Wikipedia:FAC Wiki resources & Wikipedia:FAC information at HealthHaven.com
advertise
toolbar
services
publishers
database
membership
Dr. Paul
Search  for    ?
web dir image video media news gallery wiki shop 
about
HealthBot
stats
live show
health store
shirts
JOIN/LOGIN
Wikipedia:FAC:
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria.

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

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

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

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

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

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks.

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 red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  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

  • 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), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, 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

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Rheinmetall 120 mm gun

Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)


This article deals with the tank gun used by the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams, amongst other thanks. It covers its development history, export history and the development of ammunition for it. JonCatalán(Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, since they changed their layout and no longer include their sources on each page it's hard to prove, but their information comes straight from the manufacturer. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support

A few points:

  • Linking in the lede has two links for South Korea, but none for LAHAT.
  • The two sentences in the last paragraph of the lede that both begin "The Israelis have also..."
  • Krauss-Maffei should always have a hyphen, but appears here as two words.
  • Too many uses of "also": five uses in the lede, two uses in the penultimate paragraph, four "also"s in the last paragraph
-- William Avery (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Those can all be fixed very quickly; most already have. I will work through the text to remove instances of the word "also". According to their website], it's actually not spelled either way; they spell it KraussMaffei. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, the word "also" has been removed or replaced throughout the text, leaving only a few instances of the word left where proper. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
All resolved. William Avery (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edgar Speyer

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk)


I'm nominating this biographical article for featured article because of the subject's interesting life and status as one of only a few people to be struck-off as members of the Privy Council. DavidCane (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WrestleMania XXIV

Nominator(s): iMatthew


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I'm sure it meets the Featured article criteria. Concerns will be addressed. iMatthew 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
  • I don't like the small text in "Results"; I suggest changing to normal
  • In the infobox, there should be no space between the word and the (s) (I'm assuming the (s) to cover bases for singular and plural.) This will require editing the infobox; shouldn't be a problem though.
  • Why is U.S. state linked? Common enough term to not need it.
  • "and it was" – "and was"
  • "brand, that" – "brand that"
  • "featured The Undertaker defeating World Heavyweight Champion Edge" — "featured The Undertaker's defeating World Heavyweight Champion Edge"
  • "match; CM Punk won the match." – "match, which CM Punk won."
  • "Bowl; grossing $5.85" – "Bowl, grossing US$5.85"
  • "The Citrus Bowl record-breaking attendance of 74,635, consisting of people from 21 countries, all 50 states, and five Canadian provinces, pumped an estimated $30 million into the local economy." – "The Citrus Bowl's record-breaking attendance of 74,635, consisting of people from 21 countries, all 50 states, and five Canadian provinces, pumped an estimated $30 million into the local economy."
  • That "See also: Professional wrestling" in Background strikes me as being too generic to be a See also link.
  • Where's the reference for the paragraph that begins with "The event featured nine professional wrestling matches"
  • Ref for "Canadian Online Explorer's professional " onwards?

Gary King (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I got everything except the reference for that paragraph. I'm not sure about it. iMatthew 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Assuming the reader doesn't know anything about the subject, like me, then the paragraph should be referenced. How else can I verify if the information is accurate? Gary King (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Matt, I recommend sourcing it with this. It's reliable, seeing how there is an article on Wiki about it.--SRX 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sourced with that link. iMatthew 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Not commenting on its reliability, but just because it has its own article doesn't mean it's reliable. Gary King (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess let Ealdgyth comment its reliability, but I think its reliable since its operated and published by Discovery Networks. In addition, the ref should go before the sentence that elaborates about the "brand extension." The brand extension sentence should be sourced with the WWE corporate citation released in 2002.--SRX 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
A few comments from WillC
  • I just thought to tell you about a few sources that are dead links now. Plus you have two dab pages linked. Stomp and World Heavyweight Championship. Ref 54 is dead along with 35. If Lockdown passes I'll leave some comments later, right now I'm bussy. Good luck.--WillC 00:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks, will do later. iMatthew 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scout Moor Wind Farm

