Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates 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;
  • 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

Yttrium

Nominator(s): mav (talk), WikiProject Elements


Self-nom. I de-stubbed this article back in late 2002 and expanded it again in early August from 1250 words to 2400 words. Since then, other members of WikiProject Elements; Cryptic C62, Stone, Itub, and Nergaal have expanded, cited, organized and copyedited the article to its current state and size (2800 words). Along the way Nergaal nominated this for GAN and we all worked together to get the article there. I'm now very happy with the article and think it is one of the best examples of element articles of its type; Yttrium is between the FAs Francium and Xenon in its scope and amount that can be said about the element. I support this article as a nominator. Is this ready for FA yet? If not, what else is needed or needs to be fixed? mav (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

*Support I wish to co-nominate this article as I feel that it has demonstrated Featured Article criteria. The creators and editors of this article have done their job and more. Wii Wiki (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per lack of amusing nomination statement. Image comments:

Hillsgrove Covered Bridge

Nominator(s): Ruhrfisch ><>°°


Hillsgrove Covered Bridge has had a very helpful peer review (thanks to Dincher and Brianboulton) whose suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. I believe this article, which follows the FA models of Cogan House Covered Bridge and Forksville Covered Bridge, meets all of the Featured Article criteria. This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. This is a quite interesting bridge and I hope the article does it justice. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Myst IV: Revelation

Nominator(s): David Fuchs


Yes, you had your reprieve from video games in general and the Myst series in particular, but I told you the reprieve would only last a little while... :P but look on the bright side, before I inflict the last Myst title on you in the future, you might get lucky and have another non-video-game FAC from me :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments zOMG video games! Where are the hurricanes?! :)
  • Sources look good. Links check out with the link checker.
  • Wall enjoyed working with Gabriel, and hoped that he would be able to collaborate with him on future projects. I'm not sure of how relevant this is.
  • Overall, Revelation was received positively by critics, with the game garnering 82% and 81% averages on Metacritic and Game Rankings, respectively "With" is a poor connecting word per MoS.
  • Looks good otherwise. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Fine: we'll make a deal: don't put any hurricanes at FAC, and I won't do any video games :P Made the fixes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act

Nominator(s): Tbsdy lives (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it's probably ready (or fairly close to ready) to FA status.. I wrote it some time ago, back when I was Ta bu shi da yu. As an aside, it actually took me two years to research and write up the article - not that this should influence the FAC nomination :-) Anyway, quite willing to hear the brickbats/bouquets, will try to address problems. However, it's fully cited, as neutral as I could make it, and as useful as possible. I do hope the writing is OK. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. this edit was the original content switch, obviously I made quite a few more revisions till I got to this revision. Then others did more cleanup. I think it's helpful to compare this against the previous version, which was pretty shocking. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • If the nominator, as appears from the above, is uncertain as to whether the article is of FA quality, should it not first have been taken to peer review?
  • Length: the article is an intimidating 12,000+ words of imageless text, with an even more scary infobox. OK, the topic is important, and complex, but does the article really have to be so protracted? If, as should be the case, it is aimed at the general reader, it may miss its target on the grounds of sheer user-unfriendliness.
  • I've picked up a few minor points in the lead - haven't time to press on further at the moment, but perhaps these could be looked at:
    • "e-mail" and "email" used. The latter is preferred, but consistency necessary
    • I find this clause awkward: "searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business...." I think it's the "search" repetition that jars.
    • "sunset" as a verb? I know what sunset provision means (and you have provided a helpful link), but the use of the verb is ugly and jargonistic, as against a slightly longer: "Many of the Act's provisions were to termnate, under sunset provision, from 31 December 2005"
    • 4 years should be four years
    • Is there a reason for the date links? My understanding is that these are generaly deprecated unless there is a specific reason.

I'll try to read more and come up with more comments, even some positive ones, but time prevents at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


