Wikipedia:FAC

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:FAC is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

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

Contents

Nominations

Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean

previous FAC

This article is well written, well sourced, conforms to WP:MOS, and is stable. It recently underwent a peer review which lead to a few polishing changes and gave me the confidence to submit this article as an FAC. I look forward to your thoughts. Plasticup T/C 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Done. Hurricane Dean is now linked in the infobox instead, to allow navigation back to the storm's main article. Plasticup T/C 17:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's quite well written. In this genre, where you're recounting a story, essentially, I'd be inclined to use more commas after sentence-initial time phrases ("That afternoon, the storm ..."). Gives a rhythm, a pace, that makes it easier on the reader. Boy, it sure is hard to edit with those inline citations ... phew. TONY (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290)

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)


I'm nominating this article because I believe it meets the requirements for a featured article. Under the purview of WikiProject Military History it has had a peer review (available here) and a successful A-class review (available here). — Bellhalla (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support This generally looks pretty good. Gary King (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • Why are there no citations in the lead? The rest of the article seems to be heavily sourced. I see this as inconsistent per FACR §2.c.
    • My preference, except for the most extraordinary claims, is to keep the lead free of citations. Everything in the lead is cited in the body of the article. If the consensus is to cite any (or all) of the lead, however, I'll be happy to do so. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this is certainly comprehensive and well sourced--particularly given the topic's scant significance. (Why anyone would care so much about this ship to write such an in-depth article is beyond me. I mean no offense to the contributing editors.)
    • To each his or her own. Why does anyone write about old hurricanes or TV shows? Because it interests them, I suppose… — Bellhalla (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I would also say that it is well written and well laid out. One would think that this was one of the most important vessels in naval history.

Aside from the lack of citations in the lead, I see no reason to oppose this nomination. Lwnf360 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My replies interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Footnotes are not required in the lead, assuming it summarizes the article's context which should be cited later on. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ayumi Hamasaki

previous FAC


Self-nomation. I started work on the article in November of last year, at which time it was in need of cleanup: it lacked references, there were formatting errors, etc. Having undergone two peer reviews (which can be found here and here) and having recently passed the Good Article review, I believe that this article satisfies the Featured Article criteria: it is well-referenced, comprehensive (without going into unnecessary detail), and is neutral. The Habitual Nose-Picker Sometimes Known as Thanatous (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment En dashes needed for the Year column in the " Concerts" section Gary King (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • At least two problems here. First, the English seems unpolished. Here's a sample (stripped of footnotes): Hamasaki's succeeding studio album, Rainbow (2002), was her first album to incorporate English lyrics. Although she did not compose to the extent that she did on I am..., Hamasaki was still heavily involved in the production of the album. The album incorporated a potpourri of musical styles and influences: Rainbow contained rock- and trip-hop-influenced tracks as well as "summery", "up-tempo" songs and "grand gothic" arrangements. Here's how I might reword that: Hamasaki's next studio album, Rainbow (2002), was her first to include English lyrics. Although she did not compose as much as for I am..., she was still heavily involved in the production. The album incorporated a potpourri of musical styles and influences, with rock- and trip-hop-influenced tracks as well as "summery", "up-tempo" songs and "grand gothic" arrangements. And here's a second (again stripped of a footnote): Some of Hamasaki's promotional videos are grand expenditures as well: the promotional videos of three songs, "fairyland", "my name's WOMEN", and "JEWEL" are among the most expensive music videos ever made, making Hamasaki the only non-American to hold such a distinction. My first attempt: Some of Hamasaki's promotional videos cost a lot as well: those of three songs, "Fairyland", "My name's women", and "Jewel" are among the most expensive music videos ever made, costing more than any video by any other non-American. Secondly, there's a bizarre use of capitalization. For all I know, Hamasaki may like "my name's WOMEN," etc, but assuming that she doesn't spell out "double you oh em ee en" it's "Women" or "women". (Indeed, this is so even if she does spell it out: consider Aretha Franklin's "Respect".) The "Concerts" section is a particularly odd collection of UNNEEDED CAPITALIZATION. See this for guidance. Morenoodles (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Edited the Rainbow paragraph and fixed the capitalization errors, thanks. However, I'm not sure about using "cost a lot as well" in the section about her music videos. It just seems unprofessional to me. But I'd like to get the feedback of other editors first. The Habitual Nose-Picker Sometimes Known as Thanatous (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And a question. Why the links at the end to all those official sites? (Does any of the non-English sites have an advantage over the English one for readers of English?) Morenoodles (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The foreign-language sites have some news and information that the English one doesn't (and vice versa). However, to most English users, they probably would not be of much use (this is, of course, assuming that most English-speakers don't read Japanese or Chinese fluently). The Habitual Nose-Picker Sometimes Known as Thanatous (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I was not able to evaluate the reliablity of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Crash of the Titans