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum


I'm nominating this article on the United Kingdom's largest onshore wind farm on behalf on the Greater Manchester WikiProject. It's relatively short at 1,317 words, but I believe that it's nevertheless comprehensive and meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All images have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Comments
  • Scout Moor Wind Farm is the largest onshore wind farm in England. - This leaves me to wonder; are there any larger offshore wind farms?
  • Powered by twenty six Nordex N80 wind turbines, it has the capacity to generate 65 MW of electricity, providing 154,000 MWh per annum, which is enough to serve the average needs of approximately 40,000 homes. - Inconsistency with spelling out numbers.
  • The site lies across 2 miles (3.2 km) of open moorland between Edenfield, Rawtenstall and Rochdale, - Link moorland.
  • The second presentation was given by a representative of Scout Moor Wind Farm, who argued the need for Britain to produce clean green power, without harmful emissions, in order to counter the increasing dangers of global warming. - Remove "in order".
  • The last quote of the History section should be incorporated into the text.
  • Could the Key facts be renamed to "Overview"? "Key facts" seems slightly POV as to what kind of fact is considered "key".

The article looks good, overall. The above comments are minor, and should be easy to fix. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

All changed apart from the first point, which I don't have the answer to. Nev1 (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added a bit to the lead mentioning the only larger offshore windfarm, Kentish Flats. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Changed to support. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boeing 777

Nominator: User:Chergles (talk)


This was nominated for FAC in mid-2007. The article has improved since then. In my opinion, all of the points raised in the 3 objections have been met. The subject of the article, The Boeing 777, is a very notable aircraft though even obscure articles have passed FAC before. This is truly a collaborative effort between several editors and represents great work and effort. Chergles (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I see no indication that significant contributors were consulted, per WP:FAC instructions. If they don't think it's ready, the nom should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oops, fixing. The 2 most recent heavy contributors have been notified, me and Fnlayson. Will do the others. Chergles (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Top 4 editors and all editors over 65 edits notified. 3 ok'ed it, 1 has quit and said so on their talk pageChergles (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

  • It's usual to put magazine and newspaper titles in italics.
Many of the references use the template and the template did not italicize the titles. This is a wikipedia style error, not our error. I'll manually add italics. Chergles (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this is from confusion with how the fields work in the {{cite news}} and other cite templates. Work is the field you use for the title of the magazine, publisher would be the company behind the magazine. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 6 (Cebeci..) needs a publisher and last access date at the least.
Fixed, unneeded sentence removed. Chergles (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is current ref 12 (Sabbagh. p. 180) in italics? Same for current ref 20 (Sabbagh p. 281-284)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The Boening Company or Boenig? Pick one and be consistent in the footnotes.
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
These sources list plane deliveries. They are like a directory. News sources will never say "plane 00112 is United Airlines, plane 00113 is British Airways, etc." Nobody has ever claimed that these websites are so error prone as to be unreliable. If SandyGeorgia says we cannot use these list websites, then I am willing to remove lots of good information and just have a barebones generic 777 article. Otherwise, let's use these sources. They are not blogs. Chergles (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing that suggests these websites are not reliable. News articles are less reliable because they might say United Airlines has 53 planes but that number is not updated by the article so that we can't compare different articles. If SandyGeorgia determines that these websites have to go, then we'll just re-write the article and take out information. That will leave the article with a good basic description of the 777 but it may not have airline specific information, like number of planes a certain airline has. Chergles (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with zap16.com, but the rest are well-known airline field to be reputable sites. I'm not sure how much "proof" policy requires. Given that these sites are maintained by experts, I'd actually put their reliability much higher than mainstream media who have a bad reputation for getting aviation reporting wrong. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 26 (Boening 787 Program...) is lacking a publisher.
Added Chergles (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 27 (FAA publication...) is lacking a publisher. Also, the title should be the title given in the pdf and the footnote should note that it's a webarchive of the original.
Removed ref as there is a better reference. Chergles (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 28 (Type Acceptance report) is lacking publisher and last access date at the least. Should also note that it's a pdf
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 29, the publisher should be The Australian.
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 30 (From the Cockpit...) is lacking a publisher. Also worthy of note is that I did not investigate the site as I got a "Warning, Visiting this site may harm your computer..." message when I tried to click on it. What makes this a relaible source?
Removed reference. Chergles (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 33 (IATA & ICAO...) the publisher is run into the link title, when they should be separated.
Fixed Chergles (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 37 (Leading engine for the 777) is lacking a publisher. also, shouldn't the title be "Trent 800"?
Fixed Chergles (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 38 (ALPA 50th..) is lacking a publsher. Also, the author is known.
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 39 (JAL...) is just badly formatted. Journal title shoudl be in italics, article title in ""'s
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 48 (Delta Airlines...) is lacking a publisher
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current refs 63 & 64 (Factsheet...) are lacking publishers
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 65 (Aircraft & Aircraft...) is lacking a publisher and last access date. (The access date shouldn't be in the link title).
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: a significant contributor to the article removed the FAC tag with the edit summary "Let's try to get the article in better shape before starting FAC". Since the article is already listed at FAC, and the 'significant contributors' issue is fuzzy here (nominator has 63 edits, but the editor who removed the tag is the top contributor at 365), I have reinstated {{fac}} on the article talk page and requested further input here. Maralia (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We are fine. Both of us are not in dispute. I'm just fixing the article now. Chergles (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Proof...16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Fnlayson says alright with the FA. Yipee, we have a common goal! Chergles (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review

