Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

WP:REVIEW redirects here. For peer review, see Wikipedia:Peer review.

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

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. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine 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 coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. 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. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page:

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), 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. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing 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). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard 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. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. 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.

Nominations

Aspasia

The article has been rewritten and expanded by me. It has gone through two peer-reviews (Wikipedia:Peer review/Aspasia/archive1 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Aspasia). I thought it was the right time for this nomination.--Yannismarou 06:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments A "See also" section might be a good addition, as would a description of any references to her in modern literature. TimVickers 16:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I added a section "References in Modern Literature". I hope I covered the topic, although it was really tough to find material. I placed this sub-section under a new section "References in philosophy and literature". I thought this was the right section, but I'm opet to suggestions.
• As a result of the creation of the new section, I had to expand the "References" section and to create a new section "Further Reading".
• I created a "See also" section, but I'm not sure about its necessity. It is a bit short and I think all the important links are already linked in the main prose. Thanks for the suggestions.--Yannismarou 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• "See also" sections are not necessary, and should be used only if important links have not been included in the body; the absence of one is not an obstacle to FA status. --Robth^Talk 14:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I tweaked the wording here and there, but this is clearly ready for FA status. It's thoroughly researched, comprehensive, and engaging; well done. --Robth^Talk 14:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - great work Yannismarou and Robth, another superb ancient Greece article.--Aldux 11:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I just made a few tiny wording tweaks; this one's all Yannismarou.--Robth^Talk 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • And Bcasterline, who reviewed the article and helped with the prose.--Yannismarou 15:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry Yannismarou; and sorry to Bcasterline also, for not mentioning him.--Aldux 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - it's flawless. Also, we shouldn't be sexists, especially after Pericles FA now, should we? :-) Congrats Yanni! •NikoSilver• 14:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support with some remarks: 1) is her Ancient or Modern Greek name shown, I don't know the difference here; 2) "...a renowned woman in ancient Greece, famous for her romantic involvement with the Athenian statesman Pericles". A more exact affiliation and/or influence on Pericles would be better; 3) I saw her original marble statue in encyclopedia, may be that photo would be better if possible. --Brand спойт 13:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is her ancient name. But the modern Greek name is actually the same. About her affiliation with Pericles I've exposed all the available information. It is not easy to find such a picture free of intellectual rights. I feel the current picture serves well its purpose. Thanks!--Yannismarou 13:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• How about: "...a renowned woman in ancient Greece, famous for her influence and romantic involvement with the Athenian statesman Pericles..." •NikoSilver• 13:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Is this syntactically correct? In any case, I donot think this is a major issue, since I say in the lead that Aspasia "is regarded by modern scholars as an exceptional person who distinguished herself due to her political influence and intellectual charisma. However, almost nothing is certain about her life." The conclusion of the last proposition is the major problem. The events connected with Aspasia's alleged influence on Pericles (triggering of both the Samian and the Peloponnesian War, writng of the Funeral Oration) are based on fames, rumors and disputed sources. Hence, I wouldn't like to present in the lead as a fact, an assessment (her influence on Pericles), jvbjmnfbvjnbdflgirrrrrrrrrhgehli5rhghbyirbgjkbherlyhblvhhybvlvfj.--Yannismarou 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Correct. My bad. Strike my proposal, (oh, and #2 of Brand above too?)...•NikoSilver• 21:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

---

Jay Chou

Comments for the previous FA nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jay Chou/archive1

Reason for nomination: since February 2007, I proceeded with a major rewrite of this article (the previous FA nomination had nothing to do with me). To the best of my knowledge, the article adheres to guidelines for NPOV, style, and credibility. The article now appears to be ready for FA nomination. SeleneFN 01:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The lead needs to be lengthened to two or three paragraphs for an article of this size.--Danaman5 17:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for reading. The leading paragraph has now been lengthened and split into two paragraphs. Please let me know if you feel it should be even longer. SeleneFN 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, changing to support.--Danaman5 02:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support The article is much improved since the first FA nomination. It is very well written, fully referenced, contains all the major facts and details about the celebrity plus extra info. NPOV is maintained throughout the article, and there have been no revert wars other than vandals and minor issues concerning punctuation(mostly the m-dash etc). It has very clear headings and the table of contents is of the right size. It adheres to the Wiki Manual of Style on every level. It has appropriate images throughout the page and the article length is perfect. The overall feel of the article is neat and professional. LG-犬夜叉~ 06:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support (Comments) - Just a couple things I noticed, might be wrong about them. I don't think his quote next to note 35 should be italicized. Under "Acting", I'm also pretty sure "Xiào" should be given with Chinese and pinyin, or simply "Xiao" without tone. "Grandeur de D Major" should be either italicized or under quotes, I think it's the former. I'm not sure why Image:Jaychou novemberschopin.jpg is listed under GFDL. In fact, none of the images save those from the movie have fair use rationales, or are tagged correctly. The Discography section should format its dates. A couple sound samples couldn't hurt, but some still feel this oversteps Fair Use boundaries. ALTON .ıl 02:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  Additionally, should something be said about his neologism "屌" diǎo (ref)? ALTON .ıl 02:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Comments. Thank you for your review and very helpful comments. I have addressed each of your concerns below:

• quote next to note 35 - there is no quoted phrase next to note 35, so I will assume you mean note 36. The quotation marks have been removed.
• "Xiao" is now written without tone
• "Grandeur de D Major" has now been italized
• All images now have correct licenses and fair use rationales
• dates in the Discography have been formatted
• Sound samples: I have not added any to avoid overstepping Fair Use boundaries. Please let me know if you feel strongly that sound clips should be present
• a comment about Chou's neologism "diao" has been added to the Public Image section of the article

SeleneFN 04:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent! I fully support this nomination. Images are handled superiorly, and I like how there is a separate 'notes' section (they don't work for me, but possibly it's just Safari). Thank you for responding so quickly, and so completely. ALTON .ıl 05:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support This is an outstanding article that fully deserves to be featured. Well done! Zeus1234 04:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support The Jay Chou article is an extremely informative resource. Chou is a very successful and well-known figure in Asian pop culture, but he seems to be gaining recognition in other areas of the world as well. Chou's appearances in the realms of music, fashion, and cinema are sure to increase as different nations and groups share their cultures. By this article being recognized as a FA, it is a great chance for Wikipedia's visitors, especially those who may not be familiar with his work, to learn more about him.--bakuyaku 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support This article covers the subject very comprehensively. It maintains a NPOV throughout the article, is well referenced, and overall is an oustanding article. --Psychless ^{Type words or read things!} 19:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think the notice {{ChineseText}} is needed in this article somewhere, I'm just not sure where. Except for that minor detail I am in support. HHermans 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The {{ChineseText}} notice has now been added. I placed it at the top of the article, following the style of several other Chinese-heavy articles (e.g. China). SeleneFN 16:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

War of the Fifth Coalition

Self-nom. In 1809, two empires collided to determine the fate of Europe. This is their story. The article has been peer reviewed and all suggested changes have been implemented. Any and all comments and criticisms are appreciated. Thank you very much and enjoy!UberCryxic 19:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, all the issues raised during the peer review have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 19:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support excellent read. Bit copyediting needed, though. Rama's arrow 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It is hardly far to list 40,000 British troops in the infobox when they didn't show up until after the war was over. At least a footnote is required. Rmhermen 21:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the war wasn't officially over until October 14, 1809, and the British were "fighting" in the Netherlands long before that. I do think the force needs to be mentioned because at the time it was viewed as an integral part of British strategy on the continent. Britain had more men in the Walcheren Campaign than in Iberia during this time. After the failure of the expedition, there was a huge hullabaloo in Britain. So clearly it was a significant event for the British.UberCryxic 21:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not reflected in the infobox; however, which clearly give an end date of July 12. Rmhermen 23:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. Shouldn't the date in the infobox be that of the final treaty in October, rather than the end of fighting in Austria? Kirill Lokshin 23:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been changed now, although effective fighting stopped in July (still I see the distinction).UberCryxic 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support But is it not a little misleading to include those British troops. Looking at the battles both on Wkipedia and in Dupuy, there's no mention of British combat participation, and yet in the infobox the UK is mentioned before Austria! Raymond Palmer 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The British and the French did have some engagements in the Netherlands, but mostly very minor affairs. British combat casualties were just over 100 if I recall correctly (about 4,000 died due to the fever). It seems to me like they have to be included because their presence on the continent was fundamentally tied to the larger war between France and Austria. The Walcheren Campaign would not have existed otherwise, so consequently it should not be thought of as a separate operation or entity from the War of the Fifth Coalition. But I have reversed the order between Austria and the UK in the infobox; that was my mistake.UberCryxic 01:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

*Comments Neustadt goes to a dab page of some 20 odd places with names spread over Germany, Poland, Hungry, Austria and Czech (Also Canada but its probably not that one ;) ). Ratsinbon redirects to Regenberg there are other wikilinks that goto to dabs or rediects, these two are significant. Besides the links its a good article. Gnangarra 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Also Sixth Coalition is a redirect Gnangarra

Neustadt and the Sixth Coalition have now been fixed. I left the name Ratisbon to correspond with what it was called then. Right now it is known as the German city of Regensburg. Most histories of the war that I've read call it Ratisbon.UberCryxic 02:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support changed to. One side point Regensburg(Ratisbon) article doesnt refer to this event yet it was a pivotal point. Gnangarra 08:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it does, "Between April 19 and April 23, 1809, Regensburg was the scene of the Battle of Ratisbon between forces commanded by Baron de Coutaud (the 65th Ligne) and retreating Austrian forces. It was eventually overrun after supplies and ammunition ran out. The city suffered severe damage during the fight with about 150 houses being burnt and others being looted." The history is a little colorful ("after supplies and ammunition ran out"...ugh huh....ok), but it refers to it.UberCryxic 12:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support: great article to read. Very well written. --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Kyriakos 21:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Rlevse 16:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Let's look at the opening as an example of why the whole text needs a good massage. Redundancy is a particular problem.

The War of the Fifth Coalition, occurring in 1809, was a large military conflict between an alliance of the Austrian Empire and the United Kingdom against Napoleon's French Empire and Bavaria. Major engagements between France and Austria, the main participants, unfolded over much of Central Europe, witnessed horrific casualty rates, and lasted from April to July. Britain was already involved on the European continent with the ongoing Peninsular War, but sent another expedition to the Netherlands in order to take pressure off the Austrians, although this had little impact on the final outcome of the conflict.

• • Remove "occurring". Perhaps "The 1809 War of the Fifth Coalition was a ...".
  • Unsure what "large" adds to the meaning. Large compared with what other conflicts?
  • Major engagements witnessed casualty rates?
  • Involved in, not with.
  • "But" indicates that you're about to contradict the previous statement. But you don't. Same issue with "although" in the next clause. The three quite separate ideas in this sentence are jammed in uncomfortably.
  • Remove "in order" as redundant.
  • Remove "final", unless you want to subtley distinguish between final and intermediate outcomes. At this point, the readers won't know about intermediate outcomes. Tony 05:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed most of your concerns now. Thank you for your comments!UberCryxic 15:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, although I would like to see more references.--Yannismarou 09:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Slate industry in Wales

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

• Commment This is actually quite good. But before I support a few things:

1. there are few wikilinks, many items could be linked but aren't, I fixed a few for you and note you only link the first occurrence, not all of them and that you link to the article title, not a redirect.
2. spell out abbreviations before you use them (ex: we don't what LNWR means), like "XYZ Airlines (XYZA)"...then you can use XYZA the next time. Rlevse 13:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, there were quite a lot of other terms which could be linked. I have added another 45 or so links. I think I have also removed all the duplicate links, but it's quite hard to remember what has been linked and what hasn't. Also fixed the abbreviations. Rhion 14:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Support Rlevse 02:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There is a curious jump in the opening paragraph: the first sentence is about the Romans quarrying slate; then the rest of the paragraph is about the industrial age, although there's no explicit indication that it's now talking about a different era. Inserting "By the nineteenth century"/"By the industry's heyday" or some such phrase at the start of that second sentence might be an idea. The first image caption begins with the sentence Slates were split using a hammer and chisel., which I think also needs augmenting with a context-setting phrase like "for centuries", "up until 19XX", or whatever works best.

I would welcome a brief explanation of the importance of slate to Welsh industry in general (historically the biggest industry, I should think, in the north, but nonexistent in the south, where coal was king) in the lead section. [talk to the] HAM 18:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, though feel free to rephrase if you think it is needed. I have also added a bit about the economic importance of the industry in the main article. Rhion 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work. A definite support, hoping for this to be the latest in a spate of Welsh-interest FAs. [talk to the] HAM 21:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support with recent improvements this article is in good shape. My one request: let's find an image of an actual slate waggon, rather than a model of one. I say this despite the fact that I uploaded the image and its of one of my models :-) Gwernol 20:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find something. I have one or two old photographs, but they don't show the wagons very clearly. Rhion 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Found one. Though it would be nice to have an image from the Ffestiniog Railway if anybody has one with no copyright problems. Rhion 14:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Not yet written to "professional" standard. The opening is a good example of why thorough copy-editing is required throughout.
  • The opening para says nothing of when the facts pertained (e.g., the peak of production—was it in Roman times?). We shouldn't have to go to the reference to find out.
  • "Slate duty" means "government duty on slate", I guess, or is it the "royalty" paid to landlords? If so, use the same term. I was thinking of forced labour by the locals.
  • You use "narrow-guage railways" but "slate producing areas"—decide on a uniform application of hyphens. Americans wouldn't hyphenate these, but UK writers would tend to.
  • At the top, we learn that slate was used in constructing rooves. No other uses?
  • Needs more referencing.
  • "a big reduction in the number of men employed"—add "in the industry". Tony 06:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have had the article copyedited again and put in the suggested changes, also added a few bits on usage of slate and other matters and added some more citations. Rhion 16:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Good article, nice pictures, etc. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheffield Wednesday F.C.

Self-nom. Has been improved immensly by several editors during the past few months and has recently been through a peer review. josh (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object: The following corrections: Support: It would be better if you guys put the images in more appropriate places but, nevertheless, it's certainly a good article that deserves it's FA Status

What is wrong with where the images are now? What do you suggest? -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 07:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Sheffieldwed.gif - Source and Fair use rationale?

I'm not sure where this image is from, I'm not even 100% sure that it is geniune, so unless anyone else can come up with a source for it I would be happy to see it removed from the page and deleted! -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this. I couldn't locate it anywhere on the web. Also the caption was incorrect as the modern version of the owl was adopted in 1970. josh (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The crest has now been replaced with the actual crest used prior to 1970 along with two other crests used since then. The section has also been expanded to reflect this. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Leaflet advert for blackburn rovers match-1887.jpg - Fair use rationale?

Image info was vandalised, it's PD 216.189.165.232 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Image:SheffieldWednesdayEmblem.PNG - Image Source? --Skully Collins _{Review Me! Please?} 20:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Image source and copyright information now added. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:Further reading goes after references.--Yannismarou 07:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Now corrected -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now: All objections resolved, change to Support Oldelpaso 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Steel City Derby and the rivalry with Sheffield United are mentioned in the lead but not anywhere else in the article..