  • Oppose for now My first time trying to read it, I felt the same way I did when attempting to do my taxes. Is there anyway we can break up some of these huge chunks of text? Also, the page is way too large and needs to have some more splits. It takes forever to load on dialup, which didn't help the reading process. According to this statistic readout, your article is about 12,000 words, which is way over the limit. Note, this page also froze my comp for 10 minutes while trying to load the tool server because of how much text there is. This is a serious problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Other problems - Your external links has far more than external links and this needs to be cleaned up. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the text is thick, with long paragraphs, and almost incomprehensible, even to me as a lawyer. It jumps back and forth between the legislative history, the act itself, and the aftereffects and amendments. Many of the sections (see especially Title III) are mere catalogues of act provisions. I'd like to see the proposer consider a major rewrite, and it may not be necessary to list every provision (enhancement of penalties for impersonating a Red Cross worker?) to meet the comprehensiveness requirement, especially in view of the individual articles on several of the titles. I'd also prefer to see the background section exclusively deal with what happened pre-enactment.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agreed that the text is incomprehensible for me, who knows nothing about law, and the prose is thick and poor. The sections really need to be broken up. I see some contractions, which need to be expanded. There are some run-on sentences, as well. Additionally, there are MOS breaches such as spaced em dashes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm sad to have to oppose the FA candidature of this important article. My reasons are that it is not written in summary style and it is not encyclopaedic in tone. There is too much esoteric detail and the prose is not engaging. I think readers who find this page by a search on Google's server, or other search engines, will be disappointed with Wikipedia and click on their return icons in the hope of finding something more digestible. So, it does not represent our best work. This is a pity, an editor who is good a precis could have turned this article into a treasure. Graham Colm Talk 21:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle (2002)

Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I don't get told often that I have written a speedy FAC. This was split from Hurricane Kyle (2002) while that article was on FAC, and I believe this also passes the FA criteria. Just a little note: this storm was the 4th longest lasting Atlantic hurricane of all time, so it's history is pretty important. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments Alright, this is the ultimate laziness. Creating articles and FACing in all of the 30 seconds it took to copy and paste! :P
  • The meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle, which was the fourth longest-lived Atlantic tropical or subtropical cyclone on record, lasted for more than a month in September and October of 2002. No "of" between the month and year per MoS.
  • I'd like to see more information about formation. You go from the cold front to a subtropical depression in three sentences.
  • The next day, the remnants of Kyle were absorbed by another extratropical cyclone to its northwest, which continued northeastward and moved near the British Isles on October 23. Change "another", as it implies that Kyle itself was an extratropical cyclone.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    • I got the second and third thing (in another 30 seconds ;) ), but I didn't get the first point. The article is comprehensive for its origins. The NHC didn't have too much more, as it was only mentioned for the first time in the TWO two days prior to it forming. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as another hurricane article; besides, I can't aid and abet you or Julian when you're just dropping me in the standings... - anyhow, all images have appropriate licenses, authors, and sources. Meets image criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Mwahahahah! :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Somebody make him stop; it's going to take over FAC and make my life miserable :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Concerns - 1) Presence of a "see also" section. Try to incorporate this into the body of the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with the "see also" section? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Since this is part of the "2002 Atlantic hurricane season", this cannot be put in a see also, as it is the basis of the topic. The same goes for "Hurricane Kyle (2002)". See also - "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also";" Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

4chan

Nominator(s): Giggy (talk)