Nominator(s): Cat's Tuxedo (talk)


I've significantally contributed to this article as of late, upgrading it based on a peer review and a copy-editor's commentary, so I decided that I'm going to take a risk and nominate the page as a featured article. I say it covers the major areas (gameplay, story, development, reception) quite well, and has nice prose and NPOV. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Put the publisher after the title in "JumpButton (April 24, 2007). "Crash Mania official interview with Radical Entertainment". Retrieved on July 13, 2007." since that's the format the article is following.
  • Link the unlinked dates in the references if they are going to be linked throughout the article.
  • The first paragraph has a lot of links in close proximity of each other; consider removing links such as North America, Europe, Australia, and Japan per WP:OVERLINK.

Gary King (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I switched out the GameFAQs site with a more reliable source.
  • The interviews on HPZR were held with the developers of Radical and Amaze Entertainment. The developers of the game themselves are a quite reliable source of information.
  • The statement made on the WorthPlaying site was made by the producer of the game.
  • The statement made on the CodenameRevolution site was made by a developer at Radical.
  • The author of the Kotaku page appears to have been to the festival to cover the subject of the Crash hummer. It looks like he even took the photo to prove it.
  • Like the HPZR pages, the Kidzworld interviews were concocted with the actual developer of the game, so they're bound to be a reliable source of information.
I've fixed the other problems addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's my problem with the "interviews are always reliable" argument: Interviews are only as good as the transcription/interviewee makes them. Yes, generally they are reliable for non-contentious information, but they are still 1) primary sources and 2) only as reliable as the person who publishes the information. With something like CNN or Time Magazine, we presume that the company that is in the business of doing news/journalism will get the information correct. Little sites that aren't known as well, it's not as clear that there might not be some bias that creeps into the interview, or other problems. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
That may be so, but I hardly see how it changes the fact that the answers come from the very people who made the game. I am aware that there may be some bias in those answers, but we have to take into account that game developers are human, so even they can be biased sometimes. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars

previous FAC


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has reached at least Good Article status, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA, including relevant images, and has a clear well-written layout, and reliable references. I belive it has broadly covered the aspects of the entire Star Wars franchise, explains the films in a fair and neutral way, and is a good candidate for FA-status. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Star Wars portal" goes in "See also" section
  • Broken refs: 62, 66
  • IMDB references are not reliable

Gary King (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Not ready yet in my view.

  • The lead is inadequate. According to WP:LEAD, an article of this size should have a three or four paragraph lead (probably four in this case). This has two paragraphs, and the second is quite small. Many sections aren't represented at all in the lead, and others are glossed over.
  • The Critical reception section is just a table, without any substantive commentary on the films. Opinions from movie critics are not a negative as long as they are attributed. For example, Roger Ebert has a website where I assume reviews for these films can be found. Also, many people such as myself feel that the prequels are inferior to the original films. Nothing about this. Any film FA should have a detailed section on critical reaction, and this falls well short.
  • In addition to the IMDB refs, numerous others are of questionable reliability. Ealdgyth will take an in-depth look at some point and should have plenty to say.
  • More could be added on the impact of the series. For example, the special effects in the films were groundbreaking at the time; I don't get that sense after reading this.
  • I may be missing it, but I don't see anything on the changes that George Lucas made to the original trilogy in video and DVD releases. These changes were controversial in some quarters (Han shot first), and if possible future changes are worthy of mention than so are these.