Rivalry section has now been added. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are a few things which need copyediting, e.g. After a difficult search the club finally bought some land in the village of Owlerton, which at the time was several miles outside the city boundaries and the club was secured for the next century. is a run-on sentence. Later in the article there are several spelling errors, and there's quite a bit of awkward phrasing in the Records section.

Done -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is not clear what the first paragraph of the Fanzines and support (perhaps change to Support and fanzines?) section is trying to convey. The phrase Sheffield Wednesday have had a relatively large number of fanzines over the years which supplement, oppose and complement the club's official magazine and match day programme tells the reader little, and is an example of peacock terms. Oldelpaso 11:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This section has now been changed to Support with fanzines as a subsection. The offending phrase has been changed. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Decent images are what win me over on this article, and the prose is very good. Kingfisherswift 12:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support The article is well written and contains extensive information regarding many aspects of the club. It is informative, easy to read and also contains some good images. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support The article is well written and I like the images Kingjamie 16:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object. A good article, but some issues need resolving. There's plenty but all of them should be quick to fix.

All my objections have been satisfactorily dealt with, so I change my vote to whole-hearted Support. Qwghlm 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• • A few assertive claims need citation - these have been flagged as such in the text.
    • These have been fixed by josh (talk) -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A photograph of Hillsborough would be much better than a map.
    • There is no free image of Hillsborough on Wikipedia that could be used. I created the map and it can be used on any Wikipedia page. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It may be worth looking through Flickr for photographs - any with a Creative Commons CC-by-sa licence could be used here; if not, then perhaps you could even get in touch wih the photographer and ask them to licence it under CC/GFDL. Qwghlm 11:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Done. josh (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I have doubts over the licensing of the photo used, see Image talk:Hillsborough Stadium.jpg. Qwghlm 16:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I have replaced the photo with an image that has a Creative Commons CC-by-sa-2.0 licence -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Smashing. That's fine. Qwghlm 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The picture of the "1970s" crest at the top would be better moved to the section about the crest. Also, the caption contradicts the statement that the current minimalist crest was adopted in 1970.
    • I see this has been removed. However, it would be nice to have a picture of the pre-1970 logo in the crest section; I think that would be fine to use under fair use.
      • The crest has been removed as we think that it may not be genuine! -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I have now added three genuine past crests and expanded the section. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The league graph is a nice idea but the colours for the divisions don't look very nice. Maybe use shades of blue instead, to tie in with the club colours? You could have the top flight white and the bottom flight blue, with shades in between.
    • Done. josh (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The intro mentions the Hillsborough disaster, though this is not elaborated on in the main text, which could give the reader the wrong impression, since Wednesday were not directly involved in the match in question. Could be interesting information - e.g. to what degree the design of the stadium and SWFC were to blame for the disaster.
    • I have added a fairly extensive section on the disaster. It could probably do with a bit of copy editing by someone else. What do you think of it? Is it too long? -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It's a little longer than I expected, but I will make some copyedits tonight. Qwghlm 16:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Done that now. Qwghlm 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Cheers, I got a bit carried away when I was writing it! -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What criteria are used for the list of former players? Either find an objective one (e.g. Everton F.C. has an official set of club legends) or leave out all together and just link to the main list of players (e.g. as Arsenal F.C. does).
    • I see this has been removed, objection withdrawn. Qwghlm 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor contradiction - was it 40,000 or 41,000 fans that travelled to Cardiff for the playoff final.
    • This has been fixed by josh (talk) -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Wednesdayite is linked to in the navbox at the bottom but strangely not mentioned in the fans/support section.
    • Done. -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The following two sentences are mutually contradictory: "A quartered blue and white design was used in 1887 and a blue shirt with white sleeves between 1969 and 1973. This dates back to 1965..."
    • Corrected -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Some dates would be nice for additional context for important events in the club's history such as the following: FA Cup win in the 1930s, first games at Olive Grove and Hillsborough.
    • Done -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 16:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Are the away colours traditionally yellow or are they changed regularly?
    • Done -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Some sentences are a bit abrupt and leave the reader wondering more. Examples:
    • "Everton managed to claw back a 2-0 deficit after 54 minutes." - presumably Everton went on to win 3-2, but this is not clear.
      • Fixed -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "The Blades, a common name for Sheffield clubs during the 19th century..." - why? Presumably it has something to do with the steel industry?
      • This has been fixed by josh (talk) -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 10:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "It [the crest] now features the year of establishment below the owl." - was this always the case or an addition made in the years since the crest was adopted?
      • Fixed -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "...and continued the trend when returning to the Championship." - what does this mean - does it mean they have the highest attendances in the Championship as well? Rewording & citation needed.
      • Additional wording and citation added -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "Known to many as 'Tango'" - (a) I've heard him being referred to as Tangoman and (b) This nickname really needs explaining - I think it was to do with the Tango adverts in the 1990s but I'm not totall sure.
      • This has been fixed by josh (talk) -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "Another famous Wednesday institution was the Wednesday Band" - why were they famous, and when were they around?
      • This has been fixed by josh (talk) -- Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced a playoff victory counts an official honour, but I might be wrong - need to check how the FA/Football League classify them. Qwghlm 16:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • On reflection, this isn't actually a major worry - objection withdrawn Qwghlm 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What's the rationale for the inclusion of the players listed under Notable Players? Looking at the list, they all seem like "Wednesday legends" but there's no actual specific reason why that ten or so have been chosen and not any other notable players. Personally I'd prefer it if you just had the link to list of players under that heading. HornetMike 19:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn this section. josh (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written article with good images and links to more indepth pages on the various sections Basement12 03:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - like the Everton one Cas Liber 05:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC),

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

A good, comprehensive, well-referenced article, which has been FACed once previously (archive), through peer review thrice (1 - 2 - 3). All objections since these reviews have been satisfied. The main concerns of poor style of writing have been corrected solely due to the efforts of users Rama's Arrow and Sundar. See changes done since previous FAC: [1]

--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 04:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Many months of work have been put into weeding out grammatical and prose problems. Rama's arrow 04:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. Rama, sorry to be pernickety, but it's kind of redundant to post "Strong support" when you're one of the two sole contributors, as announced just above. It's a lot better than last time, and congratulations on your work. However, I'd like to see further improvements to the writing during this FAC process. I've copy-edited the lead as an example, and although a few of my changes result from merely personal preferences, many of them were technically necessary.

A few more queries, just from the lead:

• By "government" and "state" (lower case preferred), are you referring only to the central (New Delhi) government? If the three texts at issue have different scope in this respect, it will need to be explained.
• So only one of the three texts is legally enforceable. This needs to be fleshed out later in the article. What would happen, for instance, if the central government decided to ignore its obligations under the "Principles": nothing? If so, has their true status been debated in India?

This issue is covered in the "Criticism" section. Yes there is a debate going on about these very issues. Basically the people of India may remedy the situation at election time. Rama's arrow 14:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• You might mention in the lead when they were developed and promulgated. In 1947?
• I'd minimise the number of dictionary-type links: you need to focus your readers on the really important links.
• There's a slight tendency to be repetitive in the lead (but I haven't checked the rest of the article in this respect).

Tony 10:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Replies to Tony:

• I've added a note to the notes section explaining the use of "state", "State" ad "govt."
• explained above
• there is a whole separates section on "Genesis" explaining promulgation; redundant to add more.
• to be done
• to be done

I'll be very busy in the near future, so I would request Rama's Arrow to look into further comment. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 13:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Tony: There is no redundancy - you are obviously unaware of this article's development. Don't take Shreshth's exaggeration literally - he has developed this article for over a year now. I only helped in the last legs. And not to be uncivil or rude, but I don't expect others to tell me to what degree I should support or object on issues. I will work on your other suggestions as per Shreshth's reply above. Rama's arrow 14:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I will comment on your "Strong support" if I find it inappropriate, coming as it does immediately after your nomination text; this is a review process, not a vote. The guidelines now insist that supporters who have been significant contributors to an article should state this. Here, if you declare strong support for your own work in what is essentially a review process, you should probably remind us that you were a contributor, again. Tony 15:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To repeat, this is not my own work. Yes I have helped in copyediting to a large degree, but this is not proportional to the massive amount of work Shreshth has done himself. I am also not a co-nominator. "Support" and "Object" is a common way to express your views here. I happen to feel Strong Support for this article. Case closed. Rama's arrow 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object As per above KYMYK 12:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I welcome you - it is rare to find one who just registered few days before and coming to this page with less than fifty edits to the Project: you are certainly well informed, and it is really nice that you are taking interest in various matters pertaining to wikipedia. I am looking forward to some interesting value addition to wikipedia as decided: Wales to upgrade quality of Wiki. --Bhadani 12:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support reading the article I found it well read and don't really see any objections per fac criteria. The only thing that stuck out for me is the bolding through out the article of some names but ofcourse this is only a personal preference. - Tutmosis 17:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, is definately compelling to read, and fufills all the other criteria. Daniel.Bryant 23:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I have followed the article since its last nom and I think its a very well written article now -- Lost^(talk) 03:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object.Neutral These are my concerns:

• The article is incomplete. It covers history, political implications, amendments etc. very well, but where is the role of the courts and of the jurisprudence? Just 2 judicial decision are mentioned in the begining of section 2! Afterwards we have nothing else mentioned. I cannot believe that in a country, whose judicial system is based on the case-law, the courts and the jurisprudence do not deserve mentioning in all the other sections. Haven't the courts influenced the interpretation of all these articles? Aren't there any milestone decisions concerning freedom of press, freedom of religion or right to equality? In section "Critisism and analysis" again nothing about the courts? In the article these important parameters are almost inexistant. Hence, as a jurist I regard the level of analysis as inadequate.
• Of the 77 citations 51 are cross-references to constitutional and other provisions. Only 26 inline-citations (and 10 references) constitute an effort to interpretate, analyse and elaborate on the legal texts through other sources and writers. All the other citations just link us to the text of the Constitution itself or to other legal provisions without further alalysis. I have serious doubts about the FA level of such a research.
• Less important: Some links in the "See also" section are not necessary there. They could easily be incorporated within the prose of the main article.--Yannismarou 07:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Yannismarou

1. Firstly, I don't think you should generalize based on what happened with the U.S. Supreme Court. Only Indian court decisions relevant to illustrating the FR are stated. Secondly, both Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable, which leaves only fundamental rights. Of these, only court cases relevant to fundamental rights are given - we are not here to illustrate how the Indian courts have worked on constitutional implementation. If I may add some historical perspective, the Indian constitution was written 150 years after the U.S. constitution, thus incorporating many of the judicial decisions made on the principles of the U.S. constitution. Post-WWII there have not been as many constitutional landmark decisions.
2. I think your perspective is wrong - in your first point, you admitted that implications, amendments are well-covered. What analysis is given, is properly cited. This is an article about a constitution, so the provisions are stated (Wikisource) and analyzed (with extra citations). All aspects of this article are well analyzed, for which there are enough citations.
3. On citations, you should remember that these are not compulsory for any FA. Since most data has been adequately cited, I don't see a basis for lack of citations.
4. The "Criticism" section deals with the broad debates, questions and challenges. It is not inadequate just becoz there has been limited number of legislation or court decisions affecting the FR. Rama's arrow 15:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
5. To the Point this article is about FR/DP/FD. We run the significant risk of deviating too much into analyzing India's socio-economic problems. Thus we've limited giving examples and analysis solely to explain the constitutional provisions in question. Rama's arrow 15:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: "we are not here to illustrate how the Indian courts have worked on constitutional implementation" - Why not? At least in a narrow, legal sense, judicial interpretations should be covered. "Post-WWII there have not been as many constitutional landmark decisions" - well, let's hear about the few landmarks that there have been. Tony 16:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony, judicial interpretations have been covered as far as possible. The "Critical analysis" section shows all the judicial constraints which are felt, like the ambiguity of wording, some rights such as freedom of press not defined.
  • By "Post-WWII there have not been as many constitutional landmark decisions", I think Nirav was referring to the US judiciary. In India, the landmark court cases have been listed, as well as bills passed have been listed (off the top of my head: Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, Bodhisattwa Gautam, Electricity Bill, and all the Constitutional amendments, which are the most important, as well as all the Programmes and Schemes implemented) --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to Tony We have to limit this article to explain and analyze the FR/DP/FD. To this end, as Shreshth reiterates all practical examples have been sufficiently provided. We are not here to examine how the courts have dealt with constitutional cases. We don't need to mention a large number of cases which have a greater implication on society than the interpretation of these constitutional provisions. It is a fine line, a tight-rope walk.
• Plus, why is the generalization being made that India has had a large number of constitutional cases relevant to this article? This article deals well with the formulation of the doctrines between 1947-50, and their interpretation and implementation through the decades till today. Rama's arrow 16:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Tony 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Rama's arrow:My concerns are still actionable, but I turned my "reluctant objection" to "weak objection", in order to clarify my position. Rama's arrow recognizes that "this article deals well with the formulation of the doctrines between 1947-50, and their interpretation and implementation through the decades till today". So, where are the courts through all these decades? Don't they deserve a more thorough mentioning? And I donot think that the length argument stands. FA articles now are up to 100 Kb. We will not sacrifice analysis in favor of the size. Thorough covering of the material is our importance. "We are not here to illustrate how the Indian courts have worked on constitutional implementation". I agree. But, when the the courts influence the "implementation through the decades till today",we have to talk. And I repeat: I cannot believe that in a case-law country the role of the courts was so limited. And, even if the jurisprudence of India is influenced by the American jurisprudence, this does not mean that it does not exist. Especially, in terms of implementation of the constitutional articles, the role of the courts is fundamental all around the world. I think the article is very very good, but in this particular aspect it is weak. This is my only concern. In any case, my intention is not to fight the article. Whatever I believe, if the large majority supports it, the article will prevail.--Yannismarou 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Second Reply to Yannismarou - ok, first off I completely respect your argument that any important court cases and decisions should be well-covered in this article. I respect your motives, and I believe that you're not being unreasonable. The FA director is obligated to study the issues raised in an FAC and not just go by the tally of "opinions." For the rest of the duration of this FAC, I will search for fresh examples of court cases affecting this article. I will add any data I can find to assuage your concerns. But to reiterate - for the purpose of illustrating the Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties, Shreshth has already provided example court cases. I brought up the U.S. judiciary only to illustrate a difference in perspective - the U.S. has seen tones of cases on constitutional issues. India has seen less, and even less when it comes specifically to FR/DP/FD. Nevertheless, I'll do my best to make sure that we aren't missing any relevant examples. Thanks, Rama's arrow 16:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Update I apologize for my ignorance regarding this question. Please see these recent edits in which I've added details of some major court cases to different sections of the article. I will continue to search for more examples Rama's arrow 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Further comment. Recognizing Rama's arrow effort I've turned my "objection" into "neutral". I'll wait the additional efforts of Rama's arrow and of the other editors, in order to decide whether I'll support or not the article. In any case, the first samples of this effort are positive.--Yannismarou 17:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support: I have watched the development of the page from its earliest stages. A well written article, which developed and matured over a long months. I think several comments have appeared as some of us may not have heard of these things before, and we all learnt about these things here only - I too learn many things from wikipedia. These are unique features of the Constitution of India, and similar comparison does not exist in the world. This aspect of the Indian constitution is a constitutional heritage of the constitutional practices of the modern world. Moreover, I think that there is nothing like "ownership" of articles, one should write and forget - bringing the issues of who wrote what and when and how much may bring subjectivity to our discussion to decide the merit of the article to be elevated to FA status. --Bhadani 01:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

