reviews. The article is based on the major 20th century biographies, with points of disagreement between historians noted in the text or footnotes, especially regarding the issue of history versus folklore, a central concern in Boone historiography. All comments are welcome; hope you enjoy reading it. —Kevin 16:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The dates in the headings might be neater placed inside parentheses, I think. Kirill Lokshin 16:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    Done. Still perhaps a little busy for headings. The dates were a late addition, and maybe an unnecessary one. Should they go away entirely? —Kevin 17:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    I actually like them, as they make it easier to determine what section would contain information about some given period (the section titles not always being obvious about the exact division); but it's a minor point either way. In any case, support from me, as this is an excellent article regardless. Kirill Lokshin 17:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --plange 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Great article! Kyriakos 20:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a nice article. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 01:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.--Yannismarou 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wow. Sandy 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Mild Object Object Support now. See below. Not that I'm specifically objecting to the following comments, but I do think they need to be cited to something:
Boone remains an iconic, if imperfectly remembered, figure in American history. He was a legend in his own lifetime, especially after an account of his adventures was published in 1784, making him famous in America and Europe. After his death, he was frequently the subject of tall tales and works of fiction. His adventures—real and legendary—were influential in creating the archetypal Western hero of American folklore. In popular culture, he is remembered as one of the foremost early American frontiersmen, even though the mythology often overshadows the historical details of his life.
Otherwise it just sounds like POV. Again, I agree with the above description of Boone, but the article is supposed to be written from a global perspective, and I'm sure a lot of people around the world have no clue who Daniel Boone is. Take care of that and I'll glady support.UberCryxic 18:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Those statements are expanded in detail (with citations) in the article itself--the paragraph is just an overview of the "cultural legacy" section. However, if I understand your point correctly, the "in popular culture" phrase seems too broad, and should instead say "in American popular culture", since that's where Boone is primarily remembered. Will that do the trick? —Kevin 18:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I understand that you may cite specific information like that later, but you still need to cite it here. I don't want you to rephrase it because, again, the information is correct and verifiable. I just want you to cite it to something. I'm sure this won't be difficult.UberCryxic 00:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry let me clarify my point. A person who has never heard of Daniel Boone needs credible evidence to believe that he actually is an important figure in American culture.UberCryxic 00:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've added a footnote to address this concern. —Kevin 18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Rama's arrow 00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This article literally uses only one source. Is there no modern authority other than Faragher? While this appears to be an excellent article, I just worry that being limited to one source effectively means the article just represents the viewpoint of one academic. If this really is the widely-accepted, definitive biography... and no one seriously disputes Faragher's interpretation, I guess that's okay. But still, it would be nice if it at least used multiple sources. Hopefully this doesn't sound too spurious... if FAs represent our best work, certainly using multiple sources is usually going to be a part of that. I'm not even saying "cite a second source or I'll oppose!" - I'm just curious as to why only one source is used right now. --W.marsh 01:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a very good point. In that same line of argument, the References section has several books listed, but only Farragher's work is cited. If you put books there, they should probably have citations under the Notes section. But generally your point is valid marsh; there should probably be more than just one work cited. I'm objecting until this is rectified.UberCryxic 03:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Read the notes again. Michael Lofaro's 2003 book is cited in the notes 6 or 7 times; John Bakeless's book about 7 times, a couple other books are cited once or twice. Bakeless and Lofaro are even mentioned in the text of the article. Every book listed under references is cited at least once in the notes. The claim that "This article literally uses only one source" is literally incorrect. —Kevin 07:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. --W.marsh 15:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Would be full support, but I think the External links should be cleaned up. Do we really need four biographical sketches? The wilderness trail named after him? And were any of those primary sources used to source this article? Likewise, I dislike "Further reading" sections in articles; if the book wasn't used as a source, remove it from the list. But, again, not enough for me to oppose. — BrianSmithson 08:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for reminding me. I meant to clean up the "External links" section, which was mostly stuff added before I rewrote the article, but never did. I've cleaned it up now. I disagree with you about "Further reading" sections, however. Listing additional reading material is standard in scholarly publications like the Dictionary of American Biography or American National Biography. The purpose, of course, is to point interested readers to closely related material which goes beyond the scope of the article. The trick is that the section must not be simply a list of books, but instead a judicious selection of works respected by scholars. The books I've listed are frequently cited by scholars; any aspiring Boone scholar will want to consult them. —Kevin 14:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly why we should either consult them or ditch them. — BrianSmithson 15:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support after clearing up (admittedly, my own) confusion about the sourcing... this seems to be a model FA. --W.marsh 22:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, I have filled in a redlink from this article by creating Squire Boone, who was of moderate regional interest to me anyway. Of course... it's light years away from the quality of this article on his brother. --W.marsh 22:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Good work! Squire would be more famous if not for standing in the shadow of his brother. —Kevin 23:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very extensive and will do Wikipedia proud. I think the images should be larger sized, but that's a quibble. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ziaur Rahman

