Portals
A-Z
Categories
Random
James T. Aubrey, Jr.
Only Fools and Horses
Rail transport in Victoria
Sir Boyle Roche, 1st Baronet
Hurricane Nina (1957)
All Singing, All Dancing
Age of Empires III
University of Oklahoma
Raptor Red
Pentachaeta bellidiflora
edit page
history/authors
discussion

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates




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; or
  • 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 is a "previous FAC" link, leave the link in the new nomination. 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, write Nominator (or Self-nominator if you are the sole or a major contributor to the article). A reason for nominating, and a declaration of "Support" are not necessary. 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 which includes a signature in the header.
  • 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

[edit] Nominations

[edit] LSWR N15 class

Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because this class of locomotive represented an important link in the lineage of the SR Lord Nelson Class, which had provided inspiration for both the LMS Royal Scot Class and the Maunsell SR Schools Class. Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1926 World Series

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I enjoyed writing this article, and I hope you enjoy reading it! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Germany Schulz

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been stable as a WP:GA for some time and is extensive enough and interesting enough to be a WP:FA. This is one of many Michigan Wolverines football bio articles that I worked on with User:Cbl62. He did most of the research on this one and my contributions were more organizational. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White-winged Fairy-wren

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is on par with other bird Featured Articles with respect to comprehensiveness and prose. I am keeping my fingers crossed for another image or two but there is little I can do if permission is not given, thus I do not see it as a deal-breaker. All comments and suggestions much appreciated into how I can improve this article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I am a member of the birds project, but not seen or edited this article prior to today.

  • The White-winged Fairy-wren (Malurus leucopterus) is a species of passerine bird in the Maluridae family. It is endemic to the dryer parts of central Australia, stretching from central Queensland and South Australia across to Western Australia, and is part of the large order of passerines. Passerine repeated (oops. missed that)
  • The back region between the shoulders is in fact bare, with feathers arising from the shoulder (scapular) region and sweeping inwards in differing patterns; this had confused early naturalists into describing two species this seems a bit detached from former mention of back (changed to "this had confused early naturalists into describing both a white-backed and a blue-backed species" i.e. the parting of the feathers had confused experts into thinking there were two species of different plumage. clearer?)
  • Phylogenetic -link or gloss (linked. thanks Graham)
  • least concern should this be capped? (either that or italicised. done)
  • closer in distance = "closer" or "nearer" (well spotted. nearer it is)
  • Each clan has a specified area of land that all members contribute to foraging from and defending—although these orders may vary year to year. What orders? (I removed the clause as it is self-evident that roles (i.e. orders) will vary from time to time. Too vague as is and adds nothing)
  • Wing-fluttering – does it need the cap? (The book uses single quotes and capitalisation as they are terms coined for specific displays. I was following the convention)
  • ref 1 – retrieval date not linked
  • perhaps the lead could be split as three sentences? jimfbleak (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. As usual, I have made some suggestions, [1], (not all mine). I have a few quibbles:

  1. The back region between the shoulders is in fact bare, with feathers arising from the shoulder (scapular) region and sweeping inwards in differing patterns; this had confused early naturalists into describing both a white-backed and a blue-backed species. - This is a long, can we have two sentences?
  2. it makes up a phylogenetic clade sister to the White-shouldered Fairy-wren... - Is sister a technical term?
  3. they replace each other across northern Australia and New Guinea - I don't quite get this.
  4. It was previously classified as a member of the old world flycatcher family Muscicapidae[12][13] and later as a member of the warbler family Sylviidae[14] before being placed in the newly recognised Maluridae in 1975. - I think a comma or two might help here.
  5. Least Concern - does this need defining? (I've wikied this jimfbleak (talk)
  6. At present, there are three possible situations from which the three races of White-winged Fairy-wren could have evolved. - Is situations the best word?
  7. What is a reel?
  8. M. l. leucopterus inhabits similar habitats on Dirk Hartog Island and M. l. edouardi does the same on Barrow Island. This might need some non-breaking spaces to stop the species names wrapping.
  9. extra pair copulations - Is there a less cumbersome way of saying this?