I hate to tell editors what to do with candidates, but I feel that this should be withdrawn. This should be taken to peer review to help sort out these and other issues. As a Star Wars fan I wish this article the best, but think it needs more time to develop. May the Force be with you in your efforts. :-) Giants2008 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources seem okay. Double check your links with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

comment - Great effort has been made to produce free content for a notoriously difficult genre, however there are some questions regarding the validity of these images at commons Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Star_Wars_images, I think these issues need to be cleared up Fasach Nua (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • My first impression: brief. Particularly considering that many people interested in Star Wars are fanatics equipped with mountains of secondary sources and extensive knowledge.
  • "The six films feature the Jedi, who use the Force for good, and the Sith, who use the dark side for evil in an attempt to take over the galaxy."--why does this objective statement--which anyone who has watched more than two of the films would understand easily--have six sources? While other, more obscure statements have no citations?
  • Why is this article protected? Are there persistent vandalism issues?
  • The "setting" section is poorly written.
  • Why is there no mention of the effects of Star Wars on the film industry? My understanding is that it drastically changed the sci-fi genre, and heavily influenced the industry at-large in other areas. I've heard it compared to Birth of a Nation and Citizen Kane with respect to its technical achievements.
  • The lead is to brief for the topic.
  • Overall, the article has an unsatisfying airless quality to it.

Unless there is rapid and major improvement in this article, I cannot support it. Lwnf360 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, 1b. The article requires substantial expansion using major books and peer-reviewed articles from MLA and other databases. There are many good sources covering the entire series that have not been touched here. --Laser brain (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

M-28 (Michigan highway)

Nominator(s): Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) • Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is one of the best written road articles I have come upon, all its media is free use, and loaded onto commons, and it already had its peer review and has GA and A class status. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally, one of the top contributors to the article will nominate it. You should suggest it on the talk page to them. —Giggy 08:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Done, I just didnt want to be accused of WP:CANVASing. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 08:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I, as the primary contributor, was planning to nominate the article in about a week's time after I complete moving into a new apartment and have Internet access at home more than on my cell phone. My participation here may be a little sporadic, but I have no objections to proceeding as other roads editors can/will watch this forum when I can't. Imzadi1979 (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "M-28 MDOT" – comma needed?
  • "The major reason given behind rerouting M-28 along CR 480 was cost." → "Cost was the major reason given behind rerouting M-28 along CR 480."

Gary King (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. Great to see an article on a road I've driven a lot (we used to vacation in the UP). Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Mew Mew

Nominator(s): -- Collectonian (talk · contribs), G.A.S (talk · contribs)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets all of the criteria for being an FA article. It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. It is thoroughly referenced from reliable sources, using a consistent referencing style. It has been peer reviewed and thoroughly copyedited, with all issues from both addressed. It follows both the Wikipedia style guide and the anime and manga MoS. It is of an appropriate length, with both non-free images having a proper FUR. The one not in the infobox is used to illustrate a section where the illustrated topic is explicitly discussed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 11 fixed. G.A.S 14:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • CDJapan and Kalahari.net are used to cite information about the media related to the series; there are one citation per item. G.A.S 14:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What G.A.S. noted. CD Japan is the English language version of one of the largest CD sellers in Japan (sort of like an Amazon). Kalahari is also one. While commercial sites are the preferred option, they are both used to cite the existence of the CDs and DVDs noted in the absence of an official website. As none of the CDs are licensed, and those regional DVDs haven't been reviewed, its the best available source. The Brandnoise site is the official blog of scenarioDNA, a marketing research firm and think tank. So its a company blog by experts in the area of marketing, making it a reliable source I believe. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to leave the other comments and replies out for other reviewers to see. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "189-191" – en dash needed WP:DASH. Hm I think that's all I could get. Great job! Gary King (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thank you. G.A.S 16:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Also fixed the other page numbers - en dashes, the bane of my editing existence :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Marcellus Formation

Nominator(s): Dhaluza (talk)

I'm self nominating this article for featured article. I have been working on several geologic formation articles lately, and decided to try to fully expand one to become a template. This article has been substantially expanded since the GA review, and the comments from the PR have been addressed. It is now comprehensive, and very diversely sourced.

The article length is relatively long, but this is at least partially due to the variation in characteristics from state to state, and I don't think it would make sense to break it into separate articles on this basis. None of the sections other than the Fossil Fuel section are particularly long, so I do not think summary style will help much. I think it works better as a sort of self-contained geology lesson within the context of the main subject. I have tried to include interesting tidbits throughout the text to hold reader interest, while still comprehensively covering the details the references show as important. Another reason for the length is the need to provide context for the technical terms, which are important to both include and explain for this type of subject. So overall I think it works at this length.

One request for reviewers: If you see a problem that takes less effort to correct than to comment on, then please do the former. Thanks. -- Dhaluza (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - About your nomination statement - er, to become a template? I'm confused...

