Sex

Go to The Main Page Add Sex to favorite!

Wikipedia:FAC 

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegate, SandyGeorgia—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents
Shortcut:
WP:FAC

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the "initiate the nomination" link (for first nominations) or the "leave comments" link (for subsequent nominations). If there was a previous nomination, you will see a link to "previous FAC"; leave that link untouched. If you encounter an unarchived, older nomination at this page, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance in moving and archiving the previous nomination.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Copy this text:{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}}, and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination.

Supporting and opposing

Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page).
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics are discouraged (for example, Y Done or N Not done), as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Contents

Nominations

Discography of Final Fantasy VII

Nominator(s): PresN (talk)


Hi, long time listener, fist time caller. I'm trying here...something new, unfortunately. This, if it passes, will be the first "discography" article to be an FA rather than an FL. The reason that it is here is because most "discography" articles are a series of tables, whereas this article is a whole mess of text, structured as an article, with the only tables being collapsed tracklists.

The article is a current and recent GA, and has a completed peer review here. The article does not use date-linking in the article itself, to save on bluelinks, but does use them for consistency in the references, as 'cite web' links dates. Said references have been looked over by me to ensure they have all of the data required/possible. There is a single image in the article, used in a similar vein as a box cover or album cover would be used in a video game or album article, and has a single music clip, used to demonstrate the "MIDI" sound used in the original soundtrack rather than traditional cd-quality audio. All other fair use media has been removed.

Ealdgyth posted his usual reference questions at the PR, so I will answer them here to preempt any re-asking.

Whew. That's a long nomination, but I think (hope) that I've covered all of the bases. With that said, have at it! I'll be standing by to respond to any concerns. --PresN (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Omaha, Nebraska

Nominator(s): • Freechild'sup?


I'm nominating this article for featured article because several editors have completed the archived peer review and assisted the article in meeting each of the criteria for FA status. • Freechild'sup? 13:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments I should have mentioned these things ages ago, but I held off because I thought they were excessively nit-picky (but if there's a place where that would be appropriate, it's here):
    • References should use citation templates (cite web, cite book, cite news, etc.)
    • I can't distill this down to a concrete suggestion, but whenever I read the this article, I get the feeling that it sometimes misses the forest for the trees; that is, while it has lots and lots of sourced information, some of the information (nearly all of which exists in sub-articles) could be removed and replaced with text that creates a better narrative. If this feeling is restricted to me, then ignore this suggestion; if not, it'll require a stronger copyediting hand than mine. – Swid (talk · edits) 16:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment:
  • I don't believe that citation templates are necessary in an FA. Consistent citation style is necessary.
  • I scanned through the article and notice entire paragraphs without any citations. This must be amended immediately. --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments by D.M.N. (talk · contribs)
    • Several links are dead according to Checklinks tool.
    • Several links go to disambig pages. It'd be better if they went to exact articles to help with accessibility.
    • D.M.N. (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Brown (cricketer)

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it should meet the FA criteria. Another cog in the {{Invincibles Advert}} FT drive. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments I'll give it a c-e. Only big issue at first glance is the Lead is too chunky IMHO. Feel free to revert any of my foolishness. --Dweller (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Blnguyen, Sandy, the c-e may take some time. I'm about to go off-wiki and can't see myself editing much again until Monday; I'd anticipate it'll take me a few days to get through it all, so middle of next week at earliest. Sorry. Happy for FAC to progress without me, so no O/S from me for now. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Brown captained Australia in one Test in March 1946, against New Zealand in a match that was retrospectively accredited.
I know what you mean but a lay reader may struggle.
  • A right-handed opening batsman, he and Jack Fingleton formed an opening pair in the 1930s that was regarded as one of the finest in Australian Test history.
Present tense ?
  • Brown had backed up too far and left his crease before the bowler
Should back up be linked ?
Especially as "backing up" actually means going forward.--Grahame (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • With steady performances, Brown forced his way into the Test team during the tour, batting at No. 3. With regular openers Bill Ponsford and Bill Woodfull retiring at the end of the tour,
Brown opened in all Tests of 1934 except the first.
  • The highlight of his tour was an unbeaten 206 in the Second Test at Lord's, which saved Australia from defeat.
I think the "which saved Australia from defeat" should come just after the 206.
Maybe: "He was notable for saving Australia from defeat in the Second Test at Lord's by scoring an unbeaten 206." --Grahame (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Cricket resumed in 1945–46 and Brown captained an Australian team to New Zealand, leading the team in a retrospectively accredited Test match in the absence of Don Bradman.
Split ?
I suggest "Cricket resumed in 1945–46 and Brown—in the absence of Don Bradman—captained an Australian team to New Zealand, leading the team in a retrospectively accredited Test match".--Grahame (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There are too many commas in the lead some of which are unnecessary. Tintin 09:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Image comments
    • All images are public domain according to Australian law, all have date, author, source tags. One thing, though: Image:BillBrown1.jpg's use in the article is a rather pointless 'Bill Brown' caption. Perhaps move that image to the infobox for a full-body shot instead of the small mugshot? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Meshuggah