I've been working on and off on this one for a few months, and I think it's now the best it's going to get—and thus, of an FA standard. It's an interesting topic; a notorious website that incidentally produces a fair bit of vandalism around here. Obviously, the amount of information in reliable sources was not excessive, but I've done what I could with the information available. There's a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/4chan/archive1 with source comments by Ealdgyth and a great prose review from Dabomb87, so thanks to both. Thanks also to everyone who takes a look and comments here. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by jimfbleak 4chan was started in 2003 in the bedroom of "moot", a 15 year old from New York City. later moot grew up in suburban New York City and started 4chan in his bedroom in 2003. Doesn't need saying twice. "moot" heading - is the lc deliberate? jimfbleak (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, fixed that issue up. The lowercase on "moot" is deliberate; all uses of his name on the Internet are lowercased. Giggy (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Support Nice work, but I'd say it might be a little confusing to somebody not familar with the board. Maybe you could expand on some of the memes mentioned, and explain - briefly - some of the blue links, eg "an example being the O RLY? owl which bla bla or "will regularly act with the intention of accumulating "lulz"; internet speak for bla bla. Ceoil sláinte 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea - I've done so on both the ones suggested and will take a look through for other cases where that might help. Giggy (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think using moot is ok - it was an anonymous pseudonym for a long while and is very well established. Ceoil sláinte 20:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The chances of Poole being his actual name are pretty low. I can't say that in the article because the closest the sources went was Lev Grossman saying it's possible. But it's almost certainly a combination of several /b/ memes, not his actual name. Giggy (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
A, I see now that the likelyhood is "5%" ;. Put that in the lead though (BLP afterall). The article is basically (and correctly) about /b/, but you still need to cover the other rooms in a bit more detail. Maybe fill out "Other memes" more (so much to choose from!) and the article is very close otherwise. Ceoil sláinte 08:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Done in the lead (and infobox) as suggested. As for the memes - bleh, them darn reliable sourcing rules! ;-) I'm combing through sources trying to find anything else that can be thrown in. Giggy (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
He, them pesky annoying rules and criteria! Anyway, I'm basically a support (see above) here, given that if there are no other available sources then its as comprehensive as it can be. I'll watch how it goes anyhow. Ceoil sláinte 09:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Image:Example 4chan random board thread.png - What is the significant contribution to our understanding (WP:NFCC#8)? Don't we know what a message board looks like? Did I miss discussion of a unique design/layout? I don't see any "critical commentary" pertaining to "53 GET"; why couldn't that be conveyed by prose (NFCC#1)? Why do we need to see 5 posts which include 4 copyrighted images? That doesn't seem to be minimal use; An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. (NFCC#3B). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    There isn't "critical commentary pertaining to 53 GET", but there is half a paragraph here that talks about GETs and their significance in relation to the site's scaling. This image shows an example of a GET; how the system works, and, of course, what the board looks like in general (which helps in the understanding of other aspects of the article - eg. note that everyone has posted as "Anonymous" in this image, which is discussed in this section). Trimming this so it had less copyrighted images would defeat its purpose as the image wouldn't make sense and would be effectively useless.
    I dunno if this is enough; I suppose my take on NFCC is more lax than others' and that's fine. But does the above suffice? Giggy (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • concerns - 1) Short sections. "Formation" seems inadequate. 2) Why is "Anonymity" in "Layout"? 3) "The "random" board, /b/, follows the design of Futaba Channel's Nijiura board. " I don't know what this means and I don't see anything that would help explain it. 4) "Memes" I don't understand this section, and there is little information on some of the topics. 5) "Internet attacks" section seems to not focus much on 4chan except in passing and possibly a weight issue. I also don't see why "KTTV Fox 11 news report" is in the see also. 6) I think the wiki news template might be in the wrong area, what is the MoS for such? 7) Lower case use of "moot" at the beginning of sentences. What does the MoS say? 8) Use of a "See also" section. These should be integrated into the article and not lumped into a "See also". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that paras and even some sections could be merged. But the lower case 'moot' is not an issue. Thats his (her) name. Ceoil sláinte 17:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Merge bits and pieces. Ceoil sláinte 18:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
What does "Its brief is "random"; " mean? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is "Anonymous" written with quotation marks, in the relevant section? how do you turn this on 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I note the prose at the top of the Memes section is pretty short, and doesn't actually mention any of the "memes" that are expanded on below. how do you turn this on 20:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I cant imagine how Anonymous would be represented by anything other than quotation marks. What do you want, exactly. Ceoil sláinte 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
In the section he's referred to without the quotation marks, so I don't know why the header would be any different. how do you turn this on 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Murray

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S.


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. It has been passed as GA, and also A-class by the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Military history. I'm open to any further comments on improvement, thanks Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • What leads me to believe that this particular site is reliable is that all of the main facts presented in it are supported by other sources I have. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
http://www.jdark.linkt.com.au/index.html appears to be a self-published, personal hobby site. Please see WP:SPS and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. If the facts are supported by other, reliable sources, then those sources could be used instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll change the references over to a more reliable source. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have now replaced the reference. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Nice job. The article, however, seems to omit the details of his various awards. I don't mean full details, but something more than "he was given this, he was given that." For example, perhaps something along the lines of this change:
    • "During his service with the Americans, the commander of the 27th, Major General John F. O'Ryan, recommended Murray for the United States' Distinguished Service Medal.
    • During his service with the Americans, Murray was recommended for the United States' Distinguished Service Medal by the commander of the 27th, Major General John F. O'Ryan. The D.S.M. is the highest non-valorous military and civilian decoration of the U.S. military. General O'Ryan's recommendation stated that Murray's "...knowledge, activity and fearlessness... assisted materially in the control of the attacking forces".
  • I have expanded the information further; mainly I just added what you wrote, with only slight re-wording. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have also now expanded on his Distinguished Conduct Medal and Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George awards; I think the others were already adequate, if not I'll have a look at them too. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The WP:LEAD, on the other hand, seems a mite long. I'll think about this for a while and get back to you...
  • I agree, and have thought so since I wrote it. I'll see if I can condense it a bit. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have now condensed the lead some what now, and think it should be right. If not, I can have another look and reduce it further. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • PS Your {{Harvnb}}s aren't playing well with your {{Citation}}s. Links don't work, since the former is linking to CITEREFFrankiSlatyer2003 and the latter to CITEREF_Franki_Slatyer_2003. Will look into this. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Becoming a No. 2 on a machine-gun, he served during the Gallipoli Campaign where he was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal, before the withdrawal from the peninsula." Issues:
    • I don't think machine gun should be hyphenated. This is something I see throughout the article.
  • I originally didn't have them hyphenated, but the copyeditor's whose help I enlisted believed they should be. However, after looking at the machine gun article on WP, I have concluded that it appears they shouldn't be hyphenated, and as such have removed it. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • There doesn't need to be a comma after Medal but I think there should be a comma after Campaign.
  • Fixed
  • "Soon after his Victoria Cross action, he was promoted to major, and earned a Bar to his DSO during an attack on the Hindenburg Line near Bullecourt." I'm not familiar with all things military, but should Bar be capitalized?
  • Usually I think it can go either way, but most publications have it capitalised. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Article looks very good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MSH, should "Repatriation" be uppercase in "Western Front, April 1917 to Repatriation, March 1920"? The word isn't used again in the text (?), so I don't get a sense of why it's used as a proper noun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fauna of Scotland