This is a comprehensive, well-written and engaging article. It would benefit from the addition of more illustrations, but I don't think this should prevent FA. GrahamColmTalk 14:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—the writing needs work. But it's the type of writing that will scrub up very nicely indeed with one to two hours' work by a copy-editor. Otherwise there are attractive things about this piece. These examples of glitches come from the lead alone. The whole article needs treatment.

  • "A white-winged fairy [that] may be sexually promiscuous and each partner may mate with other individuals"? I'm shocked; but seriously, the last eight words puzzle me after "sexually promiscuous".
  • The old noun plus -ing problem: "it exhibits marked sexual dimorphism with one or more males of a social group adopting brightly coloured plumage during the breeding season". It's not grammatical; please see these exercises in fixing it. Here, I think ", in which ... adopt ...". There's another one in the lead, too: "Three subspecies are recognised, with one occurring ..."—Try a colon plus "one occurs ...". Can you audit for this construction throughout?
  • "... the male. The male ..."
  • "light-blue" and "bright-blue" as double adjectives, certainly in AusEng.
  • Unclear causality: "As a result,"—the "small, inconspicuous" bit I guess is equated with the "sandy-brown" colour of the females? The reader has to work hard there. But just why their accompaniment by one blue older male results from a previously stated fact I can't fathom. TONY (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rongorongo

previous FAC (19:02, 9 April 2008), earlier FAC

Self-nominator: All previous issues have been addressed. The main remaining problem had been the unresolved copyright status of the images, under the mistaken impression that this depends on whether an object is 2D or 3D. (A coin lit up and framed in an original way is not PD; the same coin copied on a scanner is PD. The 2D thing is a rule of thumb, not a legal principle.) Although nearly all the photos were ineligible for copyright (original copyright long expired, no original work in their reproduction), this takes months to resolve at Commons, so I have removed the numerous thumbs and moved two of the images to Wiki-en with Fair Use tags (they are actually Template:PD-ineligible). Another objection had been the length of the article; it has now been split in two. —kwami (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Serious lack of footnotes to most paragraphs throughout. In the past FAC, Ealdgyth said: "I do note that large sections of the article are lacking inline citations, at least to page numbers of the various sources." - This has not changed. Fails criteria 1c of the FA criteria. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Isn't the lack of footnotes due to the use of author-date referencing? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In that case, footnotes should not be used. It's either Harvard referencing, or footnotes - not both. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The footnotes are being used as actual footnotes (i.e. for commentary), not as a referencing system. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, You've got me now. I'm more used to the footnote system being used for references, since I've come across very few articles on Wikipedia using Harvard referencing. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • All I can say is: Wow! I tried using this article months ago for a story I wrote about the Rapanui, and it was all but worthless. This is better than anything that can be found in most libraries! I'll say support, but I don't regularly participate in FAC discussions and am not terribly familiar with the criteria, so feel free to disregard. It's definitely a fine piece of work. Fishal (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose until image problems are resolved. Images such as Image:Rongorongo Qr3-7 color.jpg and Image:Anaokeke.jpg are clearly 3D and eligible for copyright. If you want to use something like this, trace the script to make it into a PNG/SVG and get rid of all the lighting/surface irregularities. Mangostar (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The response on Commons to your earlier complaint of Anaokeke was "Looks two-dimensional to me!". Under your interpretation, all of the photos of paintings on Wikipedia would have to be deleted, since they all have lighting, and they're all three dimensional (they all have texture, if only from the canvas). Do we need to make a PNG tracing of The Last Supper? (Look, I can see a crack in the plaster—that makes the object 3D, so it's copyrighted!) The legal principle is not whether the object is 3D (that's only a rule of thumb), but: Did the photographer frame and light the object in such a way as to add originality to the photo? A photograph of a two-dimensional surface, with only the lighting necessary to expose the film, does not qualify for copyright. (The Last Supper is painted on a building, so it is also clearly a 3D object, but it's common sense that the photo is of one approximately 2D surface of that object. And in the Qr3-7 photo the lighting is that of the display case in the museum, and not a contribution by the photographer.) Neither, for that matter, does a scan of a fully 3D object qualify for copyright. Commons suggests that we crop images of paintings of their frame, to avoid the possibility of a problem. The Qr3-7 photo follows this advice and is cropped of all its edges. (I've noticed that in addition to claiming that surfaces are three dimensional, you believe that pre-World War I photos are ineligible for PD because they're "recent".) If we followed your advice, we'd have to strip a large number of articles of their FA status. kwami (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, why is Image:Roro-I01frottis.gif marked GFDL? Did the uploader actually make the rubbing? If not, it's either copyrighted or PD - an uploader can't make a PD image GFDL... Mangostar (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The uploader works with the archives the image came from, but you're right. As a rubbing, it's ineligible for copyright regardless. Tag changed. kwami (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Last thought: the 2D reproduction is a legal principle, in that it was specifically established in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. in at least one US district court, and hasn't been departed from since. Mike Godwin has specifically advised Wikipedia users not to claim that photos of coins are PD, without specifying that distinctions should be drawn between the two types you cite. (I could dig this up if you want.) The threshold of originality required for copyright protection in the US is extremely low. The merger doctrine comes into play where an idea simply cannot be separated from an expression, but here it is inapplicable--for example, this problem could be solved by vectorizing the text alone, as I have suggested. Mangostar (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict] On Commons they specifically state that a coin imaged with a scanner is not eligible for copyright. It's not the dimensionality of the object, but originality. It's simply assumed that there is insufficient originality in a photograph of a painting to qualify for copyright.
Also, a tracing is not a viable option. Since the script is undeciphered, no-one can know what they're supposed to be tracing, and there is therefore a concern that any tracing would miss essential details, or introduce errors. This is a serious issue with attempts at decipherment. An illustration of what the script looks like needs to be a photo, not a tracing. As I said above, the edges have been cropped, and the lighting is environmental, so this is simply a photo of a 2D surface. kwami (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
If you insist, I can certainly make a case for Fair Use. kwami (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Airlines Flight 11