Nominator(s):  LYKANTROP  ✉
previous FAC (21:55, 25 August 2008)


This is an article about a Swedish experimental band. Since the first nomination I discussed and (hopefully) fixed all of its problems. It was a bit expanded as well.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose per 1c, which calls for factual accuracy. Certain statements are misleading, for example;
  • "The album had positive reviews, though it was not commercially successful.[6]" - According to whom? Whether an album is "commercially successful" is subjective, and mere opinion. In this case, it's the opinion of the person who wrote the biography you've cited. Furthermore, where are these positive reviews? Or is this another opinion of the biographer? Opinions are being flaunted as fact here, and deliberately misleading the reader.
  • "Destroy Erase Improve was released in July 1995, with positive response from critics for the "heady tempos and abstract approach".[1][12]" - What critics? The way the statement is worded suggests a whole swathe of critics positively received the album, when in actual fact, only Allmusic is being cited. Please name the writer and publication who believes that the album had "heady tempos and abstract approach", and not just attribute it to "critics". "Critics" can be 10, or a 100.
  • "After the new album and the live performances, Meshuggah was beginning to be recognized by mainstream music, guitar, drum and metal magazines.[1][6]" - According to who? This is yet another opinion being flaunted as fact. You need to learn to differentiate opinion from fact. Name the writers and publications who make the assertion.
  • "In 2003, rhythm guitarist Hagström said about the possible musical direction of the band's next album" - The word "next" is redundant phrasing.
  • "Meshuggah has often esoteric lyrics,[1] which deal with often conceptual themes[19] such as existentialism.[21]" - More opinion being flaunted as fact. It's all personal interpretation.
  • THe "Musical style" section flaunts opinion as fact extensively. At the end of the day, just because Critic A thinks the band is "innovative" etc. doesn't make it fact - the average person might think it's rather stale. Opinions need to be attributed to the mouths of those in question in the actual article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I must disagree. I will give you an example of what you are saying. You are the main editor of Jihad (song) (check). It is a FA and you seem to be happy with it. Have a look at Jihad (song)#Musical structure. The second sentence says "A skittering vamp leads into the track, during which Lombardo shimmers his hi-hat." That is all. But according to who? "skittering vamp"? That is an opinion of one music journalist. The next statements: "Smoothly mixing up tempos, the band build the song with a fast,[7] "wonky, catchy and angular"[8] guitar riff reminiscent of the breakdown in 1986's "Angel of Death".[9] This guitar riff decelerates before bursting forward again in two-bar stretches underpinned by Lombardo's pounding, fifth-gear drumming.[7]" This is a salvo of opininated glorifying statements with no trace of the author.
Where is your border between a fact and an opinion? You can pick every single sentence in every article and ask "according to who?" But that does not make the statement be an opinion. Let me give you an example. Hoysala architecture - lead section: "Hoysala influence was at its peak in the 13th century". Should there be "According to most of scholars, historics and architects, Hoysala influence was at its peak in the 13th century."? Is this what you want me to write? If you see Michelangelo article: "Michelangelo's output in every field during his long life was prodigious" Is this not an opinion? Somebody can think that Michelangelo was inapt. Do you think there should be According to....etc.? Everything is subjective. There is no general objectivity. Opinion is on Wikipedia if someone says: "Michelangelo is better than Leonardo da Vinci".
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and scholarship. Scholars (in art) say that Michelangelo was a prodigy. Thus every single encyclopedia on the world says that Michelangelo was a prodigy (or something with the same meaning) without saying "according to..etc". Although being and not being prodigy is totally subjective, questionable etc..
"Meshuggah have an innovative style." and such statements have several reliable sources, written by scholars (renowned music journalists in this case). Thus I can write this down to wikipedia as it is. I focused also to have more sources for the contentious statements. In this case, there is the footnote instead of your "according to...". Every statement is "according to its footnote - source". Every FA on the wikipedia has tons of such statements like "Salvador Dalí was a skilled draftsman." But they can be said as a fact, because they have reliable sources.
Many editors including several admins told me that this article is allright for FAC. I do not think that they all would miss such a fundamental error.
If you think that there are controversial statements sourced by the official biography, tell me properly and exactly which ones. But I used the source carefully according to WP:PRIMARY and I dont think that it is used incorrectly in the article.