I submit this article to your attention. It has been developed with diverse and thorough references and undergoing copyediting. One potential issue is that all pictures are fairuse, but rationales have been provided for all of them - no free substitutes were available to illustrate Zia's life. If there are problems persisting in this article, please lemme know so we can fix them pronto. Rama's arrow 12:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • CommentSupport. The article is well-written, well-citated and well-structured. But I have some concerns:
  • Inline citations problems:
  • "However, these measures isolated and embittered many ethnic and religious minorities in Bangladesh, laying in the opinion of many historians the foundations of future communal and ethnic conflicts." Which historians? Citation(s) needed.
  • "Zia is intensely criticised by many historians and the supporters of the Awami League for rehabilitating the assassins of Mujibur Rahman." Again! Who, when and where? Telling all the time "many historians" is not a nice thing; these are weasel words.
  • "Jurists regard this as a gross obstruction of justice and legitimisation of political murder, to which Zia himself fell victim." What is your source? Haque, Azizul? Citate!
  • I don't think the way references are exposed is the right one. You mention articles (I found them in JSTOR), but not with their own title and not in the right way-you don't mention year of publication, name of the Journal, number of issue (if available) and the full title of the article. These are online sources, but they are also printed articles. The same with the books you mention (year, publisher, full-name, ISBN (if there is one)). And also, since these are printed articles and books, you nust also mention specific pages. This is a rule for FAs.--Yannismarou 15:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I had copied the citation format from some other articles, which asked only for certain info. I will fix these issues immediately. Thanks, Rama's arrow 15:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I've addressed your points. Rama's arrow 21:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. It just needs a few things. I added a few {{cn}} tags that need citations, and those will need to be explicitly sourced. For reference formatting, you may want to look through Wikipedia:Citation templates. The images are fine, and the captions are so-so, but should be expanded to complete sentences, and should be more informative (Try "As president, Zia moved Bangladesh further from secularism.", for instance, instead of "Zia as president".) Other comments: the prose is adequate for a fa, and the intro para is just what an intro para should be. You might want to put a quote box around his speech/declaration, although only if you think it looks better that way. Great job! – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I've addressed your points. Rama's arrow 21:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you're working on it, and it's definitely improving, but. . . Your reference #3 does reference the fact that he married Khaleda Zia when she was 15, but it isn't a source for the unsupported statement "as customary at the time, marriages were arranged by parents for their children at a very early age". This could be seen as defending Rahman's marriage to a 15-year-old girl, so it needs some support. If you can't find a source to back up the statement that such marriages were common, then that clause ought to go. Similarly, your reference #20 doesn't support the statement "Zia suppressed numerous coup attempts, and some historians claim that thousands of military officers were arrested or executed in numerous purges staged between 1977 and 1981". Which historians? I haven't seen a reference that Zia supressed any coup attempts. Keep up the good work! – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the marriage age needs any explanation at all. This is not an exception of social practices in South Asia until the 1980s ... I think it might be easier to just remove the clause. --Ragib 14:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've addressed Quadell's fresh points. Yes I was only trying to explain child marriage, but I understand your concern and I've taken it out. For #20, I've modified the statement as per the citation. Zia "did" suppress the coup attempt mentioned during the Japanese Red Army hijacking controversy - the reference is the US Country Studies article. Rama's arrow 14:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - well written article. I think its fit to be an FA, pending resolution of a few facts as cited by Yannis above. But I'm sure Rama's arrow can fix that pretty soon. --Ragib 19:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Comments- very well written. some comments before i support.
  1. Assasination - two spellings for Major Monjur/Manzur appears.
  1. Islam and nationalism - absolute trust and faith in Almighty Allah was added: would it be a better descrition to say that phrase replaced secularism?
  2. That section also should have a succint statement saying that Zia espused "Bangladeshi" nationalism instead of the "Bengali" nationalism preached by Al (perhaps best expressed in their respective solgans "Bangladesh Zindabad" and "Joy Bangla").
  3. though a contentious issue in Bangladesh, it should probably be mentioned that his family was under house arrest during the liberation war.