True points. I apologize to all for the irrelevant debate about contributions. Rama's arrow 01:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - 77 citations, lots of pictures, imformative info. What more could a reader want? Also the neatness, compared this to how how most Indian law/politics pages look. They are metamorphized by edit wars. This one is so clean, and exceptional by wiki standards. Its got 20x more valid sources than the Constitution of India page. The only issue is that the criticism section is a bit long.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support- For the most part, the article is excellent and it definitely deserves to be FA. However, due to the significance of the topic, I am judging it by a much higher standard than what I usually look at in FA articles. My only regret with the article is that it does not include more landmark cases in the text. I believe someone else pointed this out too. At the same time, I do not believe it is enough to stop it from being a FA. I would definitely encourage the editors to include (even if it is just wikilinking) some more court cases. It would be a great contribution to do so. --Blacksun 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Update I apologize for my ignorance regarding this question. Please see these recent edits in which I've added details of some major court cases to different sections of the article. I will continue to search for more examples Rama's arrow 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support, yes I helped out with reviewing and copyediting. Excuse me for reopening a closed issue, but I feel that there was a minor communication gap regarding Nirav's (Rama's arrow) vote. True to local cultural traditions, Shreshth attributed a lot more credit to Nirav and even more disproportionately to me. Since Tony didn't know this, I don't fault him for what he said and similarly Nirav's feelings are justified too. Also, regarding the Blacksun's concern above, let me tell that I had a similar concern and was very anal about several things during the final unofficial review ahead of this FAC. And now I'm convinced that it meets the FAC criteria. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your point, Sundar. I just want to say that this is not a vote, but a forum for establishing consensus. Tony 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, though most of us know this, it would be better if it's internalised into the process itself. Perhaps a form-based interface would help? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support, leaves nothing to be desired. —Nightstallion (?) 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I made a few improvements in the article, and now feel its worth FA level. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Since most of my concerns seem to have been addressed, I feel this is the right thing.--Yannismarou 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object: further comment about 1a. It's particularly important in an article on legal issues that the prose be crystal clear and easy to read. Why is it that I can still easily find glitches in a randomly chosen section, such as these from "History"?
  • In the lead, "Fundamental Duties" is in italic and is unlinked, whereas the other two sections are different in both respects—could confuse.
  • "In 1928, the Nehru commission, composing of representatives from Indian political parties proposed constitutional reforms for India." "Composed", not "composing"—who's copy-editing it to allow that slip to remain? Comma after "parties" would be much easier to read, marking off the boundaries of the nested clause. There's another "composing" a few sentences later.
  • Overuse of additive back-references and clause links: "also called for"—remove "also" for better, stronger flow; "as well as socio-economic rights"—just "and", unless adding this item is somehow unexpected or notable (doesn't seem to be).
  • "Committing themselves to socialism in 1936, the Congress leaders ..."—"CongressionAL leaders"? (Unless that's too American ...). Otherwise "the leaders of the Congress". Is a reference required for such a sweeping statement? (Or just a tiny bit of detail—under the leadership of ... or inspired by ....?)
    • Their is actually a political party named Congress. The sentence should probably clarify that better. The equivalent of American congress would be Raj Sabha and Lok Sabha. --Blacksun 14:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The current version has: "..the leaders of the Congress party...". So this shouldn't be a problem any more. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "The task of developing a constitution for independent India"—"an independent India" would be idiomatic. "which has to be passed by two-thirds majority in both houses of the Parliament." Sorry, deictics are a bore, but basic to readability—"a" two-thirds majority; you could drop "the" before "Parliament" if you wanted to (idiomatic). Consider "must" rather than "has to", which is a bit informal here.
  • "The process was influenced by the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the U.N. General Assembly on 10 December 1948. The U.N. called upon all member states to adopt these rights in their respective constitutions." Remove "respective". Replace "The UN called" with "The Declaration called", for required cohesion (I presume you're not referring to another call, apart from the Declaration?) "Upon" better as "on", but that's my personal preference for plain, direct English; the topic is complex enough already, without old-fashioned words. Tony 01:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have given the article another copyedit. Please tell if it was sufficient or not. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • All your suggestions have been looked into, and taken care of. Please tell if there is anything more required. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 05:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I just had my first look, and found some awkward prose - these are only random samples from the first section I looked at, suggestive of further copyedit needs:
  • In 1919, the Rowlatt Acts gave the British government the powers of arrest and detention, conduct searches and seizures without warrants, restrict public gatherings, and censor the press. (Is it powers of conduct searches or powers to conduct searches? Is it powers of restrict public gatherings, or powers to restrict public gatherings?)
  • In 1928, the Nehru commission—comprising of representatives from Indian political parties—proposed constitutional reforms for India. (Comprised of?)
  • The task of developing a constitution for independent India was undertaken by the Constituent Assembly of India, comprising of elected representatives under the presidency of Rajendra Prasad. (Another comprising of) Sandy 18:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • In the first point, the "powers "of" applies for the first case, of "arrest and detention." But the powers is automotically carried over to the others in succession, as it is not grammatically appropriate to keep going "the powers of.... the powers to...." Rama's arrow 23:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • All your suggestions have been looked into, and taken care of. Please tell if there is anything more required. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 05:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article also appears to be a candidate for a cooperative editing award (if there is one). -- Fullstop 10:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Again, not perfect, but easily among Wikipedia's best. - Taxman ^Talk 23:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Approval. --Nearly Headless Nick 05:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I was asked whether I'd review my Object, and inspected the text hoping to be able to do so. But at random, my eyes fell on lots of little problems, some of them things that anyone should be able to pick out. This can't possibly be considered "professional" writing as required.
  • State or state? Be consistent.
  • There are still mistakes in the deictics; I know that they're tedious, but they're basic to readable English (let alone the required "professional" standard here): "Living wage and safe working conditions for citizens must be ensures ...". "A" living wage, or pluralise it.
  • "Gandhian philosophy, originally propounded by Mahatma Gandhi (pictured) has greatly influenced the Directive Principles." This is a caption; do you really need to add "(pictured)"? Who else would it be, given the theme of the caption? And his name twice here is awkward.
  • This paragraphs is unsatisfactory: "The Directive Principles commit the state to raise the standard of living and improve public health,[39] organise agriculture, and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines. The State must also safeguard the environment and wildlife of the country.[40] The protection of monuments and objects of national importance and separation of judiciary from executive in public services are also obligations of the State.[41] The State must also strive for the maintenance of international peace.[42]" Why a comma after "agriculture"? Also also also. It would be better reworded as a formal inline list, even though it would be a long sentence. That would avoid the redundant alsos, and the awkward attempts to vary the pro forma wording in each item. It's easier to read if it's not varied. So save the repetitions by casting it as a list.
  • "Article 31-C, inserted by the 25th Amendment Act of 1971[30] states that"—comma missing somewhere ...
  • Remove "from time to time"—it adds nothing.
  • Please fix the following list, which is apparently cast as a single sentence. You need lower-case initial letters for each item, and "the" is missing from all but No. 5. Why bother numbering them if there's no other reference to them by number? Bullets would be smoother.

The six fundamental rights are:

1. Right to equality
2. Right to freedom
3. Right against exploitation
4. Right to freedom of religion
5. Cultural and educational rights
6. Right to constitutional remedies

Or better still, do what most FAC reviewers would like: a running prose list, with the items just separated by commas. Tony 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Shreshth has addressed all your concerns. Just one clarification from my side. The terms "state" and "State" have been deliberately used, the rationale being explained on top of "Notes" section. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Shreshth has addressed about 5% of my concerns, which involve the whole text, not just the examples I provided. Tony 01:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Done. I've even linked the "state" and "State" note to the first occurence of "State" in the lead. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry to ask an ignorant question, but what is this article trying to achieve? I read through the article and it goes into no small amount of detail about the various concepts. But I note that I can go see the main article for both Fundamental Rights in India and Directive Principles in India which provides the same information. This is more than a quick overview, but less than a comprehensive treatment, so what's the point when each of these have good detailed articles? There seems to be a lot of duplication so it is confusing that readers would have both a quasi comprehensive treatment and a fully comprehensive treatment - although not uniformly. For instance, the criticism section pertaining to fundamental rights appears to be more comprehensive here than at the main article page (which seems counter-intuitive to me) and the information presented is slightly different. What's the rationale? Eusebeus 16:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • These kind of things happen when a general article goes for FAC. When the different articles were forked out, they would have been more comprehensive than this one. But as this article prepared for FAC, much more coverage was given to certain topics as compared to their supposed detailed article. One short term solution could be to at least copy the additional content added in the article to the detailed articles, but in the end, it would just be a one time exercise, as hardly anyone would update the two articles simultaneously. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that beg the question of where in-depth content rightfully should lie? If we are going to have seprate articles on these, then those are the right places for more engaged and detailed discussion. This article instead should seek to provide a synthetic overview that offers basic points and lets readers drill down for further information. Eusebeus 23:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

John W. Johnston

My first self-nomination. I believe it meets the criteria, and is an interesting biography of a Virginia Senator after Reconstruction. All comments welcome! plange 06:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: It has received a GA rating and undergone several peer reviews... --plange 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support. I'm unsure about the red links, I think the "Marriage and children" section lets the article down a bit. I can see a lot of effort has gone into the article, so I'm supporting it anyway. — Wackymacs 11:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I removed the red links and the extra children that were non-notable. --plange 14:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article is not comprehensive enough. It goes into great detail about the two incidents - the former slave and the Arlington cemetary thing - and thus 2/3 of the article is on the period from 1865-1870. His life before the Senate is especially too brief. It just tells what jobs he held. And the layout is underwhelming - three short sections followed by one big long one. I don't think the list of his children is necessary either. Saying he had twelve children, and commenting on any notableones, should be enough. --DaveOinSF 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I already removed the extra children. On the pre-Senate info, unfortunately there is no published information. I have a manuscript that does, but it's not published and so cannot use. --plange 15:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, without a more comprehensive discussion of his life and career, I don't think I can support FA status then. Of particular interest would be some more detail about his role in the Confederacy, since the crux of the article is that, despite that history, he was allowed in the Senate anyway. I understand your frustration on the availability of sources. Is the manuscript you have citeable, even though it is not widely available?--DaveOinSF 18:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• From what I understand, I'm not allowed to post it to a website so that I can cite it. I'm trying to see if I can get the Washington County Historical Society to publish it in one of their journals, but that's probably not something that can happen in the near future. If I found a historical website for Virginia and they post it, can that work? --plange 18:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, can you cite it as a manuscript and say it is available from the Washington County Historical Society? Are you not allowed to comment on it in any way, or is it simply a case that you can't get a copy of it onto the the web? If it's just the latter, don't worry about it. Not all references need to be on the internet.--DaveOinSF 19:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have no problem posting it to a website, since I'm a web programmer and even have a family history site this can be posted on, but I thought that didn't qualify under the guidelines at WP:V... --plange 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I guess I'm a bit confused as to what this manuscript is exactly...can you explain a bit more?--DaveOinSF 21:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's Johnston's memoirs actually, but unlike the one I source in the article which resides at Duke, this one isn't deposited anywhere, so the only way to make it publicly accessible is for me to post it on the web, but was under the impression a family history website would not meet the reliable source clause at WP:V, but I just re-read it and since it's written by the person the article is about, perhaps it is okay. Let me check over at WP:V --plange 21:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've made some suggestions there. The immediate suggestion would be: put the data from the MS on the Talk page, and see if there are other sources for the facts. Septentrionalis 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• This sounds like a wonderful source. I would suggest writing your article using this MS as a source. Of course you should try to find other sources as well, for all aspects of his life. I don't know if you would need to transcribe the one you have onto the web at all. Cannot you just cite it as printed material that you have referenced, and indicate where it is housed?--DaveOinSF 23:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is a great resource, but the problem is it's not housed anywhere except my personal library, so doesn't qualify under WP:V -- I'll need to get it published I guess :-) --plange 23:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The article is very good but I agree that the layout is not satisfactory. The last section is biiiiiig. Why don't you divide it and reorganize it according to its topics (for instance, helping the slaves, Texas and Pacific Railway etc.)? In this way, you might be able to look better in your material and add more information. I would also welcome more details and more sources. Almost half inline citations come from "Johnston, Reminiscences of Thirteen Years in the Senate".--Yannismarou 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've broken up the long text into several subheadings... --plange 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• The article is very good. Now, the layout is also better. I donot believe that the problem with one source is enough to prevail the article from becoming FA. After a serious thought, I've decided to support the article.--Yannismarou 17:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, the lead is not a good summary of the content of article, see WP:LEAD for pointers.--Peta 02:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Better? I've expanded to 3 paragraphs, hitting the main parts of his senate career, and clarified some things --plange 02:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, support. --Peta 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Not an oppose because I just took a look at the lead, but a "hold-on". There was a fairly obvious typo in the second para (because --> because of) which makes me wonder how full the copy-editing has been. Further, the use of "had been" seems to demand an "until", so it still doesn't read right.

• In the last paragraph we have: "He was caught in the middle during the debate over the Arlington Memorial. The initial proposal was distasteful to Johnston, yet the ensuing debate caused him to want to defend the memory of Robert E. Lee. The need to stay quiet however, for the sake of the Democratic Party, won out." I read these three sentences and I had no idea what the debate was about. You don't have to have clauses unpacking everything in the lead, but if you start to unpack something you're only going to confuse the reader by not finishing the job. "The initial proposal was distasteful" is a throwaway line if we don't know what the initial proposal was. I would actually suggest cutting the mention to a single sentence noting what the debate was and his ambivalence.

• I realize I'm arriving at this one late in the game. I'll try and look more closely at the body later. Marskell 14:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points! I added a couple of words to the third paragraph in an attempt to clarify what the proposal was - does that work? --plange 19:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm so glad Marskell finally mentioned that: I've been looking at that missing "of" in the lead for days, thinking it was only me, and there was a problem with my eyesight or my command of grammar :-) I couldn't figure why no one had mentioned it, so thought I was missing something. Please let me know when ce is finished, and I will have a look. Sandy 22:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm glad he caught that-- it was a copyedit someone did to the lead while it was up here for FAC and I didn't catch it :-P --plange 00:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Raul appears to have passed this over without passing or failing, which is for the best. There's still significant prose work needed. There's too much repetition between clauses and phrases. Something I changed today, for instance: "Because Johnston was up for re-election by the legislature, his seat was vulnerable if Scott succeeded in influencing the legislature..." I'm also concerned about non-summary style—the story of the slave, for instance, which was noted by another reviewer. Marskell 16:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on the prose, I noticed you did some changes too. The only thing I'm puzzled on is the non-summary style for the slave story, since I missed where another reviewer said it was non-summary, unless you mean above where it says it goes into too much detail? Since that's how he was able to serve in the Senate, I thought it was important to relate? --plange 17:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's important to relate, but I'm not sure at this length. Do we need all those details of Peter's life for instance? Marskell 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you trimmed it some, thanks! --plange 00:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"When Thomas C. McCreery (D) of Kentucky introduced a resolution to investigate the ownership of Arlington and possibly returning it to Mrs. Robert E. Lee, fix up the premises, return any Washington relics discovered, and whether a suitable location nearby existed to remove the dead buried there, the resolution brought down a firestorm of objections". This is a pretty awful run-on sentence, but more alarmingly there is no date mentioned. The entire section fails to date any of the commentary or events! I went to the Arlington Memorial and can't figure it out. Marskell 21:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I found the date in the Senate Journal and added it, and re-did sentence. Is it better? --plange 00:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a support, pending a bit more work from Plange. I made a pretty substantial edit to this tonight, including re-working the TOC; I hope this is more sensible to you. There are three fact requests (including two on Funder v Readjuster). The conclusion had simply been tacked onto the Texas railroad bit, so I broke out some sections. "Later years" is now two sentences and has an expand tag. Can you throw in a bit extra? His wife lived until X, a statue was erected, etc. With this stuff done I think this is within criteria; were it to go to the main page, I'd hope for another copyedit (ideally, by someone new).