--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Image comments: Almost all images are free use/verified Flikr photos, or self-uploads. Some things, however. Image:Meshuggah Kidman2 2008 Prague.jpg seems like an image thrown in for the sake of another image, and its caption is borderline un-encyclopedic (besides seemingly hyperbole; give me a source if that's what he usually looks like.) I suggest getting rid of the pixel sizes in the images and leaving them to their default "thumb" parameters so that user settings adjust the sizes. Image:Meshuggah - Catch Thirtythree - cover.jpg has proper fair use rationale and source, with critical commentary in the article, thus meeting WP:NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I deleted that picture.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mario Power Tennis

Nominator(s): Ashnard Talk Contribs


Basically, I feel that this meets the criteria as it's well written, comprehensive and neutral. I realise that it's a relatively short article, but relevant points are covered in sufficient detail. The article has undergone peer review, which has hopefully ironed out any remaining issues. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Anything about the audio/music? Who composed the game? The Prince (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The best I can manage is the stated composer in the infobox. Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be any info available except reception to the music. Thanks for the suggestion. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The external link looks to be dead and should probably be removed. The Prince (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...Link checker tricked me. I've removed it now—I don't think it contributed anything new anyway. By the way, thanks for the clean-up, Prince. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Meh—humour doesn't come naturally to me unless I'm hating on somebody else's article in the process;-). Fixed image size. I'm actually really clueless about images, so I'm not sure about the source. Somebody else uploaded it—who I believe is still active—but I don't know where they got it from. What should I do? Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, one box art image is pretty much as good as another, so all you really need to do is find a similar one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Good gosh, Fuchs; what a way to mess with my head :-) If everyone does that, it's going to become kind of hard for me to sort through 40 to 50 FACs per day :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I didn't bold it 'cause I figured that would mess you up even more :P By the way I've resolved the issues at Bone Wars with the images (yeah this has nothing to do with this FAC but I dont feel like posting at your talk page right now.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
User: Jappalang kindly fixed the remaining issue with the box art. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I reviewed this during its peer review and I feel that Ashnard resolved any issues I was concerned with. I did bring up a comprehensiveness concern and subsequently searched some databases—I did not find additional print sources that offered more information than what the article presents. --Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Guadalcanal Campaign

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk)


Respectfully submit this article about a major World War II Pacific War campaign for featured consideration. The article has passed a Good Article review [1] and a WP:MILHIST A-class review [2]. All 17 of the article's sub-articles have already been successfully nominated for FA. Numerous other editors have contributed to the two year effort to build this article to where it is now, including Raul654, Kablammo, eleland, Nick Dowling, Oberiko, Trekphiler, Buckboard, Wwoods, Binksternet, Jim62sch, Work permit, and Burningjoker (my apologies to other editors whose names I've neglected to mention). Cla68 (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Images: All images Public domain. Image:TokyoExpress.jpg has no source; Image:Japanese battleship Haruna.jpg has a watermark. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 08:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Web Section, questions: The web section is placed below references instead of Further Information. However, I went through the first five or six and searched for the author's names; no mention of most of them in the notes. Question: If they are not cited in the text, are they references or Further Information? Follow up: If they are Further Information, are they required to be Reliable sources? I'm not sure, for example, how we can know that http://sitekreator.com/hirose/rep1_en isn't simply well-written fiction... Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR)
  • Image:TokyoExpress.jpg does have a source: "Pacific Ground War," Shinjinbutsuoraisha, Tokyo, Japan, (2003)". The book includes no further publishing info than that, which, I understand is often the norm with Japanese publications.
  • Yes, Image:Japanese battleship Haruna.jpg does have a watermark, which appears to be on the original print kept by the US Navy's historical division and therefore unavoidable.
  • The web sites which aren't reliable sources have been removed [3] Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 12:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Would it be possible to get an official count on the naval warships involved on both sides. The "strength" section in the infobox gives the impression that it was an all-infantry battle, although a lot of the action (especially in the early portions) occurred between surface and carrier fleets.
  • The map in the "battle for Henderson Field" section is really really small, and it is extremely difficult to see the actual details of the map. Would it be possible to expand it a little?
  • Other than that, looks good. Cam (Chat) 04:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with giving the ship counts is that both sides, during the six months that the campaign lasted, deployed most of their entire Pacific naval forces at some point during the campaign. Complicating this, is that some of the naval forces provided only indirect support, such as escorting convoys to the general area but not to Guadalcanal itself, or else provided cover for operations around Guadalcanal from a distance. Submarines, in particular, from both sides operated around the Solomon Islands area but weren't necessarily assigned in direct support of the forces engaged on Guadalcanal. In addition, Australia and New Zealand warships served during this time in support of both the New Guinea and Guadalcanal Campaigns, which were ongoing concurrently. For this reason, a definitive counting of the number of ships, both warship and logistic, involved is extremely difficult and problematic. So, I'm open to ideas about how to capture this in the infobox. The thing about the infobox, though, is it's just supposed to give a quick summary of some important facts from the article. And this particular fact is hard to summarize.
  • The images are unsized per the WP:MOS. Any reader who wishes to view the map in larger size needs to click on the image to expand it. Cla68 (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tree: A Life Story