  • There is some sandwiching of text in the "Production" section, which we should try to avoid (see WP:MOS#Images). Can one of those images be deleted?
  • Image:020802 02.jpg - This image has no author. It looks like it is the uploader, but we need to confirm that. Please leave a note with the uploader.
  • Image:B777-200LR Paris Air Show 2005 display.jpg - The original source image for this has a problem. Note that the uploader and the author are not the same, so when the uploader released the rights, they were releasing rights that did not belong to them. We need the author/photographer to release the rights. Could you leave a message for the photographer? They can amend the image description page to make their release of the rights explicit, if they actually want to release them.

These issues should be relatively easy to clear up. Awadewit (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Request in progress. One author is French and contributes to French Wikipedia. Have tried to write in French even though I don't speak French. Chergles (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sorry, but the article needs quite a bit of work.
  • The lead needs to be significantly expanded.
The lead is 3 paragraphs. It is possible to add fluff but 3 paragraphs is deemed sufficient according to Wikipedia. Suggestions always welcomed. Chergles (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:LEAD suggests that an article of this size should contain a lead of four paragraphs, but even so, they should be decently-sized paragraphs. Remember, the lead is a summary of the entire article, and should provide a general understanding of the entire subject to a reader. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Citation needed tags, as well as other unsourced info. Some examples:

**All software, whether produced internally to Boeing or externally, was to be written in Ada. The bulk of the work was undertaken by Honeywell who developed an Airplane Information Management System (AIMS). This handles the flight and navigation displays, systems monitoring and data acquisition (e.g. flight data acquisition). **The first 777-200 built was used by Boeing's non-destructive testing (NDT) campaign in 1994–1995, and provided valuable data for the -200ER and -300 programs. This A market (see below) aircraft was sold to Cathay Pacific Airways and delivered in December 2000.

    • The 777 may eventually be replaced by a new product family, the Boeing Y3, which would draw upon technologies from the 787.
    • The first customer delivery was to United Airlines in May 1995.
All fixed Chergles (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite a few one-sentence paragraphs.
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The prose needs an overall copyedit. Examples:
    • a 2,700 nautical miles (5,000 km) transcontinental and an 4,320 nmi (8,000 km) intercontinental. - "A 2,700 nautical miles" is grammatically incorrect. Also, why is "miles" spelled out, when "nmi" is abbreviated?
    • From a head-on view, the end of the section is very evident. - "Very" is unneeded.
    • 180 minutes of successful and reliable operation on one workable engine are required for the ETOPS 180-minute certification. - Avoid starting sentences with numerical characters.