--ppm 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your points have been addressed. Rama's arrow 20:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per above. One minor point - the word BNP is introduced without explanation of what this refers to--ppm 22:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed this. --Ragib 00:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments, quotes should not be in italics as per the MoS. The fair use rationales are uncompelling, see fair use rationales for instructions. Langauge is overly emotive throughout.--Peta 01:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I've addressed your first two points, but can you please provide a few examples for your third point? Rama's arrow 03:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very informative article on an important subject. There are a few minor questions that I've left inline. Please fix the article accordingly and remove them. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article written in a very balanced style with a very important NPOV stance given that Zia is a controversial and POV issue in the history of Bangladesh. The article addresses facts, assertions, allegations, criticisms and view points. definitely worthy of an FARueben lys 15:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Old Dan Tucker

Well, researching and writing our article on "Dixie" was a lot of fun, so I decided to tackle another American folk song. "Old Dan Tucker" doesn't have the same political ramifications as "Dixie", so the article's shorter, but it covers the topic comprehensively in my opinion. The only thing missing is an audio sample or, better yet, full, free version of the song. I have MP3s of a couple of minstrel show-style "Old Dan Tucker" music re-creations, but I'm having trouble getting Audacity to work at the moment to create OGG clips. Any help on this front would be greatly appreciated. In the meantime, there are links at the bottom of the article to sample versions of the song. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 12:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Support - another round of applause for you, sir. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support really well done. User:Gmaxwell might be able to help youout with the .ogg stuff, it'd make a great addition to the article.--Peta 01:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Although I do have a request: can you get rid of some of those redlinks? I think there are way too many right now in the article and it gives the article sort of an...ugly look, even though in other ways it's a terrific piece of work.UberCryxic 19:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Yeah, red-link reduction is definitely on the agenda. I'm currently working on "Miss Lucy Long", and others should turn blue in the next few days, hopefully. — BrianSmithson 01:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Drop me an e-mail, Brian, and I'll help you with the OGG files. Andrew Levine 02:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support do get rid of the red links. Just create stubs. Rama's arrow 00:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Operation Wrath of God

Self-nomination This article originated from the article on the 1972 Munich massacre, but was then seperated and expanded greatly. As with any intelligence/covert matter, sources are both limited in number and inherently difficult to authenticate. I have tried to create the basis of this article from information that many sources agree upon, and then point out specific authors when more contentious points are made. This article obviously covers a lot of sensititve ground (terrorism, Israeli-Palestinian & Arab conflicts) but I believe it presents everything in a relatively bias-free way. I hope for your support and crits. Thanks, Joshdboz 01:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comments leaning towards oppose. This is a controversial article (like all articles about the Arab-Israeli conflict) that needs a good and deep review. But for now, I have some comments.
    • There is issues with the lead.
      • It's too small. Consider expanding it tow 2-3- paragraphs long.
      • It does not summarize the article by not stating any criticism.
    • POV issues
      • It has been brought up in the peer review: Excessive use of the word "terrorist". Wikipedia:Words to avoid states that it is a POV word unless someone uses it about themselves (and of course very few do). They could easily be replaced by "militants", "hijackers", "perpetrators", "those responsible of"... For example, in "Palestinian terrorist group Black September", the "terrorist" word is unnecessary and POV, so it could be easily removed.
      • I now there is not much sources, but Arab texts are welcomed to balance the article.

I'll read the article many more times to spot more problems. Thank you. CG 20:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments! I have tried to expand the intro to include just about every facet of the article, though there still could be room for more. I understand the issue of using "terrorist" and believe it has been completely removed from the article. It still refers to terrorism though in the sense that Israel was doing these things to deter future terrorism, at least from its perspective. You're correct in that all the sources are either Israeli or other Western authors, and since there is such a lack of written material about these incidents, I would assume that it would be the same for Arabic material. There is one quote in the article by Abu Iyad in which he defends the first victim Abdel Wael Zwaiter for being "energetically" against terrorism. I simply do not have the ability to find out if there are any other texts available. However, I would argue that most of the Israeli and Western authors are quite balanced in their portrayal of the operation, and some, such as Benny Morris and Victor Ostrovsky, are not blindly pro-Israel by any measure. Thanks again, Joshdboz 12:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment better coverage of Palestinian sources needed. Perhaps I can contact somebody more familiar with Arabic. Wandalstouring 09:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
As an update, I have added information based on statements mainly from Palestinian leaders Abu Iyad and Abu Daoud to both the "operations" section of the article and the "criticism" section. User:Salim555 has also helped greatly in expanding on certain points in the article and adding criticism as to the campaign's overall effectiveness.--Joshdboz 12:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. I support FA. Wandalstouring 17:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportWandalstouring 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good FA-quality article.UberCryxic 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A comment that popped ou of my head. Is this possible to add a section about International or Arab reactions to the operation? Thank you. CG 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I'll try to get it up soon. Some of it might overlap, however, with some of the criticism if we are talking about an individual person's reaction. Joshdboz 20:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added an "Arab World" reaction section with the tidbits I've found.Joshdboz 22:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments - Some of these may simply be failures on my part to understand the obvious, but I'll mention them for the sake of thoroughness.
    • The