Nominator(s): Ben MacDui


Fear not faint-hearts. Fauna of Scotland may be nominated by the notoriously average Ben MacDui but it has been copy edited by a person of good standing, and peer reviewed by more than one editor of repute. The deficiencies remain those of the nominator, whose knowledge of creepy-crawlies may be deficient and whose meanderings into fringe theories may provoke concern, but who nonetheless humbly submits this Good Article for your consideration. Ben MacDui 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments - you may run into problems with the ToC. Putting it in such a manner disrupts may subheadings, which causes problems. Also, the red deer stag image shouldn't be directly above a formatting on the left, as it causes strange alterations and splits the text. Move it to the right and in the below section. You put the "corvus" latin name in parenthesis but not "Tetrao urogallus". "Upogebia deltaura, a mud lobster that is commonly found in Scottish maerl beds" could be shortly by removing "that is". Also, captions shouldn't be in proper sentences. "Adder" image should probably be up and to the right to avoid formatting problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia has kindly fixed the ToC and the red deer image.
Caper latin name fixed.
"that is" removed
According to MOS, sentences in captions are occasionally allowed. The beast is just an example and does not appear in the text - I think it deserves a brief description. I've removed the period, although I am not sure this is correct.
Adder moved. Ben MacDui 09:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I did not realize I was an editor of repute, but I did peer review this article and felt it was essentially at FAC quality then. It has since been improved and my only suggestion is to change the current link to fox to either Vulpes, or perhaps better to Vulpes vulpes. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks and fox dab done. Ben MacDui 09:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC) (PS I did not specify the precise nature of your reputation.....)
  • Image check
Well, when I read "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification" I tend to take it at face value, but what do I know? I see it is now up for deletion. There really isn't a decent replacement on Commons. I will look for an alternative asap. Now done. Ben MacDui 10:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
New "eagle in flight" image uploaded - thanks to Ruhrfisch for the suggestion. I have asked a Commons licensing eagle eye to take a peep at it. Ben MacDui 09:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the problem as I would assume it was the original uploader, but I am not an image attorney. The image opposite
is an alternative if need be.
New image now used with no licence problems that I can see. Ben MacDui 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise pretty good. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Also [1] is a dead link. Couple of others were blueGreen coded and I didn't bother to check those. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
BCS link fixed.
I have looked at the others and I am not sure why the bot is grumbling. They look fine to me. Ben MacDui 10:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by User:Ling.Nut:

  • cSACs, or SACs?
User:Maedin kindly fixed the rogue one. The remaining one should, I believe be "cSAC".
  • "populations of waders". Sure, it's obvious that a wader is a wading seabird. But could it perhaps be made more obvious? Ditto for Mustelidae, commonly referred to as the weasel family.
Done Ben MacDui 10:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • opinion only: the deer in Image:Red-deer-glen-cristie.jpg is just a vaguely deer-shaped blotch in my browser/monitor/personal settings. I put Image:LandseerMonarch1851.JPG in and pressed the preview button, and it came out looking quite purty indeed. Is there some unspoken FAC rule that prevents the use of paintings instead of photos? Did I miss a memo somewhere?
It just looks a bit hackneyed to me, but I've replaced the blob with it. Ben MacDui 10:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
... and see comment below by Dincher. New image now to be inserted. Ben MacDui 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "Scottish Natural Heritage plan" is that a typo, or is that a case where our European friends consider things mass/group nouns where us feckless and shoeless 'Murcans don't?
Well I read it as "They plan" rather than "It plans". Ben MacDui 10:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Things to consider possibly putting in the WP:LEAD:
    • Any details at all about endangered/threatened/at risk status. See forex
      • the red/amber/green lists for birds
      • the fact that red squirrels are endangered is only mentioned in a note;
The text does say "This species faces threats"
      • "Scotland's marine life could be almost wiped out within 50 years unless tough action is taken to manage the way humans use the seas".... etc.
The lead says "Conservation agencies in the UK are concerned that climate change, especially its potential effects on mountain plateaus and marine life, threaten much of the fauna of Scotland." I'm reluctant to add something to the lead that would grab the reader's attention, but which may state a view that is not shared by most conservation agencies.
    • at least a phrase or a clause about extinctions and reintroductions.. in fact, go through every major section of the article and see if it gets mentioned in the WP:LEAD, which is supposed to be a summary of the whole article...well, I dunno, you might skip the Cryptozoology section, since it might seem a little touristy to mention Nessie in the lead. But don't take it out of the article.  ;-)
It said "several of the country's larger mammals were hunted to extinction in historic times" and I've added "and human activity has also led to various species of wildlife being introduced".
    • The lead is so broad and general, it borders on being underinformative. I would suggest adding one or two specific details of animals that are unique/notable in Scotland .. you choose the ones that seem best... for example maybe (you pick! don't mechanically follow my suggestions just because I'm an accursed FAC reviewer!):
      • "The Moray Firth colony of about 100 Bottlenose Dolphins is the most northerly in the world" or whatever.
      • "Although many species of butterfly are in decline in the UK, recent research suggests that some, such as the Pearl-bordered Fritillary, Marsh Fritillary and Chequered Skipper, which are becoming rare in the rest of the UK, are moving north into Scotland in response to climate change"
Added "the most northerly colony of Bottlenose Dolphins in the world". I think it covers birds and sea creatures pretty well. Other than seals the mammals are generally outstanding by UK standards but not on a European scale. I'm reluctant to add a lot more about conservation status as these categories are subject to ongoing changes that can be hard to keep up with. Ben MacDui 12:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this at GA (CoI), and it's improved since then. When shall we see its like again? jimfbleak (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed. I hear Raptors of Scotland calling from afar. I'll be in touch if I can raise the cash for a telephoto lens. Ben MacDui 10:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Nice work. I would prefer a photo of a Red Deer over the painting, but other than that all is well. Dincher (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. There is a better picture of a Red Deer that was in use here, but (as with so many decent wildlife images) it was not taken in Scotland, so I swopped it for the blob a while ago. I now discover , which was taken in Scotland. Unless this is controversial I will use it. Ben MacDui 08:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I fully support this article for promotion to FA. I have reviewed it with regard to all the FA criteria. I was particularly impressed with the high quality of the prose, and even more impressed with high standard of the sources used and cited; The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, National Trust for Scotland, The Scottish Office, among many more from highly reputable organisations. I am satisfied that all issues with the images used have been resolved and that their use is in full accordance with Wikipedia policies. I look forward to seeing this article on the Main Page. Graham Colm Talk 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Comments for now. This is an excellent, comprehensive, engaging and well written article. I have a few questions:

  • Can this be shortened, Included in the country's ocean inventory are the Darwin Mounds,?
Shortened to "The Darwin Mounds are an important area of deep sea cold water coral reefs discovered in 1988".
  • I would de-link United Kingdom.
Done
  • Here, ...more different species- is the "different" needed?
Nope and gone.
  • Here, In total these marine elements extend to an area of around 350 square kilometres (140 sq mi). - is the "In total" needed?
Nope and gone.
  • I noticed some discussion about this above but there is just one occurrence of cSAC and it's not defined.
Good point - I've removed the "c" as readers are probably not interested in the process of candidacy and acceptance. (There was earlier reference to this prior to the peer review/acceptance of the other cSACs.) It now reads "The Darwin Mounds, covering about 100 square kilometres (39 sq mi), are being considered as the first offshore SAC."
  • Here, a variety of factors is vague and useless.
It is certainly vague, and I have removed "'a variety of" but I think the "factors" needs to stay.
  • Amongst the Lagomorphs - "Of the lagomorphs".
Done

Please confirm that any issues with the images have been resolved; I can't add my support until this is done. Thanks for a brilliant article. Graham Colm Talk 13:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A bot has looked at the adler and made a cryptic remark about a human needing to look at the image size, but unless I have completely misunderstood how the Flickr licence works there isn't likely to be a problem with this.
As I don't understand the problem with the Scots Pine I don't know if it is fixed. If the weather was not currently a shade grim I'd take a new picture. In the meantime I'll have another look at Commons.
New image now used with no licence problems that I can see. Ben MacDui 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you for your kind assessment and comments. Ben MacDui 15:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discography of Final Fantasy VII

Nominator(s): PresN (talk)


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

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

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

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

comment more appropriate venue may be Wikipedia:Featured list candidates Fasach Nua (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's an article. Giggy (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A few quick comments from Giggy

  • "He did, however, find the tracks to be "beautiful"" - why the however? It's not contradicting anything prior.
    • Reworded that sentence.
  • "who while feeling that the soundtrack to Final Fantasy VI was better," - is fear the best choice of word?
    • Umm...there's no 'fear' in that sentence.
      • Sorry, disregard, was skim reading too fast. Giggy (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "and saying that "depending on how willing you are to spend money" they made the album worth purchasing" - not inherently a positive comment.... maybe change the context it's presented in.
    • Reworked sentence; it's not supposed to be entirely positive, he's saying that the other tracks are fluff, so it whether you want to spend that much money on three really good tracks.
  • Possibly just refer to reviewers by surname after you've named them in full once?
    • Why not, done.