I am trying to develop a comprehensive, fully fleshed-out article that can be used as a template for developing stubs and expanding them. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, that first sentence leaves me feeling utterly confused, as I'm sure it would to any layman to geology. Could at least some of the jargon be explained?
    • I've unloaded it by moving the abbreviations down to the Stratigraphy section, and moving some terms down in the lede. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Named for an outcrop found near the town of Marcellus, New York during a geological survey in 1839..." - it was named for the town, not the outcrop, obviously. Would you alter the prose to reflect this?
    • Technically, I think it is named for the outcrop, using the name of the town. This is explained in detail in the Stratigraphy section. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The energy development community is developing its subsurface layers deep beneath the Allegheny Plateau as a significant source of largely untapped natural gas reserves located near the high-demand markets along the East Coast of the United States." - this sentence feels... awkward. How about "The energy development community is developing its subsurface layers deep beneath the Allegheny Plateau, where a significant source of largely untapped natural gas reserves exists, conveniently located near the high-demand markets along the East Coast of the United States." or something like that.
    • I used your formulation, minus two words. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Most fossils are contained in the limestones" - should that be "limestone"?
    • I believe plural is correct, because there are several different named limestone layers. See Named Members. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "and the fossil record in these layers provide" - probably should be "provides".
  • "The black shales [...] the fissile shales ..." - same as the one two above - should it be "shale"? Note that I'm uncertain on both of these; geological grammar isn't my major.
    • There are several different named shales, including black and gray shales. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Redundancy: "with vertical fractures or joints providing some additional storage as well as pathways for the gas to flow; some gas is also adsorbed on mineral grains."
  • More of the same: "stretching some 600 miles (970 km), compared..." if by "some" you mean to approximate the distance, then other, less ambiguous work better.

I'll go through more carefully later; I don't have much time right now. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the early feedback. I think I largely addressed these concerns, and appreciate your help. Dhaluza (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose 1a for now, regretfully, after taking another look at the prose. I'll point some of the mistakes from the first few paragraphs of the first section.

  • "The Marcellus Formation is a radioactive, carbonaceous black shale that may contain limestone beds and pyrite and siderite concentrations." - The problem here is pretty obvious.
    • Please elaborate. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Three "and"s - it's like saying "I like ice cream and cake and cookies" as opposed to "I like ice cream, cake, and cookies".
        • No, it's not that simple. Either the "and" or the word "concentrations" needs to be repeated. I would argue that repeating the shorter word is the lesser of two evils. Dhaluza (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Redundancy: "Bedding in the Marcellus is moderately well developed..."
    • This is standard terminology. I hyphenated well-developed to avoid any confusion, and reworked the sentence. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The iron pyrite (FeS2) is especially abundant near the base, and the upper contacts of limestones" - unneeded comma, methinks.
  • This might sound silly, but "organic rich deposits" just sounds... wrong, somehow. How about rewording to "rich organic deposits"?
    • No, organic-rich is correct, but I hyphenated it again to avoid confusion. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Measured total organic content of the Marcellus Formation" -> A "the" before the sentence is sorely needed.
    • I deliberately avoided it here, because the paragraph before and after both need to start with it, and this one does not. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I have gone though and edited out over-use of "the" at the beginning of sentences, and especially paragraphs. Dhaluza (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "ranges from less than 1%, to over 11% in New York state" - another unneeded comma.

Much of the article suffers from this sort of substandard writing, unfortunately. A copyedit would be appreciated. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the comma usage is more an issue of style than substance. Dhaluza (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Either way, it needs to be fixed. Surely you don't dispute that leaving it in is grammatically incorrect? Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing in favor of grammatical incorrectness, if that is what you mean. My point is that there are places where commas belong, and places where they do not belong. Outside of that, there are places where they are optional, and there, use, or non-use, is purely a matter of style. Obviously you prefer a particular, sparse, style, but this is not necessarily grammatically correct, nor is a more generous application incorrect. In technical writing, I believe a more liberal use is actually preferred — similar to climbing a steeper hill, you need to stop more often to rest. There are other practical considerations as well. For example, the unneeded commas you cite are used to create breaks for inserting reference superscripts. If they were removed, the citations would create a break in the sentence anyway, and it would be less visually appealing. There are a few places in the text where that was unavoidable because it would be grammatically incorrect to insert a comma there. But where one is optional, I believe it is preferable to use it in this case. Dhaluza (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I concede that some of them aren't necessarily grammatically incorrect if you leave them out, but some, like the last comment, are. I would at least like the latter kind to be cleaned up throughout the article. Also, there's some other minor wording issues that occur occassionally - I'll be happy to support when both are resolved. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe the difference between 1% and 11% is enough of a contrast to deserve a comma. I have expanded this section, including this sentence, so it may be more clear now. Dhaluza (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Since when have commas been about contrast? Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Commas can indicate contrast, but this one doesn't. The sentence now is: Measured total organic content of the Marcellus Formation ranges from less than 1% in eastern New York, to over 11% in the central part of the state, and the shale may contain enough carbon to support combustion. This is ungrammatical and confusing; from and to are parallel and should be in the same construction. Weak Oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The dead link is probably just a temporary problem. The main site is down too. Ref 108 link was dead, but commenting it out broke "cite web" -- used "cite news" instead. Publisher added. Dhaluza (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