Self-nominator: This article has been significantly improved in the last few days, doubling the amount of verifiable sources and increasing the reader's knowledge of the subject. Now, the article flows well and is ready for review. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - You may have to change the CNN photo to the image with the description page, because currently a fair use rationale/copyright isn't shown to the viewer, making it clear it isn't free use. Hello32020 (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Response: I have taken care of it. It now links to the image page itself. -- VegitaU (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Looks good so far, but there are issues with the prose throughout:
    • "Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz al-Omari arrived at Portland International Jetport at 05:40 in the morning on September 11, 2001." - Firstly, who are the two people? Might add a minor bit of explanation before it. Secondly, I would suggest adding a time zone abbreviation in brackets after 05:40.
    • The first link of Portland, Maine under "Flight" section needs disambiguation, and the second part linking to Maine instead of just one link to Portland, Maine.
    • Same goes for the Los Angeles, California link in "Flight" section.
    • "The pair had first class tickets"...The pair of what? Try instead: "Both passengers had first class tickets" for example.
    • "As they checked in, CAPPS selected Atta for extra luggage scrutiny, but he boarded without incident." - CAPPS? What is CAPPS? I had to click onto it to find out. Please use full names instead of abbreviations on the first occurrence, with the abbreviation in brackets.
    • "on-time" - Why is a hyphen being used here?
    • These are just a few examples, there are problems throughout the article. Please get an editor new to the text to fully copyedit it.
    • See Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have requested help with copyediting from User:PTR. He has helped me with previous featured articles. --Aude (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed the obvious problems listed. -- VegitaU (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Boy (song)

previous FAC (00:57, 28 April 2008)


Self-nominator I asked the user who opposed this article's previous FAC to conduct a copy edit and its now ready. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - It looks good, but the prose is still not brilliant. I can see misuse of commas throughout, and I even found a spelling error. Please get another copyeditor to go through it. Lists of copeditors can be found at: Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members. Also, is the fair use image in the music video section really needed? The article already has many good photographs. References look good, links are fine. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Why is this so important that it need s mention in the lead? "The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers recognized the British record company EMI at the 2005 Pop Music Awards as Publisher of the Year, for publishing "Baby Boy" as well as other songs recorded by contemporary artists." An award for the record label isn't important for the song.