Kudos again on your work. Marskell 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I think the reorganization makes more sense. I'm working on getting the rest of the cites you requested... Some books are not here at the office. On the last cite, am assuming you want something regarding that being an outspoken Funder cost him his seat, not that he lost his seat? Am in a weird position here, as I just realized in looking through my notes that that's actually citable by something I wrote (see pg 119 here: http://cssvirginia.org/vacsn/base/atrigg.pdf) which references that same document mentioned above that I cannot cite directly since it's not published, but which I could when writing my Master's Thesis. The Master's thesis is published though (copies available at Georgia State Univ. as well as having been placed on the cssvirginia.org site). So am I allowed to use my own thesis as a source? --plange 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I thought there might be confusion above. I didn't go to the actual Arlington Memorial, but rather our page on the topic :). Marskell 22:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I figured that's what you meant :-) BTW, thanks for all your hard work on this article!! --plange 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• comment The 'citations needed' all should be resolved first. Thanks Hmains 04:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Working on these, Marskell added these today (see above), so will get those rectified post-haste! --plange 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you should not cite your thesis because a) Master's theses are not up to snuff in terms of WP:V; b) it would constitute debuting original research.

Let's think this through. Can you source:

• "William Mahone was chosen as head of the Readjusters; his party gained control of the state legislature"; and
• Johnston "was replaced in 1883 for prominent Readjuster Harrison H. Riddleberger."

Source those and let the facts speak for themselves. "[Johnston was replaced] because Johnston was an outspoken 'Funder,'" is the OR inference and should be dropped (obvious as it seems). Marskell 11:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, that's definitely do-able-- am rather embarrassed that I had let slip some OR in here --plange 17:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Why is there an "expand this section" notice in the article? Is it going to be expanded before the outcome of this nomination is decided? Tony 05:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• I also noticed that and I was a bit surprised! Who added this template and when? And something else I want to ask: Are all the references used in "Notes"? If not those which are not used should be either deleted either transferred to a new section, named "Further reading".--Yannismarou 07:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Read above; the template is explained in my "support, pending" comment and plange's subsequent reply. Marskell 11:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I plan on expanding this per Marskell's request. Also, all references are used in Notes, I didn't add any that weren't in Notes... --plange 16:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Support ("pending" is struck above). Concerns have been sufficiently addressed. This is a fine short bio, IMO. I'll look at the wording some more and Plange can add some a few more sources, but I trust his work so far and think this is within criteria. Marskell 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, well organized, comprehensive. Tuf-Kat 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song)

Having just seen the promotion of our article on the final collaborative work (to date) of the duo best known as The KLF (2K's "Fuck the Millennium") it's quite fitting that my next submission is their debut single, "All You Need Is Love" by The Justified Ancients of Mu-Mu (The JAMs). I believe that the article meets the Featured Article criteria and is of the same high standard as "Fuck the Millennium", making it one of Wikipedia's best articles on songs.

1. Well written. The article is written by the same team as our previous successful nominations and, if anything, I believe is even more compelling. I'll leave you to judge this, but all I can say is that coming back to this article after some time I found it to be an enjoyable read.
2. Factually accurate, neutral and verifiable. Yes. It's referenced, and as always there's been no cherrypicking. Nothing much in the negative was found about this song, although we have mentioned a negative review of the album on which it was contained to try and add some balance. The number of references is lower in this piece since at this time The JAMs were very much an underground band whose exposure was limited to the British music press. Nonetheless, I believe there are no uncited assertions of any significance.
3. Stable. Very much so. The article had not had a major edit since June, until I tweaked it yesterday in preperation for this FAC.
4. Appropriate length. I believe so. The article is comprehensive without being over-long.

Only one fair use image is used, the cover of the picture sleeve featuring a defaced James Anderton. Two audio samples are provided - one of the original release, one of the remade version. All three media have fair use rationales applied. One of the audio samples is a little over the recommended 30 seconds - I will edit and reupload if that is felt to be a problem.

The article has received the GA badge and undergone a peer review. --kingboyk 09:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, seems to meet the FA criteria unless I missed something. — Wackymacs 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose (Withdrawn), needs some pictures other than the cover of the single. Teemu08 18:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Erm... Such as? There's no other relevant picture to add that I can think of. FAs aren't even required to have any pictures that I'm aware of. Of course if you have a free image of The JAMs in 1987 we could use it but I don't know of such a picture and we couldn't claim fair use on a portrait as it's not central to an article about a song. --kingboyk 19:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Teemu08, that's not a valid reason to object. Take a look at the FA criteria, images are not even required. — Wackymacs 07:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - This is the best song article I've seen on Wikipedia so far, and wipes the floor with the other FA song articles. LuciferMorgan 16:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Gosh (blushes). I think we might have to quote that on WP:KLF :) Thanks very much. --kingboyk 17:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Well written, nice song clips, great referencing. Solid FA candidate. Nice work as usual, Kingboyk. Wickethewok 15:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, but I can't take all the credit :) --kingboyk 18:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Comprehensive, well written and shows what WP can do. Probably the most comprehensive source of info on the web. Check out WP:KLF and you'll see how many similar standard articles are waiting their term for FA candidacy. Me677 11:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Operation Wrath of God

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

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

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

Thank you for your helpful comments! I have tried to expand the intro to include just about every facet of the article, though there still could be room for more. I understand the issue of using "terrorist" and believe it has been completely removed from the article. It still refers to terrorism though in the sense that Israel was doing these things to deter future terrorism, at least from its perspective. You're correct in that all the sources are either Israeli or other Western authors, and since there is such a lack of written material about these incidents, I would assume that it would be the same for Arabic material. There is one quote in the article by Abu Iyad in which he defends the first victim Abdel Wael Zwaiter for being "energetically" against terrorism. I simply do not have the ability to find out if there are any other texts available. However, I would argue that most of the Israeli and Western authors are quite balanced in their portrayal of the operation, and some, such as Benny Morris and Victor Ostrovsky, are not blindly pro-Israel by any measure. Thanks again, Joshdboz 12:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment better coverage of Palestinian sources needed. Perhaps I can contact somebody more familiar with Arabic. Wandalstouring 09:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As an update, I have added information based on statements mainly from Palestinian leaders Abu Iyad and Abu Daoud to both the "operations" section of the article and the "criticism" section. User:Salim555 has also helped greatly in expanding on certain points in the article and adding criticism as to the campaign's overall effectiveness.--Joshdboz 12:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I support FA. Wandalstouring 17:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• SupportWandalstouring 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good FA-quality article.UberCryxic 17:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• A comment that popped ou of my head. Is this possible to add a section about International or Arab reactions to the operation? Thank you. CG 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to get it up soon. Some of it might overlap, however, with some of the criticism if we are talking about an individual person's reaction. Joshdboz 20:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added an "Arab World" reaction section with the tidbits I've found.Joshdboz 22:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comments - Some of these may simply be failures on my part to understand the obvious, but I'll mention them for the sake of thoroughness.
  • The Ali Hassan Salameh section states "This belief has since been challenged by accounts of senior Palestinian officials..." should this say "PLO officials", or is this speaking of leaders of the Palestinian government?
  • Also, further down in that section is "Several other officers arrived under pseudonyms, including Peter Scriver and Roland Kolberg, traveling with British and Canadian passports respectively." were Roland Kolberg and Peter Scriver pseudonyms, or are these their actual names. If I am simply being dull, feel free to hurt me.
  • A little further down from that, "and finally, after 5 previously failed attempts,[32] The Mossad killed Salameh..." the "finally" sounds POV, the "the" doesn't need to be capitalized, and I'm not sure what bothers me about "previously failed attempts". I would prefer something like "after 5 previous attempts, the Mossad succeeded in killing Salameh..."
  • The Munich hostage-takers section mentions "...the German rescue attempt at Fürstenfeldbruck airbase...", which I don't recall being mentioned elsewhere in the article. Perhaps a little background info could be added about this?

--Lethargy 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Great points, thanks for reviewing this. I believe I've addressed each, although the "rescue attempt" section could still be expanded more if you think necessary. Thanks again, Joshdboz 21:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Looks great, I linked to the rescue, but perhaps a small mention of what happened would be useful. Other than that, everything seems cleared up. --Lethargy 22:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you for the "Arab reactions" section. While I would really like to see an "International reactions" section, anyway, it's a great article. Strong Support. CG 07:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

United States Marine Corps

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

• Comment Sometimes when referring to the Corps vice individuals, you say "Marines". Suggest using "Marine Corps" in those cases as most of the time you say "Marine Corps", should be consistent. Per the portal tag guideline (see template page and its talk page), portal tags go in See also. Rlevse 11:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Moved the portal, though the talk page indicates that it is possible, though not particularly liked, to have the portal at top when the portal and article have the same name.
• Regarding the use of "Marines", my understanding of grammar is that the definite article "the" makes the phrase "the Marines" a reference to the organization, as under AP style "Marines" is a proper noun. For example, "the Spanish", "the English". My understanding is that it would be appropriate in describing actions of individuals operating on behalf of the Marine Corps; e.g. "The Marines developed amphibious warfare", however, its use in the intro "Only the Coast Guard is smaller than the Marines" should be replaced by "Marine Corps". The line here gets blurry and is a matter of taste. The term "the Corps" is also used interchangeably with "the Marine Corps" for brevity and word variety where apropos. E.g. ,in the intro (revised) "...smaller than the Marine Corps. The Corps is nonetheless larger than...." Thoughts? Have cleaned up the instances where "The Marines" or "Marine Corps" are preferable.--Mmx1 14:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have some criticism:

• "The Corps is nonetheless larger than the entire armed forces of many major nations; for example, it is larger than the Israeli Defense Forces.[4][5]"

Since when is Israel a major nation with 7 million people? OK, they bristle with weapons, but this does not qualify.

• "At its founding, the Marine Corps was composed of infantry serving aboard naval vessels, responsible for the security of the ship and its officers by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions and maintaining order aboard ship."

Defending ship and officers only? What about the sailors?

• "The close integration of different Marine units stems from an organizational culture centered around the infantry. Every other Marine capability exists to support the infantry. Unlike most militaries, the Corps has been immune from visionaries proclaiming the ability of new weapons to win wars independently. For example, Marine Aviation has always been focused on close air support, and remained largely uninfluenced by airpower theorists who proclaimed that strategic bombing could singlehandedly win wars[10]."

If strategic bombing can win wars or not depends on what are the specific objectives. That it is considered no useful tool is another point. Proposed rephrasing:

Unlike many militaries (most militaries are in Africa and they laugh at such ideas), the Corps stayed conservative against theories proclaiming the ability of new weapons to win wars independently (this way the reader judges whether it is a good thing). For example, Marine Aviation has always been focused on close air support, and remained largely uninfluenced by airpower theories, proclaiming that strategic bombing could singlehandedly win wars[10](no personal attack on airpower theorists, just stating USMC rejects their ideas).

• "This focus on the infantry is matched with the notion that "every Marine is a rifleman", emphasizing the infantry combat abilities of every Marine. All enlisted Marines receive training first and foremost as a rifleman; all officers receive training as infantry platoon commanders. [11] The value of this culture has been demonstrated many times throughout history. At Wake Island, when all the Marine aircraft were shot down, their pilots continued the fight as riflemen, leading supply clerks and cooks in a final defensive effort[12]."

Broadside against airforce and army? Could do with some rephrasing. State that the Marines emphasize their training as riflemen, even when occupied with other duties. (all soldiers know at which end to fire a gun)

• "Though the U.S. Army now maintains light infantry units capable of rapid worldwide deployment, they cannot match the combined-arms integration of a MAGTF, nor the logistical train that the Navy provides[2]."

Does this refer to the ability of Army soldiers? suggest rephrasing:

The U.S Army now maintains light infantry units as well capable of rapid worldwide deployment, though they do not match the combined-arms integration of a MAGTF, nor have the logistical train that the Navy provides.

Wandalstouring 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've nixed the "major" from "major nations". The intent of the "larger than IDF" is to convey that while it is a sub-service of the American military, it is still comparable to size to many national armed forces. Statement is intended to give perspective on relative sizes. Originally this stated the British Armed Forces, but this is no longer true (they have 10k more people); you could also state it's 30th in terms of manpower List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops, but that's borderline OR. Israel was chosen because it is fairly close in size and is similarly composed primarily of ground and air arms, and that it is fairly well-known (among those close to the Marine Corps in size). Given Israel's abnormally high per capita ratio of troops (23/1k versus 4/1k for the U.S.), I don't think it's population is relevant. Another commonly used phrase is "the Marine Corps operates the 5th largest airforce in the world".

Israel is no major nation (nation = population -> population very relevant, military power not) and is likely never to be one any time soon. Israel is a great military power (major nation no, major military power yes). Why don't you compare it to Spain with ~170,000 professionals, while Israel has a citizen army? or use "significant military powers" instead of major nations, there are some other oversized militaries. Wandalstouring 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it now states "The Corps is nonetheless larger than the entire armed forces of many nations; for example, it is larger than the Israeli Defense Forces" so "major" is a moot point. I would shun the comparison with Spain specifically because it's not as well-recognized as a modern military power; you typically try to compare to things that are well-known, not obscure. I'm having trouble even verifying its size (the Spanish Armed Forces lists 77k; the list of armies stats 150k. I'd accept "significant miliary powers" instead. --Mmx1 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Addressed with use of "entire militaries of many significant military powers." --Mmx1 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• "ship and officers": A primary duty of marines in the age of sail (as general doctrine by Western countries) was to protect officers from mutiny; their responsibility was primarily to the ship and officers.

Ok, than make it perhaps clearer that protecting officers against mutiny (discipline, Navy sailors hired for short terms, like on merchant vessels, and were quite international) and the ship (ship + crew) against boarding were the objectives. Otherwise one really wonders about the US Navy sailors. Wandalstouring 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's worded that way for conciseness; thinking about how to incorporate both brevity and your concerns. --Mmx1 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection against mutiny is a role of military police. Perhaps this can help. Wandalstouring 09:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Addressed. Now states "At its founding, the Marine Corps was composed of infantry serving aboard naval vessels, responsible for the security of the ship and her crew by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions, and defending the ship's officers from mutiny"--Mmx1 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Good rewording of the airpower/new theories para, I incorporated it.
• "every Marine a rifleman" is a core meme of the Marine Corps. The Corps can do so because of its size and that it offloads much of its logistical requirements on the Navy. It's not necesarily "better", just "different".