Nominator(s): maclean


A small article on a small book. It did the DYK and GA processes in July and now I'm nominating this article because it meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines and its Feature Article criteria. maclean 08:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - the prose is poor and way below FA standard. Here are some of the many problems I found on my first reading:

  • Suzuki started to write a draft but a busy schedule interfered so he sought a collaborator to help write. - The last three words are redundant.
  • The tree written about in the book is not the one he encountered at his home, but rather a generic Douglas-fir. - encountered at his home?
  • Prior to these chapters there are sections titled Acknowledgments and Introduction, and afterwards sections titled Selected References and Index - I would prefer before but do you need this much boring detail?
  • The bark of a mature Douglas-fir withstands fire but the heat dries its cones enough that their scales spread and winged seeds are released. After it rains, one seed washes to area open to sunlight, with well-drained soils. How about the heat dries its cones and the scales spread... and why is soil plural?
  • and leave feces with nitrogen-fixing bacterium. - containing nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
  • Through osmosis, water and nutrients enter the root and are transported up to the seed. - Water and nutrients enter the root by osmosis and are transported to the seedling.
  • A symbiotic relationship develops between the roots and the fungus from the truffles: access to a large area of water and nutrients for the tree in exchange for energy, in the form of sugars for the fungus - Truffles are fungi, so what other fungus is symbiotic? The second half of the sentence makes no sense.
  • Hormone is linked twice
  • A branch falls off under the weight of too much snow accumulating on its canopy mat, combined with a number of other stresses like a very long and cold winter with a dry summer, the tree’s immune system is weakened and the resulting wound becomes infected with insects and fungus. - This is a snake and needs chopping up.
  • Needles turn orange as the tree abandons the branch and diverts nutrients elsewhere. I think the tree has no choice since the branch has already fallen off.
  • Parallels to the tree's age are made with historical events, like the tree taking root during the life of 13th century philosopher Roger Bacon Where's the parallel?
  • On best seller lists in the Canadian market, the hardcover peaked at number three in the MacLean's and the National Post's non-fiction lists. There are lots of passive sentences like this one.
  • The biography premise of a tree was well-received. Was the biography or the premise well-received?
  • did find - found. Graham Colm Talk 09:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Dark-eyed Junco birds, and other seed-eating animals do you mean Dark-eyed Junco and other seed-eating animals or Dark-eyed Junco and other seed-eating birds and mammals - I'm confused.
  • premièring - seems odd usage applied to a book (in refs)
  • Suzuki references are odd - surely a synopsis by definition applies to the book, and a 70 page range is useless as a reference? I wouldn't ref this section (see To Kill a Mockingbird). If you feel that a ref is necessary, either just one for the book as a whole or reference every sentence of the synopsis - present version is worst choice. jimfbleak (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • After it rains, one seed washes to area open to sunlight, with well-drained soils. I know what you mean, but...
  • Where hormones accumulate, buds form which will either become a new shoot of needles or a cone. Buds form where hormones accumulate; these become either new needles or cones.
  • Just too many errors jimfbleak (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Old Trafford

Nominator(s): – PeeJay


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe the article meets the FAC criteria. First, the article covers the subject in a comprehensive manner, and the prose is written in a professional and engaging style, as well as being unbiased. All facts in the article that could be contested have been referenced using inline references. The article is also subject to no more vandalism than would be expected of an article related to one of the biggest football clubs in the world.

The article has a lead section of reasonable length, as compared to the overall length of the article, and summarises the article in a concise fashion. The table of contents contains just eight items, and the article is divided into sections of suitable length and related content. Finally, the article contains several appropriate images, all of which have correct licensing information and, in the case of non-free images, Fair Use rationales.