Giggy (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • All concerns addressed. --PresN (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I am very impressed by the radical improvement of this article over time, from less than a start to its current condition, which I believe fits the criteria for a featured article; well written, minimal images, lots of reliable sources, and so on. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There is hidden text throughout, and numerous WP:MSH issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Que? I'm not sure what you mean- the only hidden text (and by that I assume you mean the <!-- --> tags) is the "(see wikiproject albums)" tags that are automatically put in when you use an album infobox template. I'll take those out, is that what you meant? And I have no idea what you mean by heading issues; as far as I can tell I'm following all the rules for that. Could you specify? --PresN (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Image:Final_Fantasy_VII_Original_Soundtrack.jpg‎ - needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP vis-a-vis WP:NFCC#6. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm, done, but this whole fair use nonsense is very self-contradictory. When you upload an image as an album cover, it labels the source as "highly recommended", not required. I believe this is because the actual source of the image, and the copyright holder, is not the site that the image was found at, or the person who scanned it in. As such, I've tagged it as coming from rpgfan.com- which it certainly could have come from, and is where I would have gotten it if I uploaded it, but I don't know where seancdaug got the image from 3 years ago, and I'm not sure how inventing a source or replacing an image with an identical image with a source is of any worth to Wikipedia or anyone. But hey, them's the rules, thanks for checking on it. Don't mean to yell at you, you do a good job, just grumbling. --PresN (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the policies (IUP and NFCC) are in alignment; whoever writes the template/upload scripting just isn't reading them. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Omaha, Nebraska

Nominator(s): • Freechild'sup?


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

  • Comments I should have mentioned these things ages ago, but I held off because I thought they were excessively nit-picky (but if there's a place where that would be appropriate, it's here):
    • References should use citation templates (cite web, cite book, cite news, etc.)
    • I can't distill this down to a concrete suggestion, but whenever I read the this article, I get the feeling that it sometimes misses the forest for the trees; that is, while it has lots and lots of sourced information, some of the information (nearly all of which exists in sub-articles) could be removed and replaced with text that creates a better narrative. If this feeling is restricted to me, then ignore this suggestion; if not, it'll require a stronger copyediting hand than mine. – Swid (talk · edits) 16:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
      • No specific citation method or template is required; WP:WIAFA calls for consistent citations, regardless of method used to generate them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment:
  • I don't believe that citation templates are necessary in an FA. Consistent citation style is necessary.
  • I scanned through the article and notice entire paragraphs without any citations. This must be amended immediately. --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments by D.M.N. (talk · contribs)
    • Several links are dead according to Checklinks tool.
      • Fixed. Only 2 legitmate links to dab pages remain. - Icewedge (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Several links go to disambig pages. It'd be better if they went to exact articles to help with accessibility.
    • D.M.N. (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose by Epicadam (talk · contribs)

  • Besides the problems with the references that are invalid (404s and other missing pages), and that some are missing publishing info and access date, what makes the following sources reliable?
  • The prose is just not good in general. There are grammar issues, the text doesn't flow very well, and the body of the article is organized in a haphazard manner. As another reviewer said above, the article is certainly loaded with facts but the article does not, in my opinion, provide a good overall summary of Omaha.
  • Sourcing in areas is quite thin. In some places, including whole paragraphs, assertions and hard facts go without references. This certainly needs to be corrected.
  • Various MoS problems. However, given the more serious overall problems with the article, technical and style problems are the least of this article's concerns.
  • FYI, I understand your concerns about the reliability of several of the citations mentioned above. By way of noting it, Andreas' History... was published in 1882, and is widely respected and cited source material. Additionally, if there are additional concerns beyond these few citations ("more serious overall problems"), could you please be specific? Thanks. • Freechild'sup? 07:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I replaced each of the aforementioned links. • Freechild'sup? 08:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend this article for a more thorough peer review first, followed by a run through WP:GAN, which is a good way to make sure that the article's content is in order and the sources check out. Best, epicAdam(talk) 00:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Epicadam (talk · contribs): Even though FAC is more of a judgment than a peer review, since the editor has requested more details as to what style and technical problems I have with the article, here are some more overall concerns and my thoughts on the lead:

  • Please check out the guidelines at WP:USCITY to determine the appropriate section order and content for city articles. While following guidelines are not specifically required, those guidelines were developed as a community to make sure that city articles provide readers with as much pertinent information as possible and didn't develop into a dustbin of random facts and trivia. Following the guidelines there will also help cut down on the overuse of section headers and subheadings.
  • Prose should always be favored over lists of information. If the events in the "Major events" section are notable, they should be mentioned and included within a narrative prose.
  • "Metropolitan area" is literally a sentence, map and a table. The information about each individual community should not even be present here since the article is on Omaha itself, not its surrounding area. A sentence about the metro area's population, etc. would be sufficient in the demographics section.
  • Non-breaking spaces are needed between numbers and their units of measurement.
  • Lead issues:
    • There are many citations in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary, meaning that while some of information can be cited in the lead, especially if it's controversial, the vast majority of the information should be cited below in the article's actual prose.
    • "The stand-alone city is the nation's 42nd-largest" "stand-alone" means there are no others. Perhaps the word is "independent"? And if so, how is it an independent city if it's a county seat? Do the laws of the county not apply to its county seat?
    • "The city grew along the Missouri River, with the first settlement extending from the Lone Tree Ferry crossing from Kanesville, Iowa in the early 1850s." awkward. There's no context.
    • "Along with transportation and jobbing, early industries that were important to the city through the mid-20th century were its railroads, breweries, stockyards and meatpacking plants." Really poor prose. Better: "Railroads, breweries, stockyards, and meatpacking plants were Omaha's main industries in the mid-20th century." And really, why is this important? The information is provided but it's not clear why it's in the lead...
    • How does the third paragraph summarize the city? Surely the city is more than the corporations that are headquartered there, right? It's essentially just information that belongs in the economy section.
    • Sweeping phrases like "comprise important elements of the cultural background of Omaha", "have been lauded by numerous national newspapers", "music has always been important to the city", and "music scene being historically significant" mean absolutely nothing to the reader. Don't tell us that something is important, demonstrate its importance through examples.

Let me know if/when you take this article to peer review and I'd be happy to go through it more. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment are ISBNs optional? There are not present. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Two sections are simply lists; one section is an image; the prose is very far from sparkling or even engaging: "Two native sons who achieved prominence nationally were born in Omaha, with their families moving away shortly thereafter". I hate to sound literary, but there isn't much sense of flow to many sections. I'd like to commend the primary editors of this article on the obvious hard work they've done, but it just isn't far enough along in the development process to be an FA. It will get there at some point if its editors continue seeking outside input/help, but I suspect that time is not now. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)—A random spot check of the Notable residents section reveals these problems:

  • "Omaha is the historic and modern birthplace and home of notable politicians, actors, musicians, business leaders, sportsmen and cultural leaders."
  • "His son Peter Fonda also briefly lived in Omaha." Peter Fonda should be wikilinked. A rather awkward, stubby, sentence overall.
  • "Mrs. Brando had helped found the playhouse." This idea could be integrated into the sentence before the last.
  • "Tennis player Andy Roddick, former ATP ranking leader, was born in Omaha." a former ATP ranking leader.
  • "Omaha's rich musical history produced legends such as Wynonie Harris, Preston Love, Buddy Miles, Calvin Keys, Eugene McDaniels and others." Did the history actually produce these legends. Who's to say that Omaha's musical history is "rich"?
  • "Warren Buffett, in 2008 the richest man in the world, lives in Omaha where he made his fortune in business." Comma use and awkward phrasing: "in 2008 the richest man in the world"--> the richest man in the world as of 2008.
  • "Two native sons who achieved prominence nationally were born in Omaha, with their families moving away shortly thereafter." Who are these two native sons?
  • "Activist and son of a Baptist minister, Malcolm X, first known as Malcolm Little, was also born here." Switch around phrases here. Do we really need to know that Malcolm X's alternate name?
  • "Academy Award winner Henry Fonda also grew up in Omaha." Also is unnecessary.