Sure, from a Marine perspective this sounds OK. Real infantry combat units usually have a lot more gun practice than maintenance units and others, but as far as I know, all soldiers do have frequent training as riflemen. That is the point, could you research a bit what the training standards in other branches of the US military are (especially for soldiers who do not serve among the combat infantry)? This way we can simply compare shedules, numbers or memes, etc. Wandalstouring 07:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Will have to do some research on specific numbers, but one obvious indicator, as stated in the article, is that basic enlisted and officer training is unsegregated by specialty. In the Army, enlisted basic training separates combat arms from other specialties[2]. Prior to this year, so was Army officer training, though they are now instituting a common curriculum called BOLC II for all newly commissioned officers(emulating the Marine Corps's TBS), specifically to introduce the "every soldier a rifleman" meme.[3] It is, however, still 7 weeks as opposed to 6 months in the Marine Corps, before officers diverge to their occupational training. --Mmx1 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bingo, numbers. Perhaps telling it with these numbers and the organization of training, things are more sound. Wandalstouring 09:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the objection is. The "Capabilities" section is not a place to compare numbers on the length of training; nor really anywhere in this article. The institutional philosophy of "every Marine a rifleman" is well cited and documented; it manifests itself in various ways, most clearly in the manner of initial training; the specific length and nature of that training is discussed where appropriate. I am trying to resist the common urge to place the Marine Corps in a side by side comparison with the U.S. Army. As discussed later under "initial training", all officers regardless of specialty or source of commissioning receive common training as infantry platoon commanders; I will clarify the length there. I am aware that the Navy and Army both put professionals (Doctors, Lawyers, etc) through a sort of "military familiarization" course rather than boot; and the Navy specifically has a distinction between unrestricted line (capable of taking command) and restricted line officers (aforementioned specialists, scientists, etc); all Marine officers are considered to be officers of the line in Navy parlance, though I've been unable to source that statement. --Mmx1 18:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• "Army light units". That statement was intended to acknowledge that recently, the Army has enacted units capable of rapid deployment, while at the same time distinguishing the capabilities of these units from Marine capabilities. Incorporated the rephrase.--Mmx1 16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please fix your refs. Sandy 16:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed placement w.r.t. punctuation; any issues with location?

• Support, a very nice article. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks like the objections above (some of which were shared by me) have been addressed. Stability may still be an issue, but it's generally on minor points and there haven't been any edit wars for quite a while. Well cited and comprehensive. Kafziel 15:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I read it through, and I've found that it meets the criteria of a Featured Article. Good job! --The monkeyhate 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think it defenitly fits criteria for FA. Great job, cleaning it up! Hello32020 21:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written, well cited, well worth the time to read. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Auto peer review found quite a few things that can be fixed. The APR is on the articles talk page. Most are easy and should help make the article more readable. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 02:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Addressed on article talk page. --Mmx1 04:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses on talk page. My main problem is that the article is just too long. It's not intersting to the reader who isn't hardcore into the subject becuase it goes into too much detail. How many readers will make it to "famous marines" in its current state? Not many... -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is 82 Kb. I donot think this is too long. A FAC recently passed was over 100 Kb, most of which prose.--Yannismarou 15:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is huge, but it is quite necessary given the importance of the subject. I made the remark myself during the PR, but after going through the article for a second time, there is IMHO no way to shorten it further. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support but couldn't there have been an infobox for such an article... I think an infobox would serve well since it gives basic information and quick wikilinks to branching/similar articles. - Tutmosis 22:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There's actually one being discussed on the talk page. Kafziel ^Talk 22:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Looks good, hope you guys put it in. - Tutmosis 23:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Leonhard Euler

I feel this article is comprehensive and adequately cited, and looks nothing at all the way it did during its first nom (archive1). I'll be relatively free in the next week or so to respond to comments, so I welcome any input. Borisblue 02:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Borisblue 19:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please fix your refs, and your layout should conform to WP:GTL. Sandy 03:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  Wow, I can't believe I've been in this projct this long and have not seen WP:FN. Thanks for the input Sandy! I'm going to bed right now, but fixing the refs will be the first thing on my to-do list tomorrow. Borisblue 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  I've fixed the refs, and the last sections have been rearranged to conform with WP:GTL. Borisblue 23:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is well referenced, but it might benefit from one more run through, to tighten up the prose and add a few inline cites.

• This work wasn't very influential however, it was said that "for musicians it was too advanced in its mathematics and for mathematicians it was too musical." Italics should be used sparingly; it's not necessary to italicize quotes. Also, the weasle words "it was said that" should be eliminated; the statement has a citation, it should say who said that.
• Needs to be cited: He is considered to be the preeminent mathematician of the 18th century and one of the greatest of all time; he is also one of the most prolific, with collected works filling over 60 volumes.
• Redundancies in the lead: Euler developed many important concepts and proved numerous lasting [mathematical] theorems in diverse areas of mathematics, from [areas including] calculus, to number theory to [and] topology. In the course of this work h He introduced much of modern mathematical terminology, for instance defining the fundamentally important concept [such as the definition] of a mathematical function.[1]
• Skipping further down the article, to a section in the middle, "There is a very famous anecdote inspired by Euler's arguments with secular philosophers over religon." is awkward. Very famous is redundant. Euler's arguments with secular philosphers over religion inspired a famous anecdote.
• More weasle words: It has been estimated that it would take eight hours of work per day for 50 years to copy it all by hand. (by whom, name the person).
• Stubby sentences: A lot of mathematical notation in use today was introduced by Euler. Euler introduced the notation f(x) to describe a function. Additionally, he invented the notation for the trigonometric functions that is currently in use.
  • Euler introduced much of the mathematical notation in use today, such as the notation f(x) to describe a function, and the notation used for the trigonometric functions.
• Skipping down to number theory: Two sentences in close proximity start with "a lot of".
• Skipping down to graph theory, this sentence needs a cite: In 1736 Euler solved, or rather proved insoluble, a problem known as the seven bridges of Königsberg.

These are just random examples: in general I the article is very readble, but a bit more work is needed to tighten and refine the prose, and to cite a few more statements. I won't object, as I won't be able to revisit the article due to travel, and these issues should be easy to fix. Sandy 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to comb through the article. I've fixed all the problems you cited. Borisblue 16:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are several stylistic problems with this article, but I cannot fix them since those screen-high citation blocks make the source text impossible to navigate. Please move the citation details to the end of the page. Fredrik Johansson 14:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  Oh dear me, you're right, the citation is a mess. I've formatted it better and removed unecessary parameters so the 1-page-long citation block doesn't happen anymore. I hope the markup is editable now. Borisblue 15:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, but a few things could use attention:

• "Several of his children also attained distinction." Details?
• "Richard Feynman (Lectures on Physics, p.I-22-10)." Make this consistent with the rest of the article (use a footnote)
• "Understanding the infinite was naturally the major focus of Euler's research." A layman isn't going to see why this is so "natural".
• "Trivia" by definition is trivial; either expand these points (especially the last two), work them into the text, or eliminate the section.

Overall, though, a great article. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the "children" bit, and incorporated the trivia section in the article like you suggested. I'm trying to figure out exactly where the Feynman quote comes from, but once I do, yes that ref should be in footnotes as well. Thanks! Borisblue 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

*minor note. As a native french speaker, I'm not sure that "he is the master of us all" is the correct translation for "c'est notre maître à tous". In terms of connotation, I think the semantics of master is slightly stronger in english, especially with the phrasing "the master of us all" rather than "our master". Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't "the master of us all" suggesting some sort of hierarchical relationship? The wiktionary entry The french word "maître" is routinely used to denote reverence to the rolemodel, I don't think that's the case in english. Pascal.Tesson 05:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC) I fixed it. Pascal.Tesson

• Oppose for now. Here are things that should be adressed I think: See update of vote from Oppose to weak support below. Pascal.Tesson

1. I have quickly gone through it and the prose, while quite good, is not exactly compelling and certainly not brilliant. For instance I have removed a number of occurrences of "Euler" where the pronoum suffices. Some adjustments of that sort would really improve the flow of the article.
2. I've corrected the translation of the second french sentence which completely missed the witty point of Condorcet. this has also been adressed. Pascal.Tesson
3. The philosophy and religious beliefs section is not so clear and in any case it seems odd that this would appear before the description of his mathematical legacy. Pascal.Tesson
4. I'm not sure about the Feynman assessment of the first formula as being the most remarkable in mathematics. As a math major, I had a number of different profs describe the second one (Euler's identity) as the most beautiful truth that has ever existed and I suspect that the Feynman quote is simply misplaced. By the way I think it's worth adding the sentence that one of the magical aspects of Euler's identity is that it involves the 5 arguably most important constants in mathematics.
5. Why don't we have a nice picture of the 10 swiss franc bill? Is this a copyright issue? If it is, then I'm sure we could either argue for fair use or even manage to get authorisation. It seems like Swiss banknotes are not copyrighted. Good news so I put it up. Pascal.Tesson
6. There's no discussion about his work on the logarithm of negative numbers. The history of mathematics book I have home (Boyer and Merzbach) credit him with explaining to D'Alembert that the log of -1 is i pi. I don't claim to know much about Euler, but I did remember that one so I'm worried that the article is far from comprehensive in terms of his mathematical contributions. (added now) Pascal.Tesson

All that being said, it's still a great article and should be able to make it to FA after a few weeks' work. Pascal.Tesson 06:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the comprehensiveness issue is pretty much unavoidable, as Euler is the most prolific mathematician ever it would be impossible to say something about every mathematical advance he made in a 32kbish article(that would fill an entire wikiproject) the best we can do is say something about his more significant contributions. Plus, I was trying to make the math readable to the lay person, thus omitting some of the details of the mathematics and concentrating on the "big picture" And looking at it again, I agree that more can be said about his work in logarithms, which really were a focal point in his research in analysis. I agree about the Feynman quote, it should refer to Euler's identity rather than Euler's Formula, I'll see if I can get access to the Feynman book to check it out. Borisblue 14:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re the log of -1: I think Euler was mainly settling a dispute between Johann Bernoulli and GW Leibniz. I'll try to get a source on that and stick it in the Euler's identity article soon. Melchoir 20:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. What I wrote I got from Boyer's book. From what I remember he says something like "although it should have been apparent to Bernoulli." Pascal.Tesson 20:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm continuing to make some minor fixes and have added one more inline reference in the intro. By the way, I think the duplicate references shouldn't appear as all distinct. The article has a list of 27 references when in fact there are only a dozen or so. The Calinger article appears 6 times for example. Pascal.Tesson 23:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. Midway through adressing that comment, I realized that the various citations are to different pages of those references. That still looks like over-accurate referencing to me but then again maybe that's not the standard. In any case I will stop merging the references until we agree on that issue. Pascal.Tesson 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I like doing references this way because I find it easier when I have to do research- since the page information is already there, I don't see any reason to rm it. By the way, since you know french, would you mind fixing the "master of us all" quote? Thanks!

Wow, just looked through the extent of you improvements- thanks for all the good work! I've reverted the referencing changes and placed a discussion topic on the the talk page. Borisblue 02:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that if we do decide to revert to the old system, which franky I don't really mind, only the names of the refs need to be changed. I did not actually modify the references themselves since as soon as there is a name match, the rest of the reference is ignored. I will change the translation to "He is a master for us all" which is epsilon-better I think.Pascal.Tesson 04:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment any chance you could rewrite the second half of the graph theory/topology section? It seems unnecessarily technical. Actually, one way out of all this is to create a separate article on Euler's contributions to mathematics where it would be fair-game to describe this to a more mathematically inclined audience. Pascal.Tesson 05:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'll work on that section later tonight. Actually, I did try to create a subarticle about Euler's mathematics contributions that would cover it more in depth, but then one of the established editors in this article overruled me and reverted my changes. I think I'm going to try again and create an article mathematical discoveries of Leonhard Euler which would be more comprehensive and technical, and leave the math in this article to be more of a casual read. Borisblue 16:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. It's not that I think there's too much on the math section of the main article, I think it's about right except for what I mentionned about logarithms (needs more) and topology (needs less). It's more a question of getting some article where we can do him justice. Pascal.Tesson 17:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Added a paragraph about the logarithms in the analysis section and trimmed out the topology part. I don't think it's correct to say Euler made any contributions to topology at all. Topology as we know it didn't exist in his time- while it might be right to say his work suggested it, that's not really enough to justify saying too much about topology. Borisblue 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe the latest issue of Nature has a book review on a recent book on the subject. Since you are a mathematician, it might be worth your while to check out both the review and the book itself. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm... I'll check it out. Thank you! Borisblue 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• As suggested earlier, I've created a specific page for his contributions. Hopefully this will help in slightly condensing the section in the main article without sacrificing any content or, more to the point, make sure that this section does not grow unreasonnably in the future. For now I have more or less simply pasted the current section into the new article which can be developped. BorisBlue, you might want to add back in there what you deleted from the main page. Since I also copied his list of works there, it might also make sense to shorten the current list to include his most famous works and refer to the other article for a complete list. Pascal.Tesson 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh and it might help if I said what that article title is! I chose Contributions of Leonhard Euler to mathematics. I most certainly won't be offended if anyone wants to move it to a more euphonious name. Pascal.Tesson 03:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've added a few external links to extra references. The good news is that there's a lot of good information in those references. The bad news is of course that this reinforces my belief that the article is not yet comprehensive. Note also that many of these references are very well written and we should aspire to that kind of quality for the wiki article. Pascal.Tesson 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  The issue is, given that Euler has been written about by a lot of peer-reviewed journals, I have been very picky in choosing sources. The bulk of the article has been based on sources from the Historia Mathematica, American Math Monthly, and books published by the American Math. Society and Oxford press. I think we should be reluctant to base facts on the article on some professors lectures that he published on the internet, or even non-peer reviewed sources like mathworld, given that so many serious historians are dedicated to Euler and we can (and have) use them instead. You have stated repeatedly that the comprehensiveness of the article concerns you: well, other than the now-fixed omission of the negatuve logarithms, this criticism is unfortunately very vague; what precisely do you believe should be added? If it is discussion of Euler's mathematics, bear in mind that Euler is the most prolific mathematician in history, and so it will be impossible to discuss all his mathematical contributions in a 30-40kb wiki article. I think the article in its current state does give a good overview of his most significant contributions; and now with the "contributions" subpage we can add more detail if need be. But I need to know needs to be included.Borisblue 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  One of the external links you added was the EB article on Euler: note that that even that omits what is one of his most famous discoveries: the Konigsberg bridges problem. Of course, our standards should be (and already are) higher than EB's, but please keep in mind Euler's humongous total output when citing comprehensiveness concerns. Borisblue 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment actually, I know that I'm being vague. I don't claim to be anything close to an authority on Euler and I'm simply worried about comprehensiveness because I want to make sure we cross check other references before making this an FA. I'm not saying we should put in here every little bit of info we can find but we might find in those references important aspects that have been overlooked in the handful of references which were the primary sources for the bulk of the article. Skipping through some of these I was for instance able to put in the year for the St-Petersburg fire and the subject of his master's dissertation. (Not that either is tremendously important) My goal in putting these other references is also just to give the reader ample choices of further reading. I am much happier with the article now than I was a week ago. Actually let me make that clearer by changing my opinion below. Pascal.Tesson 13:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Great article, well-written, good pictures, etc. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support Let me update my earlier comments. I think this is much closer than what we need for FA. My remaining concerns are:

1. Writing still has to be polished. Because Wiki articles are written incrementally, their flow is often subpar. This has been improved from last week but it still needs a bit to reach the "brilliant prose" criterion.
2. The philosophy and religious beliefs section is not so clear. In particular the Diderot anecdote is odd. There's an apparent contradiction with the Diderot is dumb/Diderot is not so dumb thing.
3. Comprehensiveness: much better but as noted above we should cross check with other references. Also Euler's bibliography has been removed which might be a bit of an overkill. How about adding back his four or five most important publications and referencing to the long article for an extended list?
4. I'm not sure about the Feynman assessment of the first formula as being the most remarkable in mathematics. As a math major, I had a number of different profs describe the second one (Euler's identity) as the most beautiful truth that has ever existed and I suspect that the Feynman quote is simply misplaced. Pascal.Tesson 13:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Updated my recommendation from "weak suport" to "support". The writing is much better with all the tiny fixes made by various editors. There are extra images, extra references, better overall organization. I can confidently say that the quality of the article has surpassed the featured one on Gauss. Pascal.Tesson 05:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I fixed the feynman reference. The Diderot thing is a bit confusing- what the article is trying to say is that this anecdote is very commonly circulated (ie, that diderot is dumb) but that the anecdote is definitely untrue. I'm not sure how to reword it however. Thanks for bringing these points up. I must say that you are definitely the best kind of FAC participant, seeing how much you contributed to make the article better. Reading the EB article again, I feel that there is some stuff that should be added (synthetic geometry, e.g. Euler Line). Also, about comprehensiveness, since we are both college math majors we are perhaps not that qualified in the field- you are right, and that is one problem with wikipedia. I'm going to try to email Ronald Calinger, a math historian who specializes in Euler (he is referneced in the article) and hope that he will respond. I think having an expert check will give us a better idea whether the article is comprehensive, and if not what needs to be done. Borisblue 22:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes it's been fun working on this. Certainly a math historian should take a look at it. I recently posted a notice on the WikiProject mathematics page to try and get some more feedback from mathematically competent people but you're right: it's the history we are likely to represent incorrectly. In any case, I am likely not going to contribute much to this article (save minor edits) in the coming two weeks but good luck with it. I'm sure that you'll get plenty of support now. Pascal.Tesson 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Terrific article on a terrific mathematician.UberCryxic 17:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment have added an Infobox (see talk page). Pascal.Tesson 18:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written article on important topic. Unlike articles on so many other less important topics, it can't possibly cover everything completely, because there is so much more to write about one of the greatest scientists of all time, then, say, about Cynna Kydd, but it covers the most important points, and what it does say, it says very well. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Request to delay promotion The tally is 5-0 now, but I asked an expert historian to review the article, and he brought up some issues I would like to fix before promotion (see Talk:Leonhard_Euler#Letter_from_Ronald_Calinger.21). These shouldn't be hard to deal with, but I think it would be good to fix them before this article is featured. Borisblue 15:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  Real Life (tm) is getting in the way, it may be a while before I can work on the stuff. Borisblue 01:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Same for me actually, but I don't think there's any rush. Not sure which admin is currently in charge of checking the FAC debates but I'm sure he/she will not mind a reasonnable delay. The article is close enough to deserve that patience. Pascal.Tesson 16:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed Calinger's comments. Borisblue 19:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The article has been up for a month, creating work for editors who have to keep checking status in order to vote Keep or Oppose. Since it's close, and it appears you will have the support once you have time to iron out the remaining issue, maybe you can consider withdrawing the nomination until you're ready to finish it up, and re-submitting when it's ready? Sandy 18:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment with all due respect, I don't think that makes sense. For one thing, even the expert's opinion was globally positive and there's not much to do left. I think the current version meet the criteria and it's not like we have to stop improving the article once it gets FA status. Also, I'm not sure that there are many editors who have followed the article's progression that closely over the past month. I feel it would be more time consumming for everybody to start the process all over again in two weeks. Just my 0.02$ though. Pascal.Tesson 20:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Now wholeheartedly support I don't think that there's any question the article meets all the FA criteria.

1. I won't go and say that the prose is brilliant, but I think "compelling prose" is probably a fair assessment. The flow is there, the traces of the construction of the article have been erased.
2. Comprehensiveness I don't think is an issue anymore, especially after the integration of Calinger's comments.
3. Factually acurate. Certainly falls in line with the references I had available. Thoroughly referenced, good combo of hard references and somewhat less reliable but online references.
4. Neutral (not that this ever was an issue)
5. Stable: while there has been extensive editing in the last weeks, the content wasn't drastically modified.
6. Manual of style compliant. The content is well organized, lead section does what it should, TOC is good. Infobox and metadata were added.
7. Good, varied images: portraits, stamps, figures explaining his contributions to math, copy of title page of his book.
8. Lenght has been kept reasonnable especially after splitting the "contributions" section. 35kb is not short but then again this is Euler not Lindy Booth and that's probably below the biographical FA average anyways.

I plan to stop fiddling with it, at least until the FA status is resolved. The next target should be to rewrite the spinoff article on Euler's contributions to mathematics. Pascal.Tesson 16:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Another bit of feedback from an editor who recently updated the assessment on the talk page and whom I asked for input. Pascal.Tesson 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I think this one is ready to go now. Kaldari 04:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I think this is a great article. I made a few fairly minor changes. Here are a few more comments:
  • The last sentence in the section Leonhard Euler#St. Petersburg is fuzzy. He has a second wife? When did that happen? What happened to his first wife? Another reference to remarrying appears in the section Leonhard Euler#Return to Russia; is this the same incident? If so, the reference to the second wife should be deleted from Leonhard Euler#St. Petersburg.
  • The Leonhard Euler#See also section has a link to mathematical constants which seems to me quite irrelevant. Sure, Euler discovered some constants, but then he also discovered lots of other things that we don't have here.

Other than that I think the article is great and support its nomination. --Zvika 17:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and something else (Spangineer has already commented on this, but it went uncorrected): "Understanding the infinite was naturally the major focus of Euler's research." I don't really understand why this is "naturally". Anybody? --Zvika 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just that calculus is just, essentially "the study of the infinite". I'll remove it, since it's not clear.Borisblue 15:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed all the issues you brought up. Thanks! Borisblue 15:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Kengir uprising

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

Comment Image:Arch gulag cover.jpg has compression artefacts, is a better quality version available? Image:Kazakhstan-Kengir camp.jpg looks like it is created from Image:Kazakhstan-CIA WFB Map.png, but some of the placenames on the old map are not completely erased, also it should not be in jpg. Could a better version be recreated? Thank you. WP 02:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, WP, thanks for the quick reply. In answer to you comments: I was under the impression that book covers had to be of a low quality so that they could, for whatever reason, better qualify as fair use? I have a different edition of the book and will scan it right now at a higher resolution and await your comments on that issue before putting it in the article. (It is a different cover from a different edition, though.) Secondly, I created that Kengir map and will go through it, clean it up, and save it as a png right now. (Would it be more desirable to leave in some of the major place names for context? I'm not sure on this one.) --Clngre 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the rules, fair use book covers should be low resolution (ie small), not low quality. So you can and should use a high quality picture. Thanks. WP 04:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done! --Clngre 11:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"The significance of the temporary freedom enjoyed by those prisoners, where for forty days several thousand prisoners possessed a freedom unknown not only within Gulag, but even within the whole country outside the camps walls – a veritable island of freedom, in a prison no less, within a sea of repression – was not lost on many." Very bad sentence here. It's obviously POV to call the Soviet Union a sea of repression. This just stood out to me as the most glaring issue. Everyking 06:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Another major problem is the lack of diversification of sources; there are only a couple and in fact Solzhenitsyn is the source for virtually everything. I suppose reliance on his account makes sense, but it would be nice if more sources could be used. There seems to be nothing representing a viewpoint other than that illustrated by the "sea of repression" quote above. Everyking 07:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. I agree that that sentence is bad, not only because of the POV of statement but just because it sounds so wonky. I'll edit it now to something better. Secondly: I too am made uncomfortable by the fact that Solzhenitsyn is the primary, and almost sole, source on this. This is a tricky issue: the uprising is, like I mentioned, quite obscure and even if you search Google or Google Print for it you don't find too much. There are other serious writings on it but they're all, to my knowledge, in Russian or Ukrainian. An earlier incarnation of the article cited a different book, in Ukrainian, and I've since tracked down the editor and left a note on his talk page asking for him to elaborate on that source but he isn't replying. One major source that I have to check out, though, is Anne Applebaum's book on the history of Gulag, which I hear talks about the uprising in some length. I can go to the library today or tomorrow for that. But I suppose the real question is if one primary source, however good and for however obscure a topic, is ever enough and if things, as a rule, have to be checked and balanced by another primary source. --Clngre 11:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I added three more sources, one of them major. I personally think that this is a fair, appropriate number of sources for such topic, but if it isn't I'd gladly go back to the library and look for more. If the interest is just to have more corroboration of the information, I understand, but I think that for that, at this point, I'd have to enlist the help of a Russian or Ukrainian speaking wikipedian. I'm eager to bring this up to FA level, so please spare no criticism! The better the article is the better it is for all of us. --Clngre 13:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - So what now? This nomination has seem to stagnated and, while I certainly appreciate the very constructive feedback I've received so far, I'd like to resolve the status of this article as soon as possible because I won't be able to devote much time to it in the near future and fear that, that being the case, I might have to abandon the nomination attempt because I wrote virtually all of the article and will be unavailable. Is this pace common pace for a nomination? The past two articles of mine that I had put to the vote graduated relatively briskly, as I recall. I don't know what to make of this. ??? --Clngre 22:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - per nom --Ineffable3000 04:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Inline citations go straight after punctuation without a gap between the punctuation and the inline citation. I see many mistakes (gaps, citation before punctuation, typos, wrong punctuation). You must fix them.--Yannismarou 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, done. I hope I didn't miss any--Clngre 18:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerned about the number of sources. Just 5 of them. Aren't there any more available. Because of this, you have from me not the full but just a weak support. Full support.--Yannismarou 19:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern and you're right to make that an issue, because it generally is. In this particular circumstance, though, I think five is not only sufficient but virtually the limit. I think the number of sources deemed sufficient for an article is somewhat relative to the breadth and quality of sources that are available for it. For this article, for instance, the topic is quite esoteric and has a limited amount of stuff written about it in English. The sources I did include are of pretty high quality, though. Applebaum included a large footnote for the chapter in which she discusses the uprising, stating the sources she used and found to exist. She sourced her account from interviews, the governments internal records, Russian and Ukrainian texts, and so on, so I find her account to be authoritative. --Clngre 22:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok!--Yannismarou 06:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support awesome read. Rama's arrow 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment A very good article, but I think it has way too many quotes for an encyclopedic entry. Quotes should be minimized as much as possible. Resolve this problem and I'll gladly support.UberCryxic 17:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean and that's a valid point. Some of the quotes have a lot of merit and should be kept I believe (the transcript of their propaganda, for instance), some are just usefully illustrative, and some are, like you said, superfluous. I used my best judgement and removed a bunch of quotes in the last category, but let me know if you still believe it could use some more pruning, as I'd be happy to do it. Thanks for your kind words as well. --Clngre 00:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Very Very Small Object pending fixing of the refs. For example there are five references for page 501 from Applebaum's book. They could all be merged into the one. Just to tidy it up. Good read though. Todd661 23:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I never thought of that, I just went through and paired up all of the doubles. Feel free to let me know if I missed. Thank you --Clngre 00:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am always right :) 9 & 10 are the same. Support Todd661 02:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

. Ok, I got them. Good eye! --Clngre 04:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

New Orleans Mint

Previous FA nominations can be found here:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Orleans Mint/Archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Orleans Mint/Archive2

Self-nomination. This article has been peer-reviewed multiple times, and I think that it's fairly comprehensive. There is a long list of coinage statistics as part of the article (which I think is necessary), but I think the text about the Mint speaks for itself fairly well. I've tried to make sure the article properly uses citations and attend to any comments fellow users have made regarding improving the article, and I think it meets the FA criteria pretty well. It's been rated an A-class article for numismatics, and is pretty stable; recent changes have been fairly minor. Absecon 59 18:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is <pre> tags the best way to present the data? Would using tables be better? And on my computer, the images covered some of the data.WP 09:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Object. The giant poorly formatted list is a problem. Move the list to a sub article. --Maitch 09:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, you have fixed this problem. If you will decapitalize the headings as described in Wp:mos#Headings, use {{cite web}} for web references and convert external links within the article to references, then I will support. --Maitch 15:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that these problems have now been fixed, but please let me know if I've missed anything. Absecon 59 16:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Great. I have changed my vote to support. --Maitch 21:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Agree, the list should be moved to a sub article as suggested by Maitch. If you find that as a result of the move, you have too many images then using a gallery format may solve the problem. Pending the above modifications, I would extend my support.--Riurik ^(discuss) 19:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

These are excellent suggestions. I've taken the stats for coinage and made them into a sub-page and linked that from the article. The "Coinage Produced" section has been reorganized into a table that I think displays relevant data nicely with images of the coinage. (Please comment if this table does not display properly on your computer). The article is, I think, slightly shorter now, as well. Absecon 59 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support I like this now, espcially the tables the coins are in. Rlevse 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but I would love if the image could be organized some other way. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 04:02 (UTC)
• Support Great article and I believe it fits criteria for featured articles Hello32020 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Object The article is quite good. However, the "coinage produced" section is way too large for this article, and seems irrelevant. That section is not about the mint so much as it is about the coinage. If that section were completely removed, I would support this article for FA. At the least it needs to be drastically reduced, with at most one or two somewhat historically noteworthy examples. Also, how about some creativity with layout? All the photos are on the right side and all the same size--DaveOinSF 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished work

This article explains the primary reasons behind creative works remaining unfinished, giving (prominent) examples for each in different media. May not be the longest article, but it doesn't really need to be as it covers the topic to a good enough degree. Any further detail and lists of works can be placed in subarticles