The lead needs to discuss more about the song's music and the lawsuit. If Sheet Music Plus isn't even notable by Wikipedia standards, what makes it a reliable source? indopug (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Montana class battleship

Self Noimination I'm nominating this article for featured article because it meets all established FA criteria and has passed both the Good Article review process and the Military History Wikiproject's A-class review process with no major complaints. At this point, there is no place left to go but up to FA-class, and so here I here am. This is most decidedly a self nom, and for once I am not in school, so I should be able to adress complaints raised in a timely manner. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Spectacular Article. Absolutely no objections coming from this corner. Excellent Work! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Prose/citation problems.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Respectively:
    • Alright then, I presume you wisha stict adherence to the rule that commas ought to appear only for combined sentences and only if the woirds "and" "or" "but" are present, or if the sentence in question uses a three list thing that needs to be seperated using commas. I'll make a dry pass through and see if I can spot and fix any instances, but the best thing, as you noted in point 2, would be to bring it up with one of the three copyeditting departments: the peer review group, the league of copyediters, or the MILHIST logistics dept.
    • as per above
    • Please locate all such examples for me if you would, at this point I miss such things if they are not explicitly poiinted out to me. Sorry for forcing that on you, but as I am sure you can related one's mind tends to read whats should be there and not what is actually there.
      • As it happens, in these specific cases, the access date was already provided. I had messpelled the word code as "accessesdate", thats why they were not showing. Good catch though :) TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • By citiations, do you mean the notes section? And if so the reason for the repeated linking is to limit the amount of scrolling new readers to the article have to do to find the relevent links. I think its helpfull, but if consensus from others suggests otherwise I will fix the problem.
    • How exactly do mean? Obviously short speaks for itself, but if you were me what would you like to see done with the section?
    • I suppose I could agree with that, though truth be told I like to see them seperated. Its just a me thing, asthetics and such; I dislike changing formating too much (this same format is used on the page Iowa class battleship, and hasn't drawn any compliants...yet).
    • With regard to the sources you brought up: pages from navweapons.com include at the bottom a list of sources used in the creation of the articles, and nearly all are from well recognized names like the US Bureoa of Ordinance. That ought to make the site's information reliable. Information from the site navybuddies.com is almost always pulled directly out of the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, and the infomration provided on the site corrosponds almost letter for letter with the US Navy's description of the Montna class. That doesn't suprise me since the site is billed as an unofficial US navy site, if others were to build such a site they would naturally turn to DANFS and other similarly open public sources to create the pages needed. Lastly, the site www.warships1.com/US/BB61stats/index-BB1-GAO4.htm is directed toward a report generated by the United States General Accounting Office, the official investigative arm of the United States Congress. The names and information cited there in are directly taken from the GAO's investigation into the United States Navy's plan for replacing battleships with the Zumwalt class destroyer. Of all the sources questioned above, this one should be the most obvious in terms of officialiness. The last two sources are www.warships1.com/US/USbb67-Montana.htm and www.voodoo.cz/battleships/usa/montana.html, and these are, as you surmized, closer to personal websites than the others here to for adressed, however, when dealing with ships and thier classes I need to note right now that most of the information provided for such sites originates from official sources and is merely copied by all other websites, official and unofficial. These two here were included becuase the information they provided during the initial brainstorm phase help the development of the armement sections and (to a degree) the engineering plant section. These two can be removed or better still replaced should the need to do so arise, however the instructions such as I interpret them are to include all the sources used, regardless of how small or irrelevent the source. Thats why they are still in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common Treecreeper