" Comment

  • "Martin, R.L.. "Taxonomic Revision and Paleoecology of Middle Devonian (Eifelian) Fishes of the Onondaga, Columbus and Delaware Limestones of the eastern United States.". West Virginia University." needs an accessdate
  • "External links" goes after "References" (WP:LAYOUT)

Gary King (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Access date added. Section moved. Dhaluza (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Alleyway

Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk)
previous FAC 19:39 June 19, 2008

Addressed the issues brought up with the previous version of this article, including fair use rationales for the images that were more appropriate and requested (and subsequently received) a copyedit to improve the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • How does the Japanese text in the lead help most readers? There was a discussion about this a few weeks ago; could someone update us on the progress? Gary King (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - following a complete copyedit I have no issues. I'll be happy to help with any required changes as part of this FAC. —Giggy 03:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Interview with one of Tengen's employees with the relevant statements echoed in the Game Over book.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
To append that, Mobygames does link to two interviews conducted on the site (Ed Logg, Gregg Tavares). Tavares himself cited an article by him in his blog and links to tsr's site (notably in his links and to that interview). ClassicGaming cites them as a resource as well, as do many other websites. As far as the site owner I have no information on him: he apparently remained solely by that username online. Will this suffice?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that the main owner of the site has chosen to remain anon, I'm uncomfortable with using it as a source, but as you have the information backed up by another source, I'd suggest moving the interview to an external link. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Removed the ref then, it would be out of place as an external link due to most of the discussion revolving around Nintendo v. Tengen. The Game Over book covers the Tetris delay well enough on its own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur

Nominator(s): Hrothgar cyning (talk)


This article, currently a GA, has been copy-edited and peer reviewed several times. The consensus is that it is ready for FA status. I think it meets the criteria and will let it speak for itself. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