Please leave as many comments as you wish (although I wouldn't mind a few "Support" votes without need for changes to the article), and I will make every effort to respond to your comments as soon as possible. Thanks. – PeeJay 07:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. WP:FAC, my emphasis. Graham Colm Talk 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment

Any reason why Old Trafford should not be a disambiguation page? =Nichalp «Talk»=

I believe that the article was moved to Old Trafford from Old Trafford (football ground) with the reasoning that, when referring to "Old Trafford", the overwhelming majority of people would probably think first of the football ground, followed by the cricket ground, and then the area of Manchester. I saw no reason to disagree with that line of thought, and so the article remained where it is. – PeeJay 08:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yup, it's fine, per WP:PRIME --Dweller (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image comment Image:Oldtraffordaverageattendances.png needs a link to the licence or an OTRS ticket Fasach Nua (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the image with an alternative that is definitely free as I created it myself. – PeeJay 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This isnt really a FA comment, but the capacity could be plotted on the graph too, I think the attendence data on its own can be slightly misleading, 30,000 people in a 31,000 stadium, in my opinion is more significant than 40,000 in an 80,000 capacity stadium. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose by User:Dweller

Needs a third-party copy-edit. Some examples of things I spotted:

  • OT is not "behind" Wembley
    • Reworded.
  • Nor is OT "outside of football" (or inside of it for that matter)
    • Reworded.
  • "However, further investment of approximately £30,000 would have been required" implies building an 80K capacity cost £0
    • Reworded.
  • Lack of referencing in parag opening "Prior to the construction..."
    • Referenced.
  • OR alert: sentence starting "At the ground's present capacity of 76,212,"
    • Removed. Completely missed that one myself *eep*
  • "a roof was added to the United Road stand for the first time" made me realise no mention's been made of the various stands. Name them when you state they were built, and explain their names.
    • A description of each stand is included in the "Structure and facilities" section, but I have now added notes in parentheses to the first mention of each stand in order to identify them by their current names.
  • "The War Commission" wassat?
    • Linked.
  • Cite use of Maine Rd
    • Cited.
  • Parag opening "The 1970s" is a single sentence parag. Also, it needs multiple referencing for some big claims, even if they're from same source
    • Merged into previous paragraph and referenced rise of hooliganism in the 1970s.
  • Parag opening "The Old Trafford pitch" entirely unsourced
    • To be honest, it's tough to find sources for the actual structure of Old Trafford. The section about the stadium on the club's official website is utter rubbish (although I have used the Seating Plan page to cite the fact that there are four stands, and the number of tiers in each), and most other sources are blogsites, and therefore unusable.
  • "megastore" or "Megastore"?
    • Fixed.

etc Sorry, cos this is a fine piece of work and not far off FA quality. --Dweller (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied. I wonder if you wouldn't mind listing a few more complaints so that I can deal with those too. Cheers. – PeeJay 14:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Won't be able to get back here before Monday at soonest, but really a third party copyedit from someone not already snowed under (ie not me) should pick up most of these irritating detractions from a first-rate article --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment by Jameboy (talk · contribs)

Some comments around the images:

  • Why are the images at the top of the article large and those near the bottom small? Should the standard "thumb" parameter not be applied, with numbers of pixels removed?
    • Done.
  • "The area indicated by dotted lines is the section designated for away fans." I can't see this without clicking through to the image. Could you amend the image to shade or colour the away section?
    • Shaded the area and amended the caption to match.
  • I don't find the average attendances graph very useful in its current form. Having values for every point on the graph is distracting and makes it a bit busy. Could you make the line slightly thicker? And wouldn't a red line rather than orange be more fitting (although not essential)? In this case it may also be worth expanding the image slightly for clarity, even if it meant overriding the default number of pixels of the "thumb" parameter. I'm assuming that those viewing the graph within the context of the article would merely be interested in the trend (while those interested in the detail would click through), but on my monitor at least, the trend is hard to see without putting my face near the screen due to the value labels cluttering it up. The x-axis also quite busy - could you make the x-axis labels (say) every two years instead of every year? --Jameboy (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I've removed the values for each point on the graph, thickened the trend line and changed it to red, but I haven't increased the size of the image yet, as I think it would be best to see how it looks with the modifications at the same size first. – PeeJay 16:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Those all look fine now, much clearer - good work. The graph seems clear enough now without further re-sizing. I'll have a proper read through when I get a chance before deciding whether to support or not. --Jameboy (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • What makes the following reliable sources? I read the Peer Review, and still have concerns about these.
    • http://www.englandfootballonline.com/index
      • This site has an extensive list of sources, the first page of which can be found here. – PeeJay 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.munich58.co.uk/memorials/plaque/index.asp
      • If I removed this source from the article, would it make that much difference. I mean, do I really need to reference the fact that the Munich clock is in the south-east corner of the stadium? – PeeJay 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.red11.org/index
    • http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/index1.htm
      • I'm getting really frustrated with the information that the above two references deal with. It is so difficult to find this information anywhere, so I've been reduced to using sites that might not be 100% reliable for my info. The club's official stats site could help, but it does not specifically list record lowest attendances or average attendances, so I would have to reference each season individually. – PeeJay 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, I've referenced the appropriate seasons, but there's no comparison with other seasons/matches on the pages I've referenced. Nevertheless, this will have to do. – PeeJay 16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 25 (Alfred McAlpine...) is still in all capitals.
    • Done. – PeeJay 19:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • "Second only to Wembley Stadium, Old Trafford has one of the largest capacities of any English football stadium at just over 76,000, and is the only UEFA 5-star rated facility in England."
    • You say its the second biggest stadium in England and then say one of the largest stadiums. Secondly I would change "over 76,000" to the exact capacity; there's no reason to be inexact in the lead and expect someone to go searching for its capacity. I would reword this sentence.
      • Out of interest, what would you suggest that I change the wording of the sentence to? I agree that the exact capacity should be used, but other than that, the wording seems fine.
  • I think a source for the information on Image:Oldtraffordaverageattendances.png needs to be added.
    • Sourced on the image page.
  • All my other concerns were addressed at the peer review. Peanut4 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Cheers Peanut. You've helped a lot. – PeeJay 15:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - I've made a few changes to eliminate redundancy and to tidy the prose. Please be careful not to over use expressions like this meant that, located in , as well as and also. Well done. Graham Colm Talk 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - I agree whit GrahamColm. The article is good!--Andrea 93 (msg) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Odwalla