Self nomination, a bit shorter than usual, but has passed GA. To anticipate possible concerns, (a) this woodland species appears to have no cultural significance anywhere in Europe (b) whilst, like other woodland birds, this species will be taken as prey by species like Sparrowhawk and Tawny Owl (I've even found Treecreeper remains in a Tawny Owl pellet) it's so obvious that nothing I can find specifically refers to Common Treecreeper (c) similarly avian diseases and parasites Jimfbleak (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I disagree, this is an engaging and well-written article. I have made some very minor edits but, apart from which, I found no problems with the prose except: The Common Treecreeper is non-migratory in west and south of its breeding range, however some northern birds move south in winter, and high-altitude breeders may descend to a lower level. - which needs some attention. Some may express concern that the citations are few, so be prepared to defend this. I suggest you double check the copyright status of the original Commons images. Don't assume that they are free simply because they are there. Thanks and well done - a damn good read. GrahamColmTalk 12:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • thanks for the constructive edits and comment. I've now fixed migration. I have 26 journal articles I could use if necessary, but the content is, unsurprisingly, mostly covered in Harrap's major book on this group. However, if the number, rather than the content, of references becomes an issue, I can just replace some of the Harrap refs with the primary research papers (interestingly, another editor said it's better to use books than the papers where possible). Good idea wrt the images. The originals for the birds are GFDL, the tree is PD, and the ant is "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License", which I think is OK. If not, the image is not essential. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good, links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Comments just a couple of small things (Moral or otherwise) I disclose that I am a member of wikiproject birds, but I hadn't seen this article before FAC...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Its song is the best distinction from the very similar Short-toed Treecreeper which shares much of its European range. - scans oddly for me. Distinction I think of now in terms of university grades, how about "It can be most easily distinguished from the very similar Short-toed Treecreeper, which shares much of its European range, by its song" or "Its song is the key to distinguishing it from the very similar Short-toed Treecreeper which shares much of its European range" or something along those lines...(I know..I'm being really nitpicky but the article is good :))
reworded as per comment
The Brown Creeper has sometimes been considered to be a subspecies of Common Treecreeper, but has closer similarities to Short-toed Treecreeper, -'affinity' for 'similarities' here?
reworded as per comment
It is common through much of its range, but in the northernmost areas it is rare or local, - I guess 'local' here is 'localized' as in occurring in small pockets?
reworded, removed localised, since meaning conveyed by rare. Thanks for the constructive suggestions, jimfbleak (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Textual criticism

Self-nom — I have worked on this article since the last nomination, using the comments made there last year to improve it and look forward to feedback to so that it can make it there this time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Comments Some quick notes from a cursory glance:

Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The See also section includes an awfully long list of people. Are there categories that would serve the purpose?
These are scholars that have worked/written on this particular subject. Most of them. if not all, are all in the Category:Textual criticism. Shall we remove them? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there are only four people in Category:Textual criticism, and not many more in its subcat Category:Biblical criticism. When I clicked at random on people from See also, I found that most of them were in Category:Biblical scholars. I couldn't find relevant people cats for non-biblical textual criticism to go with it, but maybe you'll have better luck. Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the long list of people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to give this a thorough readthrough soon. Maralia (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've hidden my resolved issues above, and elaborated on one. As an aside, {{done}} and other graphical templates are discouraged at FAC - in bulk, they make the individual pages and especially the main WP:FAC page unbearably slow. Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I have removed these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Some short sections, and the one on "The Hebrew Bible" is a list: some expansion required. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Expanded "The Hebrew Bible" section. Would that be enough for this article? That subject requires a full article; I may start such article in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The lack of in-line citations is a problem; there are many sections that are not referenced. There are too many long quotations that would benefit from précis and citation. The article loses direction in the middle becomes un-encyclopedic in tone and more like a treatise. The inclusion of a modern example would have been interesting, such as Joyce's Ulysses. I noticed some over-linking. I feel bad about being negative because I enjoyed reading most of the article, but it would benefit greatly from some bold editing to reduce the verbosity. GrahamColmTalk 09:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Prose/reference issues need addressing before I can consider supporting this:

  • The lead needs expanding to fully summarize the article as per WP:LEAD.
  • Short, stubby paragraphs throughout the Eclecticism section ruin readability/flow.
  • Unnecessary bold text at start of Overview section, see WP:MOS.
  • There's a huge list of verifiable books under 'References', but hardly any have been used as footnotes?
  • The current citations are disorganized, please go through them for consistency.
  • Serious lack of references, including many paragraphs throughout the article which are not referenced at all.
  • Current ref 46 needs publisher/author info - but more importantly, what makes earlychristianwritings.com a verifiable source?
  • Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for addressing prose issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help you.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Current ref 3 "tanselle 1989" I don't see such an entry in the references
  • I think current ref 5 is missing a 9 at the end of the date?
  • Typo in current ref 8 Harting? Should it be Hartin?
  • What makes http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html a reliable source?
  • Current ref 13 Mulken & van Pieter, do you mean Van Reenen and van Mulken?
  • Is it Rosemann or Roseman? Footnote says Roseman, references says Rosemann.
  • Are the following refs actually used in the footnotes? If they aren't used, they need to go in the further reading section.
    • Gaskell?
    • Hodges
    • Love?
    • Maas?
    • Robinson?
    • sober?
    • Zeller?
  • Actually, I see you're mixing citation styles, you're using parenthetical (Bowers, 1972 p. 86) with footnote. I believe it's supposed to be one or the other.
Links checked out. The sources seem okay, apart from issues noted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • General question

Thanks for the feedback. I can fix most of the smaller issues, re citations, footnotes, etc. But for copyedit I will need to engage other volunteers to come and lend a hand, as that is not my strength. My question is: should I de-list this FAC, or keep it going while fixing these issues? Look forward to your response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment not sure whether to withdraw as yet. I have to work through it. Now let's get started...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, Overview needs renaming. To me, overview means summary, which is what the lead is doing for the article anyway. Paras 1 and 2 of section are history, as is part of para 4. The rest is process and aim I guess.
In the lead - add one or two sentences to describe the three fundamental approaches for starters. I would be although fascinated I am a neophyte in the area.
Try to remove redundancy. See also material which is mentioned explicitly in text, remove. We can use CTRL-F keys these days.
OK. Will work on these next. Thanks for the feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Scanning through it, the prose is good in places, and this is the most difficult piece of the puzzle at FAC, so maybe give it a bit longer and see how it pans out. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A copyeditor, User:Alastair Haines has expressed his interest in working on these aspects. This is great as this editor is knowledgeable on the subject. See User_talk:Jossi#Textual_criticism_2 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - oops. Missed that it was already at FAC. See my comments at Talk:Textual criticism#Comments in passing. Wouldn't support for FA status yet (I don't know enough to know if this is truly comprehensive or not, so it is more a "not sure" on that account), but it did teach me quite a few things. I would like to see more balance away from the Biblical and Shakespearean side of things, though. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hubert Walter

Self-nom I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's expanded greatly from where it was when I first started editing, I've worked hard to ensure that only relible scholarly sources are used, and while it still lacks a picture of the man himself or his tomb, it is actually illustrated. All aspects of his life are covered, from his start under Henry II to his coronation of King John. This is a very significant individual in English history, who unfortunately doesn't figure largely in most folks' memory. He's been really fun to write about, though. It's very kindly been copy-edited by Karanacs and Malleus, to remove my weasely academic writing! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Daft comment. Who's going to do the source checking? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Me? (ducks) No clue. Not my department. Boy was it nice to put up something I didn't have to source check too.... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'm not sure about the MOS on this, but isn't generally "circa" abbreviated to "c." and then linked to circa?
I have no clue. I don't generally stay up on MOS issues like that. I honestly figured that circa would work better because it's not an abbreviation. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Both American and British spelling are present in the article.
That's because the main author is a Yank. It should be British spelling, and Malleus attempted to find most of them, but a pointer to the glaring ones would be greatly appreciated by this Yank. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Aren't centuries supposed to be linked when they're relevant? They seem to be relevant here.
Can do. I generally try to avoid overlinking. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Walter served King Henry II of England in many different ways, not only in financial administration." - should that be a semicolon? As usual, I'm not sure, and too cowardly to be bold.
Someone else know? I barely squeaked through grammar in school, the various uses of the various parts fail me at times. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Walter accompanied King Richard on the Third Crusade and was one of the principal persons involved in raising Richard's ransom after the king had been captured in Germany while returning home." - "had been" sounds awkward. Maybe "was" instead?
Will do. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "He also served as Richard's justiciar until 1198, in which role he was responsible for raising the money Richard needed to prosecute his wars in France." - "in which role" -> "a role in which"?
works. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, changed "in which role" to "where" which is more concise. That work? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I only checked the lead - that especially should be spotless of awkward/incorrect grammar since most readers read only the lead. If I'm brave enough to tackle the entire text (read: have an inordinate amount of spare time), I might do that. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources check (teeheehee)