---qp10qp (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Awhile ago, I was about to delist this from GA status. I've followed what's been going on since Hrothgar showed up and I can say now that I consider it FA quality. Wrad (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Support As a copyeditor, I could find nothing worth changing before FAC. I knew that reviewers here would pick up the rest of the minor issues. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 12:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - wow, the prose is amazing. One thing: you have both the formats nth century and nth-century in the article; that should probably be more consistent. Nousernamesleft (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: The article should be inconsistent, as not all instances of "nth century" are compound adjectives requiring hyphenation. I checked all instances of "century" in the article and fixed some errors. Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The hyphens were removed a couple of times, for some reason; I put them back the first time but must have forgotten the second time. Awadewit has restored the correct forms. qp10qp (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I was confused there for a second. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. This is one of the best articles Wikipedia has ever produced.--Cúchullain t/c 16:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments - Images all have appropriate copyright statuses; all links are working. Comment via layout; perhaps some of the images should be set to size thumb and laid out differently? For example, Image:Merlin (illustration from middle ages).jpg in King Arthur#Geoffrey of Monmouth overlaps and pushes over the next heading. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
All of the images, except for the lead image, are set to size "thumb" already. I have moved the Merlin image up. See what you think. I am unsure if the move is an improvement. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I had just reduced all images to default thumbs. :) qp10qp (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah! It looks much cleaner now :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. I usually have a great deal of difficulty wading my way through large articles like this, but I can freely say that I had no such difficulty this time. Excellent prose, well-referenced. Excellent work! Cam (Chat) 18:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Support (Disclaimer: I copyedited the last two subsections of this article.) This article is well-researched, well-written, and well-illustrated. It clearly and concisely explains a large swath of art and history, balancing all of the different elements of "stuff related to King Arthur" extremely well. I, too, think this is one of the best articles Wikipedia has produced. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Supprt This is cited excellently, and the prose is very easy to read. A well-researched article like this deserves the star. --haha169 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Comments working my way through it. Looks good so far. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Other inscriptional evidence for Arthur is tainted with the suggestion of forgery - this is tantalising. should there be a link here
I've linked the reference to the "Glastonbury cross" — in the footnote that is attached to the above text — to the brief description of the inscribed cross and the circumstances of its discovery on the Glastonbury Abbey page; does this work for you or do we need a link in the main text? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Not a huge issue but works better for me in main text as I am not one for linking to wikipedia material from footnotes unless an author. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fixed :) cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Support
    • The intro is quite long. In particular, the third paragraph seems overly detailed for a lead section. Perhaps it would be possible to edit down the third paragraph or combine the third and fourth paragraphs into one shorter paragraph about the development of the legend of King Arthur. Otherwise, I'm afraid you are going to lose a fair number of readers before they even finish the intro. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Am assuming that Cuchullain's fixes to the lead addressed above; if not let me know, thanks :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have attempted a revision of the 3rd and 4th paragraphs myself. Let me know what you think. Kaldari (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me :) Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Also I'm not sure if I can support this article not mentioning Monty Python and the Holy Grail whatsoever. For us Yanks, it is generally our first (and often only) exposure to the legend of King Arthur, as sad as that may be. I realize this may smack of recentism, but it does seem like a notable enough cultural influence to at least mention somewhere in the article. Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Addition may be a bit trivial. Clíodhna (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean adding mention of the movie would be a trivial task, or do you mean the movie is too trivial to add it to the article? Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The second meaning, Kaldari. I do think the third paragraph could be shortened. I would take out specific mention of Malory, Tennyson and Twain, and replace with more general and brief statements. Clíodhna (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Heck, now that you mention it, the Holy Grail is pretty noteworthy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Put it this way, its one of my favourite films no doubt, but this a very very strong and scholarly article, and because I'm anti 'in popular culture' on wikipedia in general, I wouldn't be comfortable making an exception based on my own personal taste. That said; eh, whatever - no big deal. Happy to let the writers of the article decide. Clíodhna (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that Monty Python and the Holy Grail is at least as culturally significant as Arthur Rex (which we even mention in the lead). Kaldari (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Eh. What I mean is that its not a very valid oppose. Either way. Clíodhna (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is a weak oppose, any only because I had two minor criticisms. I'll be happy to change it to a support if at least the lead is edited down a bit. Kaldari (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