Nominator(s): Intothewoods29 (talk)


Well, this is my first FA nom. This article has undergone a peer review and is currently a Food & Drink Good Article. I'm the primary contributor. Oh, and just for your reference, before I started editing, the article looked like this. If it passed, it'd be the 12th F&D FA. Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image comment There seems to be some misunderstanding between copyright and trademark. Images that contain trademarks should be tagged {{trademark}}, could the images be reviewed with respect to Wikipedia:Public_domain to see if free images can be provided Fasach Nua (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay well I'll need some help on that. Of the four non-free images on the article, two are mine, one is from a website and is unattainable because it's a discontinued product, and one is the company logo from the website. I was under the impression that all four were non-free because they displayed the Odwalla logo, which is copyrighted. Do you want me to replace the copyright tag on the image pages with the trademark tag, or do you want me to simply add the trademark tag, or some other third thing that I'm just not getting. Thanks for your patience. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I added the trademark tag to the four non-free pics. I took the picture in question at my local grocery store. I assumed it was non-free because it has that big Odwalla logo at the top. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If the picture was taken in the US, then it is probably not eligiable to be freely licenced Fasach Nua (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Referenceforbusiness is a great business reference site (hence the name) that provides free articles about different companies (like Odwalla). It's reliable because 1) many of its facts are backed up in a number of other sources on Odwalla, 2) it cites its sources, and 3) because it's not selling anything (unlike many of the other business reference sites on the internet). I have gone through and gotten the info I need from a few of the sources on the bottom of the page, but some are archived or non-free, so I just used the referenceforbusiness page for that. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a website for businesses about Corporate social responsibility. The ref in question is an article about Odwalla's response to the E. Coli outbreak. Like referenceforbusiness, this ref has sources cited at the bottom also (most of which are used in the Odwalla article now). I could easily remove this if you object; I won't lose much. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. I removed the ref. It was only used twice in the article: once paired with another ref, and the other time just backing up a kind of POVy (?) quote. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - the prose looks quite good. Just a few points:

  • Why is some of the lead sourced and some of it not?
  • uh... cuz I felt like it :p should I change that? Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Odwalla is a health food company..." - irrelevant to the "Origins" section. Just say "Odwalla was founded..."
  • Done
  • Redundancy: "seven states and some parts of Canada."
  • Done

Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE Oppose: I had a FA candidate ruined because it used a copyrighted logo. Even though there were no free alternatives, the article gained heavy opposition for the use of the copyrighted logo. I think it would be EXTREMELY UNFAIR to pass this FA candidate when it clearly has the same issue as per using the company logo! Unless of course there is an admittance that WP is biased towards some articles for some reason? Also, I don't like the image positioning. Scrolling down the pages shows all the images to be on one side of the page. And the bacteria image is kind of small, doesn't really portray information effectively. Please also note that the same FA candidate that was rejected was opposed because of inappropriate image tagging, even though there were no such things evident on the page as all images were clearly tagged correctly. I'm very sorry, but as per this, this article shouldn't be able to pass when it clearly has the same possibility of being opposed for the same unfair reasons as the Croatian national team was. Domiy (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Commment - Your argument is faulty, Coca Cola was FA and it has a copyrighted logo included. Was there another reason that article failed in its nom? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope. I told them their unreal arguments were also faulty in the sense that I had fixed them up immediately after they were aroused. The article received a ridiculous amount of opposition (not just on this attempt, it has failed 3 times now). And it is clearly evident that it actually is based on preference. It gained no support whatsoever. I resolved all the issues and some of the intentionally un-satisfiable arguments were taken too heavily and hence the article failed. If its any more concern, there were also issues about reference reliability. I was asked to provide info as to why some certain references were reliable. I did so by providing the guidelines of the website and how they handle information which clearly proved them to be reliable. Racism isn't just physically or verbally violent, it strikes everywhere. I dont see why this article should be any more fairly treated than the Croatia national football team which failed continuously due to the same 'apparent' issues. I know they are not real issues and were aroused solely from preference, so I say now that this article is no more worthy than the next candidate seeing as a perfectly acceptable article previously failed numerous times based on unfair racial preference. Domiy (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Image layout comment Images should be right aligned or alternated, personal preference isn't an MoS criterion afaik. If there is a better E. coli image replace it, otherwise I'd be inclined to lose it. jimfbleak (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the above oppose is actionable; the use of the logo is fine and justified. —Giggy 09:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have seen proposals of the type that the copyrighted Image:KFC logo.svg could be replaced with free Image:KFC2.jpg, so there may be some merit to Domiy's argument. It is certainly correct the image allignment is wrong, and should be alternated per Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Alternating_left_and_right_floats Fasach Nua (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:Images, Do not place left-aligned images directly below subsection-level (=== or greater) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. For him to place images on the left side would violate the guidelines, as the only place that they could be reasonably placed would be under the headings. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Yeah I did what Jeremy said, but I'm open to change! And I'm afraid I can't do anything about Domiy's oppose... it's the nature of national businesses to have copyrighted logos, etc. <:) Also, if I should remove the picture of E. coli, I will. I like it, but that's just me. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • While the argument is not invalid, how it was expressed sounds like a classic case of POINT. I suggest that you initiate discussion with the principal opposer(s) of your own FAC to have some form of centralized discussion instead as the way to go forward. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some comments on prose; (from Giggy)

  • "Soon afterwards, the company expanded into new markets when it bought two companies in the Pacific Northwest and Denver, Colorado" - repetition of company..... please try another word
  • Same again: "during the early years of the company allowed the company to expand and grow"
  • Some of the job titles in the Safety issues prior to the outbreak section are capitalised, some aren't... be consistent.
  • ""black rotten crud"),[11]" - the source doesn't include that quote

I also did some copyediting ([7]), it's looking pretty close to FA I think. —Giggy 09:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Done. Thanks for the copyedit. I fixed the prose problems above. The "black rotten crud" is in the 11th ref (third page, 5th paragraph from the bottom, last sentence). :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Okeys. That looks fine. So from my perspective...
Support. —Giggy 10:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Dean in the Greater Antilles

Nominator(s): Plasticup T/C


I am nominating this article for featured article status to fill out the Hurricane Dean topic. With Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean already an FA and the other three sections at GA status (Hurricane Dean, Effects of Hurricane Dean in the Greater Antilles, and Effects of Hurricane Dean in the Lesser Antilles), one more FA will qualify the topic. Plasticup T/C 13:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, those two are updated now. The references in this article were a huge pain because after about three months tons of the links went dead. It took me ages to track down new references. Plasticup T/C 16:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments The article needs a copyedit and some work in general. Some examples:
  • The lead consists mostly of storm history, preparations and aftermath. Some more impact would be nice.
  • A tropical storm watch was issued for the south coast of the Dominican Republic at 0300 UTC August 17.[1] On August 17 this tropical storm watch was upgraded to a tropical storm warning. Wouldn't "On August 17" be better as "Later that day" or something similar?
  • 1,580 people were evacuated as the storm approached. Don't start sentences with numerical characters.
  • The Haitian coastal authority advised all small craft to stay on port, while at Port-au-Prince, all flights to southern Haiti from Toussaint Louverture International Airport were canceled. "on port" → "in port".
  • On August 19, 19 schools and civic centers were converted to shelters "19, 19"...
  • The massive storm's winds, rains, and storm surge endangered life and property throughout the island chain. Wikilink storm surge
  • Rough surf destroyed at least five houses along the southern coast[39] and damaged 316. Keep numbers consistent.
  • 40% of the sugarcane crop, 80-100% of the banana crop, 75% of the coffee trees under three years old, and 20% of the top layer of the cocoa crop were lost to the storm. Don't start sentences with digits, and "80-100%" should be an en dash.
  • She and her party ultimately did lose the election, although Dean's fortunately light damage was not thought to have been a major factor. Irrelevant.