–

Fixed these but going beyond that and making similar changes suggested by the above. Chergles (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  • Rolls-Royce should always have a hyphen. It appears as two words in many places in this article. William Avery (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the points raised have been fixed. However, a continuing effort to improve is and will always be worked on. Chergles (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wonder Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk)


This is an article about one of the earliest science fiction magazines. Amazing Stories was recently featured and would be a good comparison. Another point that may be of interest is that as result of some recent discussion at the FAC talk page and elsewhere about short articles, I decided to include a couple of other magazines in this article. The details are given in the article so I won't repeat them, but essentially the article covers between two and five magazines, depending on which bibliographer is counting. If I didn't include Science Wonder Quarterly, I'd end up with a very short article on that magazine that would need a good deal of material copied verbatim from this article. Anyway, I look forward to comments; thanks for all input. Mike Christie (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

  • What makes http://news.ansible.co.uk/a239.html a reliable source?
    It's the online version of the science fiction news and gossip fanzine Ansible (magazine). David Langford, who publishes it, has won multiple Hugo Awards for the magazine, and it is widely respected. Langford controls the content, so there is editorial control. If you don't think it passes I can cut it; I might be able to replace it, but I might also just cut the whole paragraph -- the 2007 reissue is not the same magazine, it just uses the same name, and I don't think it has to be mentioned. Mike Christie (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought it might be related to the fanzine, but wasn't sure. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable for non-controversial information. It wouldn't be safe for a BLP, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

[edit] Ralph Bakshi

Nominator: User:Ibaranoff24 (talk)


The article has been greatly improved since its last FAC, and should be ready for promotion. Documents the history of an important figure in the history of American animation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

Comment

There is an undisambiguated link to Marvel, and Foofle is a redirect to an unrelated subject. William Avery (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  • This has been corrected. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Comment I am currently doing a requested copy edit of the articles, and came across the following quotation: "The conflict between Avatar and his evil brother Blackwolf is borh cliched and mostly..." near the end of the "Controversy and shift towards fantasy film" section. I don't want to change the "borh cliched" line because it's a quote, but someone might want to check the source and see if that was a typo in the original book or if it crept in when the quote was added to the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the same quote has "neccesarily" in it, which should probably also be checked. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct, both of these are typos, and have been corrected. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC))
Copy edit complete. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Jim Hill is a notable animation commentator. The Media Coalition citation can probably be taken out. Desert Exposure is an Arizona newspaper. The articles that are missing information are cited from Cohen's Forbidden Animation book. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC))
What has been taken care of? And are you saying that you used citations for works you did not consult when you say that the "articles that are missing information are cited from Cohen's Forbidden Animation book"? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The information was listed in Cohen's book. In a few instances, I cited the sources that Cohen used, which were given in the back of the book. Some of them were missing information. Thus, the citations are presented as they were printed in the source list for Forbidden Animation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC))
You need to cite that information to Cohen's book then, if you did not actually utilize the other works yourself. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten articles on three films by Bakshi using the same kind of formatting and writing style, and I've never been asked to do so before, nor has this kind of formatting deterred the success of a FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC))
It's basic citation 101 that you cite to where you found the information, not where the source you're using got the information, unless you also accessed and verified that information with the source's source. I learned this with the very first term paper I ever wrote. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Also see WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (thanks David!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth asked me to read over this discussion and see what I thought. She is right; you must cite where you got the information, not where your source got it. If you have done this before and no one has complained it is likely because no one realized that was happening. It is always possible (and usually likely), that the intermediate source (the book you read) picked and chose information out of the original source, leaving out other info, and may have added their own interpretation of what was in the original source. If you want to do proper attribution in the text of the article, you may say that "According to Author Y, the magazine XXX on ZZ date said.....". But this must be cited to the book that you read, because it may not be a 100% accurate representation of what the magazine actualy said. Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I entirely agree with the above: cite to your source. The form which Karanacs suggests is correct procedure when you wish to refer to an original source that you don't have; I have often used it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I also agree 100 percent - the place where you found the information is the place that must be cited (also making clear where they say they got the information). For another example of this in a FA, see, for example, Ref. 61 in Joseph Priestley House ("Qtd." is "Quoted"). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Query Hi, the claim that the 1978 Lord of the Rings Film "laid the groundwork for future adaptations of the book" is quite controversial and I think would need a citation. Also could the sentence "director John Boorman was attached to direct adaptation of The Lord of the Rings" be revisited? Should it be "director John Boorman was (attempting, contracted or planning?) to direct an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings"? ϢereSpielChequers 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's too controversial, considering that Peter Jackson has acknowledged the film as an influence on his own adaptation. Reworded John Boorman sentence. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle

Nominator(s): NuclearWarfare, User:Haha169, User:Rau J


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that this article meets the FA Criteria. That's the only thing that matters, right? Oh, and also because this article specifically is part of a topic (Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes) that I am hoping to get to Featured Status. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the tools bit. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All of the images in this article are non-free and none of them have sufficient rationales at this point:

  • Image:AangOzai.png - The "purpose of use" provided for this image is insufficient - "It provides a necessary visual aid for the Sozin's Comet article". This is essentially illustration and Wikipedia's fair use guidelines specifically require that non-free images provide more than illustration. Thus, this image needs a much stronger justification for inclusion or it needs to be deleted.
  • Image:Sozin's comet.png - The source for this image is listed as Wikipedia's upload page - that is not a source. The copyright holder is not listed. The "purpose of use" is blatantly false - this image is not used in the infobox. Again, this purpose of use must be strengthened or the image must be deleted.
    • I believe it was used in the infobox at some prior point. But now, the actual image is unnecessary, so I'm removing it from the article and tagging it for deletion. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Lion Turtle Sage02d.jpg - The copyright holder is not listed. The purpose of use needs to be strengthed - explain why the image is necessary. Why does the reader need to see this picture? Why are words not enough to describe this character?

For help on non-free images, particularly on writing "purpose of use" statements, see this dispatch on non-free images. Awadewit (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Image concerns have been addressed. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - For the moment. The prose isn't so great. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Work includes:
  • The four-part movie premiere averaged 5.6 million viewers,[5] as well as receiving a 195% increase in ratings over the previous year's like-time period. - Verb tense does not agree
  • Is http://hybridfire.net/blog/2008/07/24/avatar-the-last-airbender-smashes-through-tv-ratings-with-sozins-comet/ really a reliable source? It's an internet blog, so I'll let others decide.
  • Sozin's Comet was met with positive critical reviews throughout, with reviewer Ed Liu going as far as stating that it made "Avatar" one of the finest animated television series ever made"... - Why is Avatar in quotes?
  • That night, however, Aang mysteriously disappears into the water. - Does the episode mention which body this was? Perhaps a specific sea?
    • I'm afraid it doesn't mention what sea it was. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
      • What about the area they're in? —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 02:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Nothing of that either. The show is pretty vague when it comes to places. And in this case, the area does not matter, because Aang ends up disappearing anyway. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll probably have more comments later, but I'm busy (with Halo, lol), so I'll be back tomorrow. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 01:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Additional comments
  • This cumulates in Aang ultimately defeating the Fire Lord by removing his bending capabilities. - replace is with when, and change rest of sentence
    • Couldn't find that quote. Done --haha169 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
In lead. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The four-part movie premiere averaged 5.6 million viewers, and received a 195% increase in ratings over the previous year's like-time period.[5] - Like time?
    • Yes, it means "same time". Couldn't find a better word choice and "like-time" is what the ref used. --haha169 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've done a minor fix, myself. Others:
  • Could you briefly explain who each character is in the lead?
    • That would be for the series article. I don't really think episode article need to do that. --haha169 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Sozin's Comet has received some negative feedback as well, most notably the difficulty in understanding the voice of an important, new character: the Lion Turtle. - Remove comma between important and new, doesn't flow.
  • It's a shame that so many convenient plot twists set us up for a humongous deus ex machina that allows the Fire Lord to be thwarted without dying". - period in front of quote, please.
    • The quote is a part of the sentence, not the sentence itself, so the the period should be outside, unless I'm mistaken. --haha169 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Use an ellipse, if possible. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Top slot" is used several times throughout the article. Could you replace this, it's kind of boring.
    • Only used twice, but I replaced one of them. --haha169 (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yours, —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 18:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Comments - From a person who knows less than nothing about anime-type shows, here are some general thoughts. I didn't read the text closely, so please don't consider this a comprehensive list of everything that needs fixing.