Everything looks good, actually. According to [2], [3] needs registration. That's allowed, though, so all seems good. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does, but it's also a printed work, so the link is a courtesy link. I'm told that most folks in the UK get free access through their library. I guess I should have put registration required in it too, but I'm not sure the cite encyclopedia has that field. (ponders) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct. I'm in the UK and have a library card. I entered the barcode number, and, voila, it works. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I put something at the end of the ref (in the edition field) saying that registration/fee would be required. Hopefully that works fine with the MOS mavens! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I've been bold and addressed my own issues, [4]. Please check that I haven't done anything stupid. Could you make clearer what aspect of Salisbury was deemed to be a reward, (Salisbury was a town), and I didn't like the expression while on crusade, but couldn't think of a better one. An engaging, comprehensive and well-written article, thanks. GrahamColmTalk 11:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly expand the Salisbury bit, (it's the diocese in this instance, it's medievalist jargon to just refer to the diocese by shorthand like that. We know by context that a bishopric is meant since he's a cleric.) I'm not too fond of "while on Crusade" either, but "while over in the Holy Land killing infidels" which is how they would have described their activiy isn't exactly a NPOV statement (and rightly so, I might add). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - Great prose, referenced throughout and good layout/usage of suitable photos. Very nice work, Ealdgyth. Keep it up. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I conducted a pre-FAC review at Eagldyth's invitation, and all issues I found have been addressed. The article seems extremely comprehensive considering the scarcity of records of the time period. Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. As with Karanacs, Ealdgyth invited me to carry out a pre-FAC review. All the issues I raised have been addressed to my satisfaction. I believe that this comprehensive article meets the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I couldn't resist a few tweaks, please check that you're happy. I'm impressed that Firefox's in-line spell check picked up archepiscopal as a typo! jimfbleak (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I have added links etc. Personally I would prefer the lead rearranged into a overall summary para, then the more detailed ones. You read a long way before finding out he was Lord Chancellor. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments A very interesting article! It was a pleasure to read. I have just a few questions; I was hoping that some further explanations could be added into the article for readers like myself who are largely ignorant of this period in history. Also, a few sections of the article could benefit from some rewriting to make them flow a bit better.