All comments from the previous nomination have been dealt with. violet/riga (t) 13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Continued Support - A good article has become an even better article. Congratulations to violetriga for having dealt with concerns during the first nomination so rapidly. I'm sure some editors will be concerned with a renomination so quickly, but prior concerns HAVE been actively addressed, and compromises reached where appropriate. --JohnDBuell 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• "All comments from the previous nomination have been dealt with." Comment: I find this claim somewhat disingenuous. "Dealt with" from whose point of view? Reverting edits that address real issues with style, redundancy, and verboseness does not make those issues go away. I also think that re-listing a FAC candidate on the same day that an old nomination has been commented on feels like an attempt to bypass objections rather that deal with them. How about waiting a month or so and letting the wiki process take place? Anyways, those are just my two cents -- if most editors think that this work is FA-quality, I won't put up a fuss. --Alex S 16:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead is supposed to summarise the article, and yes, that inherently leads to duplication. If you would like to have another go at the lead then please be my guest, but you need to make sure that it is long enough. Indeed, your version of the lead was one of the complaints from someone else in the previous FAC. As for relisting so quickly, I personally don't think it was right for the last one to be taken off, and my attempts to reinstate it were reverted. Today's comment on that FAC was to agree that the criticisms had been met, and thus all of them had been attended to. violet/riga (t) 16:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've tried to merge our versions of the lead and hope that you won't revert it outright. Here and here are some of the Manual of Style guidelines that I think should be better exemplified by any FA. In the previous nomination, the lead used the word "some" or a variant thereof five times. There should be lot fewer weasel words before this article is considered an FA. As for the lead needing to be long enough: the length of the lead should reflect the amount of content it contains, not a boatload of functionless modifiers or empty phrases like "There are many examples of artists from a variety of fields not completing pieces of work." Length should be a function of content, not just an amount of space on a screen. --Alex S 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • "Refers to", the way I used, was an acceptable way of starting an article, and I think you'll find that the use of the word "some" is not weasely. When writing a summary of this sort it is not a problem using "some" and the like. It's not like we can say "476 artists have left a total of 1654 paintings unfinished" - we have to use such modifiers. Sorry, but it would appear that your approach to writing is a little different to mine, but that does not mean that mine is not acceptable for a featured article and I hope you can realise that. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I didn't mean for this discussion to become combative. On the whole you are an excellent writer and researcher, as testified by unfinished work. I hope that my edits were able to help a bit. Good luck on the nomination! --Alex S 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks. You've made many positive changes to the text, and I appreciate your contributions and comments. violet/riga (t) 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Architecture section not comprehensive, I'm very concerned this area is not correctly researched if you think that Albert Speers plans for Germania aren't notable. I wonder whether a section on 'Unfinished work completed by others' might be a useful vehicle to discuss examples of the extent of incompleteness people have been left to deal with - I'm thinking of unfinshed symphonies - I think there was a fragment of Elgar's recently that was worked into a symphony. It would provide a nice resolution to the article. Oh while I remember - I'm pretty sure that constructivism was supposed to look like it was permanently being constructed so that it would express the communist notions of permanent revolution - Unfinished work as a political mirror.--Mcginnly | Natter 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You seem to want me to include every example you come up with. Sorry but that's just not viable. Seperate spin-off articles (such as unfinished building) can include them, but I am strongly opposed to including too many examples. Elgar's Symphony No. 3 was recently performed at the Proms, yes, but there is already an example of a symphony being completed by someone (Bach's The Art of Fugue, which is arguably more notable). violet/riga (t) 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, it would be entirely possible to fork off a new article, such as Unfinished musical compositions include a {{main}} in this article, and go from there. Mozart's Requiem (which has been finished on multiple occasions by other composers) would make a stellar example to include in such a forked listing. --JohnDBuell 17:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- I'm still ambivalent about this article's approach, and find it difficult to assess. None of the references are to scholars discussing the concept of an "unfinished work" as a whole, and very few of them appear to be specifically devoted to the unfinished nature of the works we've chosen to discuss. I think some of the commentary here and at the last nomination illustrates that; if we're just presenting our own examples of what we think particularly interesting unfinished works are, or choosing which works best illustrate the concepts we have chosen to discuss, we're without any kind of guidance as to whether we are making idiosyncratic choices or not; are we neglecting sculpture or over-emphasising computer software? This isn't just a stability concern, or a Wikipedia:No original research concern, it is also a comprehensiveness concern. If we're not looking at what other people have said about the concept of "unfinished works", aren't we missing something rather important? Jkelly 01:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll point out that a fair number of the references don't seem to be "scholars" at all—there's at least one citation that goes to a geocities page, for example—which is an issue I believe I brought up during the previous nomination. Kirill Lokshin 02:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object; excellent article, and nearly there. However, Image:ErnestHemingway.jpg does not have a clear copyright status; no grounds are provided for the statement that it is public domain, and the tag used is generic. Finally, the last section of the article dealing with unfinished works and the law is just one paragraph long. Would it be possible to expand on it? A paragraph-long section looks rather messy. Some issues that might be discussed could be, for instance, the copyright status of a centuries-old work that is completed today. Who owns the copyright? Support. Johnleemk | Talk 07:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that suggestion. I am rather ignorant about copyright laws, and so I would like to defer the expansion of that section to somebody that knows what they are talking about. Anybody know of any experts in the field? Regarding the image, it's not an integral part of the article and it can easily be changed. violet/riga (t) 11:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks to help from Finlay McWalter the law section has been expanded - I hope it is what you were after. violet/riga (t) 12:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support - the approach taken in this article is rather idiosyncratic (it seems to be a set of examples being used to illustrate the concept, rather than saying anything substantive about what people have said about unfinished works), but I rather like it. Some good examples, and some good pictures as well. The lead section could benefit from a few examples in the first few sentences, as otherwise the lead section is a bit dry and theoretical. I nearly moved on to another article, but once I started reading the examples in the main article, I was hooked and kept reading. I know you are trying to limit the examples, but the sentences on Tolkien's unfinished works should at least mention Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-earth, as well as The Silmarillion. Adding two more wikilinks to those sentences should be doable. Carcharoth 21:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Kitch supported this article at its last nomination but has not yet returned for this one. violet/riga (t) 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment leaning towards Oppose. I'm not a fan of the approach and the structure of the article. It's practically a list of unfinished works with their reasons. I prefer, if it's possible, that we make such sections describing the "History and evolution of this phenomenon", "how they are perceived by the public and crtitics", "the different reasons", "the law", and finally a set of "examples in each type of media". CG 20:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the article could work that way. "History and evolution of this phenomenon" wouldn't be logical as it's not something that has conciously evolved, just something that has happened on many unrelated occasions. "How they are perceived by the public and critics" would be somewhat strange given that they are all perceived in many different ways, just like any work. I disagree that the article is a list. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object- 1a, 1b, 2a. For example:
  • The second sentence needs another "have", and contains an idle "of".
  • "There are many reasons for work not being completed." The old noun + gerund construction, which is stricly speaking ungrammatical, and could easily be reworded to avoid the awkwardness.
  • Works are usually stopped when their creator dies,...". Hmmm, that's profound, and since it's in the lead, it will make WP look foolish on the front page. In the same vein, although not such a clanger, is "Novels can remain unfinished because the author continually rewrites the story."
  • "In the days of classical music" - when were they?

Look, it might have been a nice idea, but it has ended up with an air of contrivance. It can't help but be superficial in its whirlwind tour of ... everything ("Johann Sebastian Bach's The Art of Fugue, which breaks off abruptly during Contrapunctus XIV, was first published in the mid 18th century." - So what?) It doesn't really draw clear, useful conclusions about its subject. Tony 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I strongly disagree with all your objections here. You want it to fail on three small grammatical points that you yourself could've corrected faster than writing about them here? You quote a sentence about The Art of Fugue but don't then mention that its inclusion there is then expanded by a further sentence all about how it was completed more faithfully than normal. violet/riga (t) 09:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rejoinder. If you strongly disagree with all of my objections, you'd better come up with compelling and specific reasons for both the micro and macro issues that I've raised. It's odd that you acknowledge that some of my points are indeed "grammatical points", while at the same time strongly disagreeing with them. Whether they're small or large, problems in the writing need to be fixed if this is going to be a FA. Your attitude suggests that you don't care about these blemishes.

But more broadly, you appear to misunderstand that my objection was backed up by "examples", as I stated. I'm objecting to the substandard prose throughout the article, not just the "three small grammatical points". To go through the whole text pointing out every problem would take many pages here, and more time than I have. And reviewers are under no obligation to edit articles themselves: that is your job.

Since you raise the musical aspect, I went to that section. The first part I read was: "Some compositions are finished "in the style of" the original composer, with someone that is highly familiar with their work adopting their writing style and continuing the musical tone. A mathematical approach can be used in some instances, calculating the intended appearance of the symphony." Here's another awkward noun + gerund ("with someone ... objecting"). Who is someone? Is it a person, or an object, as you indicate with "that". How do "writing style" and "tone" differ, since you made the distinction? What on earth do you mean by "A mathematical approach", and by "calculating the intended appearance of the symphony"? Appearance? Why now just "symphony"? This is most unsatisfactory, and repeated in many parts of the article.

As for your attempt to rebut my point about The Art of Fugue, the "further sentence all about how it was completed more faithfully than normal" is just a bald assertion that some mathematical formula was concocted that allows for a faithful completion of the movement, which IMV is a fanciful assertion, worse for the absence of supporting details.

The article can't possibly pass as is. It's superficial, begs important questions, lacks comprehensiveness, and is not written to professional standards. Tony 01:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The sentence that you go into depth about is an example of you being very picky and, put simply, plain wrong. That sentence (except, perhaps for "who/that") is fine to me. "Writing style" and "tone" do not have to be different and simply allow the sentence to flow better. "A mathematical approach" is clearly one that uses mathematics to figure out the remainder of the piece rather than one that doesn't. "Appearance" is fine in this context as it refers how the work appears to us (and that doesn't necessarily mean visually). "Symphony" is used to avoid the repetition of the word "composition".

As for The Art of Fugue: It is not a bold assumption. I take it you've read the reference? Given the way that text is written I think it is a fair statement. It doesn't need further details because that's what The Art of Fugue is for.

Returning to your original sentence complaints: "Works are usually stopped when their creator dies" is a valid sentence because the work can be continued by a co-creator. "Novels can remain unfinished because the author continually rewrites the story" is fine and I can't even see what your objection is there. "In the days of classical music" does not need to assert a date or year because that is mostly irrelevant. "There are many reasons for work not being completed" I have no problem with. The second sentence has had a "have" added, but the "of" should stay.

But more broadly, you appear to misunderstand that this article is backed up by "examples", as I stated. It is not superficial nor does it lack comprehensiveness. violet/riga (t) 07:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, my point is "plain wrong", but ... oh, the who/that thing is right. I'm afraid that "writing style" and "tone" do very much have to be different if they're both to be retained in that sentence; otherwise the writing is fluff, and no, including both items does not make the sentence flow better. You're misrepresenting whatever notion it is that a movement from The Art of Fugue could be better completed using a mathematical approach. Can you enlighten us as to how, exactly? The readers should not have to go to the reference to clear up such a wild assertion. "It doesn't need further details because that's what The Art of Fugue is for." What are you talking about? "Works are usually stopped ..." is a ridiculous assertion, as is the "rewrites" statement.

I can't be bothered to go on. Your responses seem to take the form "You're wrong" in each case. There's about as much substance to them as there is to the article. It can't possibly be promoted to FA status, which requires "compelling, even brilliant" prose. Tony 12:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This article does not need to go into detail about specific works, just use them as a illustrative examples. The Art of Fugue is used as an example of how mathematics can be used and it explains that in as much detail as is needed in this article. violet/riga (t) 13:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I challenge you, or any reviewer here, to explain what on earth it means, and how mathematics could be used to complete the fugue in a superior way, as you're claiming. As a musician, I can't see how this could be correct, so I'd like an explanation. Tony 16:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Because a permutation matrix was used to determine the remainder of the music. Most unfinished works don't have such an obvious way to complete them. violet/riga (t) 16:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to believe that a mathematical process can determine "the remainder of the music". It appears to be way off the mark, which is why I think it's inappropriate to make a bald statement such as this in the article. I'm pretty certain that on reading the source, we'd have to back down from this simple assertion. Tony 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that the mathematical process determines "the remainder of the music". It explicitly says that the discovery of a permutation matrix allows us to "predict how the piece would appear" and thus complete the remainder of the music more faithfully than if one were not available. Sorry, but I really thought that was obvious. violet/riga (t) 12:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Because a permutation matrix was used to determine the remainder of the music." Determine ... Tony 12:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not in the article. And by that I clearly mean the structure of the piece, no more. violet/riga (t) 15:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is the kind of thing I'm objecting to in the article. And in any case, what do you mean by "structure"? The sequence of entries, in terms of voice and other attributes? If so, say so in the article. I'd still be suspicious, though. Tony 15:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If people want the full details then they look at the related article, not the summary that merely uses it as an example of how mathematical processes can sometimes be used. violet/riga (t) 15:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point, which is that the article is superficial in many ways. Tony 15:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is a summary and should not go into detail. There's a massive difference. violet/riga (t) 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the rule is "unnecessary detail". When the text makes a radical claim, some supporting detail is required. Otherwise, remove the claim. If, in an article on the Moon, there's a claim that you can travel there already via a wormhole, some scientific support is required. Tony 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What a poor analogy. violet/riga (t) 09:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment—Just to reiterate, the lead needs about 30 edits, and even then would have problems. The title of the article is hopelessly ambiguous (Untitled works would have been better.) The rest of the article needs serious surgery. Let me know if you want yet more random examples. Tony 08:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "Untitled works"? What? That's a different concept and it breaks the MoS plural title rule. violet/riga (t) 09:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So ... which untitled work are you referring to? If you're referring to untitled work out there, in general, it's just vague. Tony 14:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a bet each way in the second para of the lead:

"There are many reasons for work not being completed. Works are usually stopped when their creator dies, although some, aware of their failing health, make sure that they set up the project for completion. If the work involves other people, such as a cast of actors or the subject of a portrait, it may be halted because of their unavailability. Projects that are too grandiose might never have been finished,..."

Work or works, which is it to be? The first sentence here is awkward and ungrammatical. To make the meaning clear, you need to end the second sentence with "completion by other people", and to insert "artists" after "some"; I still think that the first, bald clause is unwise, but you haven't taken any notice of that. "Make sure that they" is redundant. Actors aren't going to halt the creation of a script or play—what does it mean? "Too grandiose"? I'd say that if a work is just "grandiose", it probably should be gagged. Too grandiose for what?