  • Link Joaquim Dos Santos in the lead and the infobox.
  • Reference 10 (the dead link) can apparently be replaced by an archived version. I recommend using a specific version from the Internet Archive to replace the link; just getting rid of the dead link tag will be beneficial.
  • Several websites that I'm not familiar with. What makes News Blaze.com (ref 5), Broadcast Newsroom (ref 6), Hybridfire.net (ref 7), NickSplat.com (ref 10), Distant Horizon (ref 14), Toon Zone (ref 15), and Crave Online (ref 16) reliable sources? I'm sure that at least a few of them are fine, but I figure it's better to ask about them, due to my lack of knowledge on the best sources for the subject.
    • News Blaze: DYK accepted this, and anyway, it says that the source of all those statistics are directly from Nickelodeon. --haha169 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Broadcast Newsroom: replaced --haha169 (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Hybridfire: Not used anymore
    • Nicksplat: Official Nickelodeon website, I think
    • Distant Horizon: Replaced
    • Toon Zone: We're not using them to get factual evidence, but rather reviews for the receptions section. --haha169 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Crave Online: Same as above--haha169 (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Anyone, please feel free to do these. I'm just listing them out for now. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Print publishers, like the San Francisco Examiner and The New York Times, need italics. Non-printed publishers, like SciFi and Apple, don't. The italics for the series name in the one reference are fine.
  • En dashes are needed for the episode and production numbers in the infobox, and for the episode number in ref 3.
    • Could you or someone else do this one please? I'm unsure how to do it. - NuclearWarfare contact me<font color="purple"My work 03:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
      • They already are en dashes. --haha169 (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
        • They weren't, but they are now. Check edit box to see how they are done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Giants2008 (17-14) 01:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

  • Newspaper titles should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}} you use the work field for the titles
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - below my 20kb dividing line for FA/GA, so I have qualms about the comprehensiveness of this article to the level I feel is required by the FA criteria. I think it's okay enough for GA, but for television episodes, I have a minimum of 20KB for 22-minute episodes, 30KB for 45-minute episodes, and and 40KB for 90-minute episodes. Articles like 200 (Stargate SG-1) and The Principal and the Pauper were criticised within the FA process for being a similar length. Sceptre (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not comprehensive enough. Not even close to FA. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Answering both these opposes at once: I would disagree, but I am willing to withdraw this FAC and rewrite if you deem it necessary. What more do you feel we should add? - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
      • More production and reception details: one or two paragraphs about each are pitifully small for an FA. I would suggest withdrawing and adding more. Sceptre (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Just going through WP:FA?: I noticed no rules regarding length, except "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." This article is quite the opposite. It stays on track and does not enter unnecessary detail. Comprehensiveness: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" also passes, IMHO because this article incorporates everything verifiable that is on the internet. --haha169 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Look at the second- and third-longest episode FAs, Trapped in the Closet (South Park) and Through the Looking Glass (Lost). One's animation, and the other's as long as Sozin's Comet. They're comprehensive to the point the featured article criteria asks. I am struggling to believe that, for a TV series as popular as this, you can only find two paragraphs of production and reception. Have you tried Nickelodeon-published magazines or Google News? Sceptre (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
            • I suppose we could technically find more for reception, though it will be just much of the same. Also, production won't be that much. We would essentially be copying the information from the Season 3 article, because I have no information to indicate that they produced this any differently. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
              • I'd prefer if S3 production details that pertain to this episode are placed in the articles, yes. Sceptre (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
                • I've tried Google News, but I do not have Nickelodeon magazine subscriptions and I do not believe they are online. I honestly have found nothing pertaining to the production of this episode, only the production of the seasons in general. I'm not sure production could be expanded much without repeating the information in the infobox multiple times. --haha169 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Question from the nominator - Would you say that this source would be OK to use as a review in the reception section? - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ravenloft (D&D module)

Nominator(s): Drilnoth (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been a Good Article since March 2007, and I think that significant improvements have been made since then that qualifies it for FA status. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All of the images in this article are non-free and none of them have sufficient rationales at this point.

  • Image:Ravenloft I6.jpg - The fair use rationale for this image states that it "illustrates a relevant point in the text of the article". The rationale should state what that specific point is.
  • Image:House of Strahd lr.JPG - The fair use rationale for this image states that it "illustrates a relevant point in the text of the article". The ra