  • Hubert Walter (c. 1160–13 July 1205) was chief justiciar of England and archbishop of Canterbury in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. - Should the opening sentence better express his notability? I don't know much about this period in history and I read this sentence as "he was a government functionary". (Note: That I'm American might have something to do with this!)
  • Walter served King Henry II of England in many different ways, not just in financial administration. - Could we briefly suggest what these ways were?
  • Walter's mother died at West Dereham in Norfolk, probably the location of Walter's birth, some time between 1150 and 1160. - This makes it seem like her death is related to his birth in some way. Is that intended?
  • He was appointed Dean of York by order of King Henry II about July 1186.[1] The archbishopric had been vacant since 1181 and would remain so until 1189, so it was Walter's job as dean to administer the archbishopric - The archbishopric of York?
  • Walter also was an unsuccessful candidate to become Archbishop of York in September 1186 - Do we know why?
  • In 1187 Walter, along with Glanvill and King Henry II, attempted to mediate a dispute between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Baldwin of Exeter, and the monks of the cathedral chapter. - a dispute about what?
  • In the first paragraph of "Justiciar", is there a way to briefly describe the wars? What were they about?
  • When John showed no signs of submitting, Walter called an ecclesiastical council at Westminster for the purposes of excommunicating John unless he submitted - What happened with this? Did John submit? I felt like I was left hanging.
  • In foreign affairs, Walter negotiated peace with Scotland in 1195 and with the Welsh in 1197. In 1196, Walter quickly suppressed a popular uprising in London led by William Fitz Osbern. - Can this paragraph be expanded? A bit of context added, perhaps? Why did peace need to be negotiated with Scotland and Wales, for example? Why was there a popular uprising? Etc.
  • According to the Life of William Marshal, when word reached William Marshal, one of the richest and most influential barons, that Richard was dead, he consulted with Walter and discussed whom to support as the next king. - Could we add a date for the Life?
  • I take it that the diplomatic missions to France in 1201 and 1204 were unsuccessful? Perhaps this could be made a bit more explicit?
  • The last paragraph of the "Death and legacy" section sort of trails off. I wasn't really sure what the relevance of the authorship debate was.
  • The "Early life" section is a bit choppy. It just seems like a list of facts that are only tangentially related. Could some flow be added to this paragraph? In particular, could the information about the aunt and uncle be narrated a bit more clearly?
  • The paragraphs in both the "Early assignments" and "Under John" sections are a bit disconnected from each other. Is there any way to provide smooth transitions between the paragraphs within these sections?
  • Sometimes Walter is referred to as "Hubert". Is there a reason for this?

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4 Vesta

Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is well-written and does a very good job of explaining the science of Vesta (plus, aesthetically I think it's well-formatted and just nice to look at and this just makes it more fun to read). --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Current ref 9 is lacking a publisher, and also it dead links for me.
  • Current ref 13 "evolution of Vesta" is lacking publisher and last access date
  • Current ref 14 is just a bald link. Needs to be formatted with a title, etc. but at the moment, it's a dead link (with tag on it saying so too, I might add)
  • Current ref 21 Greg Bryant "Sky & Telelscope ..." is lacking a publisher and other bibliographic data
  • Current ref 23 is lacking publisher, and last access date. Also, what makes this a reliable site? Looks like a homepage.mac page to me.
  • See also sections usually go before the notes
  • http://www.rasnz.org.nz/MinorP/Vesta.htm deadlinked by the link checker tool
Sources look good. Other links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment—This article is going to need a significant re-write in about two years when the Dawn spacecraft arrives.—RJH (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Prose/reference/layout issues need addressing before I can consider supporting this:

  • Short, stubby paragraphs/sections ruin the flow and readability.
  • The lead needs expanding to fully summarize the article as per WP:LEAD.
  • Lists should be converted to prose to improve readability/flow.
  • The pictures push the layout around (especially the last one, which obscures the 2 column references list.)
  • Orbital characteristics in the Infobox are not sourced.
  • No reference for "Vesta was discovered by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers on March 29, 1807."
  • No reference for "After the discovery of Vesta in 1807, no further asteroids were discovered for 38 years"
  • No reference for "Vesta is the only known intact asteroid that has been resurfaced in this manner. However, the presence of iron meteorites and achondritic meteorite classes without identified parent bodies indicates that there once were other differentiated planetesimals with igneous histories, which have since been shattered by impacts."
  • What makes http://homepage.mac.com/andjames/PageVesta000.htm reliable? It's a .Mac homepage (personal website).
  • Current ref 2 needs access date.
  • Current ref 5 needs access date.
  • Current ref 11 needs access date.
  • Current ref 13 needs publisher/author/access date information.
  • Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for addressing prose issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help you.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This interesting article needs copy-editing. The prose if often non-encyclopedic, ("thanks to" for example,) and stubby. There's much to be done for it to be of FA standard. I concur with the advice given above by Wackymacs. GrahamColm