'edited down a bit'; In the absence of suggestion I can only assume you mean simplified. Fine, but 'comment' would have been a better option to take so. If I had suffrage I would discount your comment on this. Clíodhna (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean any offence. I was just trying to offer some suggestions to improve the article. I'm sorry if my objections seemed trivial, but I think readability is extremely important, especially for the lead section. It looks like Cuchullian has fixed the lead now. As soon as I'm not editing from a cell phone, I will change my vote to support. Kaldari (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Kaldari's points might be minor, but they directly relate to 1(b) and 2(a) of the FA criteria. If he feels the article is not comprehensive (no mention of Monty Python, shrubbery, Knights Who Say Ni, etc.) or that the lead is not "concise" (too long), he has a valid objection to this FAC. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, Nishkid64. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed :) Reading the comments above, it would seem like the lead problem is fixed, so thanks to Cuchullain. On the other, I have no objection to including the Python movie if folks think it is necessary and sufficiently noteworthy, and so I have now added it. If I can just clarify on what is/isn't in the article, I obviously had to exclude large numbers of important works when writing the article. I made descisions based largely on (1) whether the work included innovations in the portrayal of Arthur/his story that were picked up by subsequent authors and (2) whether they were good illustrations of trends in the portrayal of Arthur & his story and/or if they showed the continuing vitality of earlier interpretations of Arthur (e.g. the continuing influence of the romance tradition). Boorman and the other movies seemed good examples of the latter, hence why they were chosen; Python wasn't used simply because others were :) Hope this helps, cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: The references include the (reputable!) canonical and current sources, and the coverage is even-handed and thorough. - PKM (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • Okay, there are some sources in the references that are not used in the footnotes. Alexandre is one.
fixed :) (hopefully) cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Weighing in on the Monty Python bit, if you mention the serious retellings (although including Excalibur in that is quite a laugh) you should probably mention the other side, which is the comedic treatments also.
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool.Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article lead mentions both the "Sword in the Stone" and "Excalibur", neither of which are ever mentioned in the article body. Where did these parts of the legend originate? If we're not going to mention them in the article, they should probably be removed from the lead. Kaldari (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    It looks like "Excalibur" comes from "Caliburn" which is Arthur's sword in Geoffrey's Historia. Could someone add this into the article body where it is appropriate? Kaldari (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
They were mentioned in the article, but then peer-review indicated that the article was too long and so they were removed to the excalibur page. I can re-add the material on the development and changes to Arthur's weaponry but it will add considerably to the article... Any thoughts? My feeling, for what it is worth, is that the article needs to focus tightly on changes to Arthur and the development of his core story over time, rather than getting into the changes to his weapons etc, otherwise it will become too large again e.g. adding in excalibur < caliburnus would then mean discussion of caledfwlch and its relationship to caliburnus is required, and then probably also discussion of how excalibur and the sword in the stone are inter-related etc. But I'm happy to add it back if the consensus is against me :) cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we just mention that Excalibur originated in Geoffrey's Historia, where it is refered to as "Caliburn"? Surely there must be some happy medium between discussing the minutia of his weaponry and not mentioning it at all. Kaldari (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, how about that? Short but points to the potential sequence Caledfwlch > Caliburnus > Excalibur, with a wikilink to the main page on that sword and the ref to Bromwich and Evans for further discussion if anyone wants to follow-up. Fixed? :) cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I think it's fine the way it is.--Cúchullain t/c 18:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it is important to at least mention it once in the body. Hrothgar's edit is fine IMO. Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
That's what I meant, it's fine the way it his after Hrothgar changed it.--Cúchullain t/c 22:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. — Athaenara ✉ 22:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support of course, although I am wondering do we really need this long "See also" section?--Yannismarou (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: my absolute favorite class in undergrad was a King Arthur lit. course that I took while studying in England, so while I don't count myself an expert on the subject, I know a thing or two. :) I found this article to be magnificently written and engaging. Truth be told, I thought it would be huge, but I'm glad that the writers didn't go overboard and include wads of information to distract me from my daily tasks. I was disappointed, however, that more attention was not paid to Malory; Le Morte d'Arthur isn't even mentioned in the lead, but that is the work that introduced Arthur to Tennyson and later writers, including White and even the Monty Python lads. I don't think it should be so diminished. Although most of his material was taken from past tales, he did invent and reinterpret things that are still considered canon to this day. I was also surprised to see the Nine Worthies reduced to a mere "See also" mention; I would say it's noteworthy enough to be described in the article somewhere. Obviously these points do not keep me from supporting an interesting article on such an important figure in literature and the English speaking culture as a whole, but maybe I want moar! Great job, contributors. María (habla conmigo) 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
lol! And thanks :) On Malory, I can see where you're coming from re: the lead. He is v. important and mentioned specifically in the Further Reading, so I can see a rationale for adding him back to the intro, but there is a worry over its length and avoiding the lead becoming a list of key authors. Perhaps "culminating in Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur" added to the section about the legend thriving in the Middle Ages? What do those who have been working on the lead think?? cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
As one of the editors who has commented on this issue in the pase, I would be in favour of mentioning Malory in the lead. The six or seven words you suggest sound good, but the exact wording may need to be tweaked and sourced. Geometry guy 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Malory needs to be mentioned in the lead, any more than the Vulgate Cycle and the Prose Tristan do. I think it's definitely best not to name too many different works in the lead. In this case, Malory's influence was mostly on later, English language writers long after his death, it was not translated extensively in the way other versions were during the medieval period.--Cúchullain t/c 22:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to virus

Nominator(s): GrahamColmTalk


I'm nominating this article for featured article because viruses are important and despite their tiny size, very complex. Because of their complexity, the main article, Virus, can be difficult to understand in parts, especially by those readers with little knowledge of biology. This Good Article has had two especially helpful peer reviews and I think it is ready to be considered for FA. My long-term project is to improve the coverage of virology on Wikipedia and I want this article to be a useful, general introduction not just to Virus, but to other articles in which viruses are discussed. I thank all my fellow editors whose names can be found in the article's history, but stress that any errors are entirely my own work. GrahamColmTalk 14:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Markus Poessel (w/replies from GrahamColm)