The problem is that the whole text requires recasting to fix these types of problems: in a nutshell, (1) vagueness, (2) the begging of questions, and (3) poor writing, from a technical perspective. Tony 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How come you're talking about untitled work again? That is an entirely different concept to unfinished work. You are also going on about the use of plurals (work/works) that really is irrelevant. Your comments about prose are entirely based on your own idea of how things should be written. Sorry, but on a project such as this you are going to continually find people that write in a different style to yourself. You call some of it "redundant" and I can only assume that you are too used to writing technical essays and not something intended for a general audience that prefers something that flows well. violet/riga (t) 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for the "untitled"—don't know what's making me slip into that word. The singular/plural is relevant, because they bring different sets of meanings, whether in the title or in the second para. I'm still uncomfortable with the ambiguity in the title ("work"), but you were right to raise the issue of the MoS constraints on the use of plurals in titles, of which I was unaware. To respond to your major point, I write and edit in a range of registers, not just "technical essays", as you put it, and while a minority of my edits arise from personal preferences, most are technically necessary. I've been careful here to talk about just technically necessary fixes to the prose. You need to remove the redundancies I pointed out above and to insert my suggested items, or those sentences will be vague and difficult to read. It's the "general audience" I have in mind in showing how the prose can be turned into something that "flows well". Tony 00:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I reviewed the old nom, and I'm not fully convinced that objections raised there have been addressed (in particular, concerns raised by JKelly, Alex S and Krill). I typically focus on references, and my main concern is with the sources used. The inline citations are sparse, and include sources such as personal websites, blogs, an AOL member website, and a Geocities website, with a strong reliance on websources, and a lack of scholarly sources. The article even uses another Wiki article as a source, which is not in agreement with WP:V and WP:RS (circular reasoning, using a Wiki to cite a Wiki). It is hard for me to accept that this article can overcome its elusive subject matter unless it relies on the highest quality scholarly sources. Per concerns raised by several other reviewers, comprehensiveness seems to be an issue. Sandy 02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 57 references is sparse? Almost every statement is referenced, especially those that would require a citation. There are 5 sources that aren't web-based, but there is no necessity for an article to have any printed references. I can't find what you are referring to with another wiki article being used as a citation. As for the comprehensiveness, I can't understand how people can say that - it is not supposed to be a complete list of unfinished work, or even to list all the most popular unfinished pieces - it is merely about what is unfinished work in various mediums and reasons for them not being completed. violet/riga (t) 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I misread this reference "Urban Legends Reference Pages. 7 December 1997. "Brandon Lee". Accessed 9 August 2006," struck that objection above. Sandy 21:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I've been uncomfortable with this ever since it was nominated, but couldn't put a finger on why. Jkelly has pretty much done it above. You've chosen an ill defined subject and seem to be getting frustrated when people don't agree with your approach. Most of the sources are simply supporting the examples of works used. There are far too few directly addressing the concept. If there don't exist many, then perhaps that should be a clue that it's not an appropriate topic. If there are more high quality sources that directly speak to the topic and various aspects of it then they should be hunted down and consulted and the article should be restructured to fully focus on the concept of unfinished works, using a few examples only where needed. There isn't a need to focus on so many classes of examples. - Taxman ^Talk 23:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The only sources about unfinished works are the ones about particular examples, not general ones. That doesn't mean that this is "not an appropriate topic" - far from it. violet/riga (t) 14:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Taxman has put his finger on what I wanted to say in addition to the microproblems in the prose. Tony 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it does. It means your compilation is original research. I don't mean to be difficult or discourage your contributions, but I think that if no sources directly addressing the topic exist then you've missed the mark about what an encyclopedia is for in this case. If those sources do exist, the article needs to be refocused around them instead of being a list of examples. There are so many core topics we do need to cover better we don't need to push the boundaries of what can be covered. That's just not what we are for. - Taxman ^Talk 15:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Got to disagree there. It is not original research, it is an original compilation. Just because the topic hasn't been directly covered by another source doesn't mean that we can't compile various sources together. One thing about this place is that we can be a resource where others don't exist. You think that means it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia? I disagree - it is a big thing of what we are about. violet/riga (t) 16:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If none of your sources support your topic you have original research. QED. All the stuff in the middle that's not direct conclusions from sources on the examples is OR. Of course you can compile conclusion from various sources, but you can't come to conclusions that aren't in them. Your statement that that is a big thing we are about represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the original research and verifiability policy. As a consequence of efforts to avoid complete garbage (certainly not saying this is, just what we're trying to avoid) we are here only to synthesize already published material. And we don't need to argue here about that. That is a long held rock solid conclusion from extensive discussions around the verifiability and original research policies. - Taxman ^Talk 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You'd be hard-pushed to find anything in that article that is OR or is not verifiable from the multitude of sources given. It's like giving a list of World Cup results using different different sources for each match - is it then OR to place these matches together? Certainly not. Then you can say that one match had the highest score - you don't need a source for such a thing. As I said above, the compilation of material is totally acceptable, and to draw obvious conclusions (ie. people sometimes die before completing work in different mediums) is fine. violet/riga (t) 07:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Object. I've looked through the article (along with the comments here). In my opinion it's harmless enough, as it stands. The style, while not significantly worse than the standard we normally see around Wikipedia, is by no means scintillating. As for the content... look, I think it's a bit of fun, but I just don't consider it suitable for featured-article status, no matter how proficient the treatment of such a topic could be made with the editorial makeover that it currently needs. – Noetica 12:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ladakh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• SupportObject pending fixing these: the refs in the body (footnote numbers) should be immediately after the punctuation-not before it and not with a space in front of it and if more than one in a row, all adjacent with no spaces. I'd prefer to see the refs in cite php format, at a minimum they should be consistently formatted. For instance, for the web refs, some currently display the URL and some the title. Other than this, I think it's pretty good. Rlevse 00:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have fixed the concern raised regarding references positioning. However, I have similar concerns. The references beyond the ref#24 are incomplete. Also, Wikipedia/Wikitravel articles aren't considered as references. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• All references problems are now sorted out, including completeness. Material cited from other wiki pages has either been removed, or an alternate source is cited. deeptrivia (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• I've made further changes in the number and size of images. Does that look okay now? deeptrivia (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you make the web ones cite php? Did some work to help on the refs for you. Rlevse 18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly that means, and how it's done. Can you do it once, and I'll follow the example with the rest? Thanks, deeptrivia (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

All references have been converted to cite php. deeptrivia (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object Several problems exist:

1. Trim the size from 47kb to 40kb.
2. History The partition of India did not automatically give Ladakh to India. Only after Kashmir's accession did the area come to India, and that was after Pakistan's invasion. What effect has the Kashmir militancy had on Ladakh? What is the present status of the boundary dispute with China?
3. The "Government and politics," "Economy," "Transport" sections should follow after "Flora and fauna." "Culture" should be the last, preceeded by "Demographics."
4. "See also" section is necessary - along with Ladakh-related topics, place the GeoSouthAsia template there.
5. "Notes and references" is wrong title - just "References" if the "Further reading" books have not served as references themselves.
6. Copyediting please thoroughly check for spelling and grammar problems. Rama's arrow 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
7. I'd like to know how the Shia Muslim and Buddhist populations get along in political, economic and communal issues. I'd like to see more data on the Shia Muslim population. Rama's arrow 18:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment At this date, the article only has about 4,900 words, which is well below the maximum number suggested by Wikipedia:Article size of 6,000-10,000. The use of tables and in-line php cites makes the old rule-of-thumb of looking at storage size misleading and thus of limited use.--Paul 04:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm looking into what I can do. Would probably need to split the Notes and references section into a Notes section and a References section to retain accuracy of title. Is there any other way? deeptrivia (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Objection to size of 47K is not a legit objection.Rlevse 12:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Size issues are part of FA criteria - I believe that the size can and should be reduced, although not by much. Rama's arrow 16:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No they're not. The word size doesn't even appear on the FAC criteria page. It only says "appropriate length" and how do you justify the arbitary size of 40K? Furthermore, how do you explain FAs on games over 100K? Rlevse 18:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Appropriate length" is all that needs to be said. 40kb is a good figure to aim for - obviously 43kb will not be a problem. I wrote a 69kb FA myself, but its tolerable only becoz the prose is ~ 40kb, and as long as there is valuable information that must not be removed. This article needs trimming - the more distant an article's size is from the 50kb-mark, the better. If there are 100kb FAs on "games," there had better be a good reason for it, for most people will not bother to read the article in completion. It is not advisable for any article to exceed 80kb - most will be a significant load on people's internet connections. Rama's arrow 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Often efforts to reduce size help editors slash repetitive info and long-winded sentences. This is a good way to copyedit an article. Rama's arrow 21:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you'd better talk to Raul654 because there are several FAs way over the length you consider appropriate, see Final Fantasy VII (92K) for one. Your decision on a 40K limit for this article is capricious and since you don't make the final decision, it's only your opinion.Rlevse 23:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

When did I claim to express anything but an opinion? There is nothing "capricious" about my comments - learn WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL before you make future comments. Rama's arrow 23:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Update

• Trim the size from 47kb to 40kb.

A significant part of effort on this article since early June have gone into condensing the article, and several sections now are much shorter than previous versions. In any case, after your suggestion, I reduced the size further to 45kb, but the single act of replacing direct referencing with the cite php templates throughout the article took the size back to 50kb (I brought it down to 49kb again by removing some information.) In other words, I think a bulk of memory size in articles written in today's style goes into latent text that is invisible to the reader. (If I have 30 different references in an article, and I'm using a cite template with 10 fields, I all of a sudden add 300 extra words (fieldnames) to my article that are invisible to the reader.) The total visible text in this article is 38kb (including references.) I agree it still puts a load on internet connections, but well, a single decent image is going to be around 500 kb by itself.)

History The partition of India did not automatically give Ladakh to India. Only after Kashmir's accession did the area come to India, and that was after Pakistan's invasion. What effect has the Kashmir militancy had on Ladakh? What is the present status of the boundary dispute with China?

I've now added some information regarding this in the history section.

The "Government and politics," "Economy," "Transport" sections should follow after "Flora and fauna." "Culture" should be the last, preceeded by "Demographics."

I've made this change.

"See also" section is necessary - along with Ladakh-related topics, place the GeoSouthAsia template there.

Added the section.

"Notes and references" is wrong title - just "References" if the "Further reading" books have not served as references themselves.

Split the section to have a separate notes section.

Copyediting please thoroughly check for spelling and grammar problems. Rama's

arrow 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrected whatever I could spot.

I'd like to know how the Shia Muslim and Buddhist populations get along in political, economic and communal issues. I'd like to see more data on the Shia Muslim population. Rama's arrow 18:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added some more information regarding this in the Government and Politics section. deeptrivia (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• I fixed the notes. I think it's OK now. But just check for sure. So, I support.--Yannismarou 07:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support the heated exchange with Rlevse has given the impression that I am a "sizist" or something - I absolutely am not. I often find it frustrating to contain size in FAs myself, but one has to make an effort to assure that the article is of an acceptable length - thru this way it benefits by helping extricate repetitive info and copyediting, making the article a simpler, better read. However, you (Deeptrivia) did a fine job in addressing all other points. Rama's arrow 12:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Mr Tan 13:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment footnotes are not proper, as Rlevse has pointed out. Still there are instances where there is a space between the punctuation mark and the footnote number.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Have done some copyedits to properly place footnotes. Also some copyedit for formatting units, ndash, wikilinking etc. Please see if I missed something.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comments: Needs a copyedit. Many examples of choppy prose such as: The council has put forth ... and Baltistan (ends as an anticlimax). Proper nouns need to be wikified and stubbed: eg Phugthal, Sani, Stongdey, Shyok Valley, Sankoo, Salt Valley. Fill all such red to make it look neater. said to be the highest fields in the world. -- weasel terms, needs a reference. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done some edits fixing some references, making a bunch of more stubs, providing references, fixing some language, etc. About the weasel words used for describing Karzok fields to be the highest, I have at least three reputable references on that, but all use weasel words "said to be", "considered", etc. I guess we'll have to live with this language in this instance. However, according to Wikipedia guidelines on weasel words, providing sources, as I've done should be considered an improvement. If there are other problems like these, let me know. deeptrivia (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent history seems to be absent 1947-2006. Also what could be added is the rise in narcotic trading in the area. I've also embedded comments in the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent history is covered in the politics section. I have now, however, added a summary of it to the history section. I've also taken care of the inline comments. About narcotics trading, I couldn't find much information. Is this a significant issue? I've read about the Karakoram highway between Pakistani and Chinese administered territories being used for narcotics smuggling between those to countries, but nothing about Ladakh. It would be very interesting if it's significant, since in the present situation (with Tibet borders closed), Ladakh doesn't lie on any trade routes, and the army closely watches the only two highways to access the region. deeptrivia (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there any other suggestions/objections? deeptrivia (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sex ratio should be defined, and linked to; the article appears to be using men per thousand women, but should say so - and if it is not, it must say so, to avoid misleading the reader. Septentrionalis 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the usual females per 1000 males definition. I've linked sex ratio and provided a note. deeptrivia (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Good enough to be a Featured Article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I was pleased with the first two paragraphs of the lead, but then I found problems.
  • "borders into Tibet and Central Asia in the 1960,"—"with", not "into", which indicates motion. "1960s".
  • " Since 1974, the Indian Government encouraged tourism in Ladakh."—"has encouraged".
  • "The largest town of Ladakh"—nope: "in".
  • "A majority of Ladakhis are Tibetan Buddhist, with most of the rest being Shia Muslims." Pluralise "Buddhist". "With" is a poor link-word. Try "... are Tibetan Buddhists; most other Lahakhis are Shia Muslims". Easier to read?
  • "in recent times"—code for just "recently". But redundancy here is overtaken by the need for precise info, not vague chronological notions. Since when? Later in the sentence, "its" is ambiguous.

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

I've done a copyedit. [4] Is it better or worse? — Ravikiran 20:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Ravikiran's comments

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

History

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

Government

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

Culture

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

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

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

Thanks. Just wanted to tell you that I was fascinated by the place when I read the article, and that is what prompted me to go copyedit it. Support for FA. — Ravikiran 18:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Its a great effort. Took me a while to finish reading the article -- Lost^(talk) 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support All the constructive comments and work have made this FA material. Very interesting too. Sumoeagle179 12:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Very interesting article about an interesting place. Kudos. Mark my vote as support when on going copy-edits are finished.--Blacksun 15:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We're not voting here, and it's not a numbers game; it's a process of gaining consensus. Tony 09:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And my opinion is that the article is FA material once the copyedit suggestions made by you are taken care of. Whats your point? --Blacksun 00:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that you referred to "voting"; that would be appropriate at RfA, where it is a vote, but not here. Tony 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Try to take things in context once in a while. I can write you a written apology if you like for using the word "vote" by mistake. Sometimes, I am busy and make slips like that. Anyways, enough time wasted on this line of thought. --Blacksun 20:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment
• In the first paragraph "Lahoul" is mentioned first, then "Lahul" is mentioned. Are these same? Jankit 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Several transliterations are common. Now, I've changed both of them to "Lahaul", because that's the spelling on the district's official website, http://hplahaulspiti.nic.in/ . deeptrivia (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's quite good, nice work, but I can't support until a few relatively easy to fix things are taken care of. One is that the languages spoken and understood are not given enough coverage relative to some other topics which are probably given more coverage than their importance dictates. And the demographics section seems like the more fitting place to cover the languages. It should be one solid paragraph telling the approximate numbers or percentages of speakers of the main languages and what scripts are in most common use. What language are government services conducted in, most media, etc. Second is there are very short orphan paragraphs throughout which either need to be merged with related material, expanded, or removed. It looks like you've got some great sources, and everything I can think an article like this would need is there. Perhaps the geography section could be renamed geography and climate to reflect it's contents. - Taxman ^Talk 17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to fix all of this tonight. deeptrivia (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reorganized some paragraphs to have some uniformity in their size, and have added some more content about languages and scripts. I have also moved it to the demographics section. I am confident that no information about percentage of speakers of languages in Ladakh exists. Last census conducted after 20 years does not provide such information, nor do any of the books I have on the subject. It would have been possible to estimate this if we at least knew the population of various nomadic groups and their dialects, but this information has never been collected either. Ladakhi is not even an official language. Climate is a subject matter of geography, just like geology, so it has not been explicitly mentioned. deeptrivia (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Much better. I see your point on the geography, and if there simply is no information on the language distribution so be it. I was just about ready to support when I realized there is nothing on communications, media, or other technology infrastructure in the article. Maybe it's not widespread enough that it couldn't be covered in a small section, but it needs something. How is phone service, access to computers, etc. Sorry I just noticed this. - Taxman ^Talk 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I know some things about internet, telephones, etc. from personal experience, but I don't have any sources yet. There are no contentious facts that can be disputed, though. Airtel is the sole provider of mobile phones, and the service is available only in Leh. Internet too, is available only in Leh, and is very expensive compared to rest of India (Rs. 2/min). Cable television is available and popular in Leh. As far as villages are concerned, most of them have no modern communications facilities. Even Lamayuru, very popular with tourists for its monastery doesn't have a single telephone. There are all these bits I know, but haven't found any sources to cite yet. Will be looking for them.deeptrivia (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)