Also, I'd like to see some more impact, particularly for Jamaica. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

All done, except the last comment about the Jamaican election. We have to include the bit about the postponing election, which naturally brings up the accusations that the hurricane was being used to further Ms. Simpson-Miller's political goals. I trust you have no problem with that. To put those sentences in context it is important to know that the election wasn't looking good for the desperate Prime Minister Simpson-Miller. To simply end the paragraph there leaves a cliffhanger. Plasticup T/C 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Alexandra of Denmark

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk)


Comments

  • Per the MOS, the curly quotes around a block quotation aren't to be used. {{blockquote}} works instead, among other choices.
Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Curly quotes removed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Concerns 1) Aesthetically speaking, Image:AlexandraGravesend.jpg seems to be a little off in its current location. 2) Lead is too short for the article's size. 3) The chart with children seems out of place and aesthetically unpleasing. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 1. Image size reduced. 2. Lead expanded. 3. Chart removed. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments 1. Princess (later Queen) Mary is referred to as May twice, without explanation of the nickname. 2. "Remained faithful" has just a touch of paternalistic air that is perhaps not appropriate in the 21st Century. "is not known to have had any extramarital affairs" might be better. 3. There's been some discussion that Alexandra tried to influence her husband over the war with Prussia. Anything in your sources on that? 4. "Despite now being queen, Alexandra's duties changed little, and she kept many of the same retainers." The Queen's duties were virtually identical to those of the Princess of Wales? 5. What about separating her time as Queen Consort from that as Queen Dowager, at least in subsections?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 1. May changed to Mary throughout. 2. I prefer a short phrase, which has a multiple meaning of loyal, obedient, dutiful and devout, rather than a longer phrase which covers less ground. 3. Attempts to influence foreign policy and anti-German feelings added to the lead and illustrated with other examples. 4. Yes, for consorts. 5. Done. DrKiernan (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Resolved issues. Image concerns also resolved per below. Jappalang (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The changes looks great! Holding off judgment until the images are addressed (below). Jappalang (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Why is "great power" capitalised? It's not in the relevant article, though I note it is in the quotes.
  • Right now, "his distant cousin" is a piped link, with no mention of who his cousin was - I think that the name should be at least mentioned.
  • "At the age of sixteen she was chosen as the future wife of Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, the heir of Queen Victoria, and married him eighteen-months later." - First of all, this sentence is very difficult to read. Secondly, why is there a hyphen between "eighteen" and "months".
  • I'm unsure why the first mention of her name in the "Early life" section is bolded.
  • "Princely blood" should probably be the more common phrase "royal blood".
  • "An uneasy peace was agreed" - this doesn't really make sense in its current form. How does one agree a piece? I can't think of a viable rephrasing offhand right now, but I'm sure you could find one.
  • "...refused to meet Frederick's third wife, Louise Rasmussen, his former mistress" - because of what follows, this currently is rather difficult to read. Suggest "...refused to meet Frederick's third wife and former mistress, Louise Rasmussen..."
  • Some overlinking throughout.

I like the overall style of this article; it's not as stiff as some articles that pass through here, but there are things you can work on, as the examples given above. I did a little copyediting in the second section as well; nice work overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Generally looks good; as per Jappalang, I'm waiting for the image discussion to finish. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks to all above! Changes made: [8]. DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

  • Although both are listed as in the public domain, why is Image:Dowager Queen Alexandra.jpg (upper body portrait) in the article when Image:Alexandra of Denmark2.jpg (full body portrait) serves the same purpose in identifying the subject (especially when the caption for the former image is simply "Alexandra")? There is already a Commons portal to take users to other free images at different angles.
  • All images are listed as in the public domain, either by publishment before 1923 in United States or the Library of Congress's purchase of the rights and stating no known restrictions for the use of the image. However, in the FAC for Voyage of the James Caird, an obstruction was raised in the sense that images stored on the Commons would be deleted if they could not satisfy the public domain requirements in the country of publishing. Hence, Image:Queen Alexandra with Queen Louise and the Duchess of Fife.jpg, Image:Alexandra.jpg, and Image:Alexandra of UK with daughter Victoria.jpg would have to comply with British public domain laws to stay at Commons without dispute. A solution (as done in Voyage of the James Caird) is to upload these images to Wikipedia (which only needs to comply with US public domain laws).
As no one has yet brought up discussion over the images, let me start. Jappalang (