I'm sorry, but I can't support or even remain neutral when there are so many problems in a small, 2-paragraph section. Please withdraw this nom and submit for a peer review, find people to copyedit the article, and then submit it to GAN before coming here. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Brown (cricketer)

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket)


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

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

Comments

  • Brown captained Australia in one Test in March 1946, against New Zealand in a match that was retrospectively accredited.
I know what you mean but a lay reader may struggle.
  • A right-handed opening batsman, he and Jack Fingleton formed an opening pair in the 1930s that was regarded as one of the finest in Australian Test history.
Present tense ?
  • Brown had backed up too far and left his crease before the bowler
Should back up be linked ?
Especially as "backing up" actually means going forward.--Grahame (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • With steady performances, Brown forced his way into the Test team during the tour, batting at No. 3. With regular openers Bill Ponsford and Bill Woodfull retiring at the end of the tour,
Brown opened in all Tests of 1934 except the first.
  • The highlight of his tour was an unbeaten 206 in the Second Test at Lord's, which saved Australia from defeat.
I think the "which saved Australia from defeat" should come just after the 206.
Maybe: "He was notable for saving Australia from defeat in the Second Test at Lord's by scoring an unbeaten 206." --Grahame (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Cricket resumed in 1945–46 and Brown captained an Australian team to New Zealand, leading the team in a retrospectively accredited Test match in the absence of Don Bradman.
Split ?
I suggest "Cricket resumed in 1945–46 and Brown—in the absence of Don Bradman—captained an Australian team to New Zealand, leading the team in a retrospectively accredited Test match".--Grahame (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There are too many commas in the lead some of which are unnecessary. Tintin 09:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Image comments
    • All images are public domain according to Australian law, all have date, author, source tags. One thing, though: Image:BillBrown1.jpg's use in the article is a rather pointless 'Bill Brown' caption. Perhaps move that image to the infobox for a full-body shot instead of the small mugshot? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments by User:Ling.Nut
    • I'm not sure that Image:Arthur Morris.jpg adds any value to the article. It also spills over into the following section, in my browser/monitor/personal settings. An image of Vinoo Mankad would be better (if available), since the next section focuses on him. Either way, though, Morris seems unnecessary.
    • "Brown was unable to perform to his previous standards he was ousted"... grammar.
    • I agree with User:Dweller that there are a few too many details in the WP:LEAD. For example,I hate to keep picking on Morris, but I don't think the lead needs to state who replaced Brown... and various other details can be trimmed. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Meshuggah

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


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

  • Oppose per 1c, which calls for factual accuracy. Certain statements are misleading, for example;
  • "The album had positive reviews, though it was not commercially successful.[6]" - According to whom? Whether an album is "commercially successful" is subjective, and mere opinion. In this case, it's the opinion of the person who wrote the biography you've cited. Furthermore, where are these positive reviews? Or is this another opinion of the biographer? Opinions are being flaunted as fact here, and deliberately misleading the reader.
  • "Destroy Erase Improve was released in July 1995, with positive response from critics for the "heady tempos and abstract approach".[1][12]" - What critics? The way the statement is worded suggests a whole swathe of critics positively received the album, when in actual fact, only Allmusic is being cited. Please name the writer and publication who believes that the album had "heady tempos and abstract approach", and not just attribute it to "critics". "Critics" can be 10, or a 100.
  • "After the new album and the live performances, Meshuggah was beginning to be recognized by mainstream music, guitar, drum and metal magazines.[1][6]" - According to who? This is yet another opinion being flaunted as fact. You need to learn to differentiate opinion from fact. Name the writers and publications who make the assertion.
  • "In 2003, rhythm guitarist Hagström said about the possible musical direction of the band's next album" - The word "next" is redundant phrasing.
  • "Meshuggah has often esoteric lyrics,[1] which deal with often conceptual themes[19] such as existentialism.[21]" - More opinion being flaunted as fact. It's all personal interpretation.
  • THe "Musical style" section flaunts opinion as fact extensively. At the end of the day, just because Critic A thinks the band is "innovative" etc. doesn't make it fact - the average person might think it's rather stale. Opinions need to be attributed to the mouths of those in question in the actual article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I must disagree. I will give you an example of what you are saying. You are the main editor of Jihad (song) (check). It is a FA and you seem to be happy with it. Have a look at Jihad (song)#Musical structure. The second sentence says "A skittering vamp leads into the track, during which Lombardo shimmers his hi-hat." That is all. But according to who? "skittering vamp"? That is an opinion of one music journalist. The next statements: "Smoothly mixing up tempos, the band build the song with a fast,[7] "wonky, catchy and angular"[8] guitar riff reminiscent of the breakdown in 1986's "Angel of Death".[9] This guitar riff decelerates before bursting forward again in two-bar stretches underpinned by Lombardo's pounding, fifth-gear drumming.[7]" This is a salvo of opininated glorifying statements with no trace of the author.
Where is your border between a fact and an opinion? You can pick every single sentence in every article and ask "according to who?" But that does not make the statement be an opinion. Let me give you an example. Hoysala architecture - lead section: "Hoysala influence was at its peak in the 13th century". Should there be "According to most of scholars, historics and architects, Hoysala influenc