Wikipedia:Featured article candidates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)
Jump to: navigation, search
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] Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle

Nominator(s): The Placebo Effect (talk), NuclearWarfare (Talk), User:Haha169, User:Rau J


I'm nominating this article for featured article because this article has everything that is necessary to describe the episode. In the previous nomination, one of the reasons cited was that it was too short. Unfortunately, there is a lack of people who review or wrote comments about Cartoons on Nick, so this show doesnt have as many citations to lengthen it as other TV episodes do. Besides that, I ready to do whatever needs to be done to get this featured. The Placebo Effect (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Brevity

previous FAC (04:05, 23 August 2008)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I really believe it now meets all FA criteria.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a preliminary scan:

  1. The article needs supporting maps! Its very hard to piece together the war details without maps that chalk out the strategies, frontlines and locations.
    There is currently two maps within the article, both show the main towns and the border.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Preferably SVG maps. (JPEG one is bad)
    What exactlly is wrong with the JPEG one? It displays find to me and shows no JPEG corruption (shouldnt since i snapped it up via photoshop).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    If the File:BattleaxeContestedArea.JPG is sourced, I can throw up an SVG version almost instantaneously (seems simple enough). Jappalang (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. All those times need to be attributed to a timezone
  4. Similarly, all mile units need a km equivalent. I thought I saw some without equivalents.
    Addressed--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. The coordinates would also be good
    The co-ordinates to where? Fort Capuzzo, Halfaya Pass etc?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. In recompense -- comma needed
  7. How could they be taken by surprise "nevertheless took them by surprise" if they knew it was coming? What were they surprised about?
    I've made some minor prose tweaks that should hopefully address your last two. EyeSerenetalk 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Replies

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Bald Ibis

Nominator(s): jimfbleak (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think this now meets all the criteria. I've spent a great deal of time on this one, it had a very thorough Good Article review, which I think sorted out the worst infelicities in presentation and a couple of image/referencing issues. It's also had much helpful input from the Birds project. Time to be thrown to the wolves jimfbleak (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment This hungry wolf was looking for nice bird meat to chew on, but returned mostly disappointed. :) Could only manage to make away with feathers below:

  • as described above. -- redundant
  • =In culture= has extra whitespace at the end of the section.
  • For an article of this caliber, the maps are a letdown, especially the map of Morocco. Have you tried Wikipedia:Graphics lab? I'm not sure what image editing software you use, but try gaining experience with Inkscape. It's cool. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Reply Thanks for reviewing, sorry you left without a full stomach :)
  • as described above. now removed
  • Hadn't spotted that a previous editor added a <br>, gone now
  • The maps were actually improved by another editor! I have inkscape, but I've never really mastered it. If the article seems likely to fail on the quality of the maps, I'll remove them, since they are not mandatory anyway.
Thanks again jimfbleak (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It's unlikely that the article will fail because of the images, but good articles should have professionally-created images. This time I returned and managed to get some nice meat, catching several peacocks and weasels too.
  1. Eritrea,Saudi Arabia -- +space needed
Done jimfbleak (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. I think =Reintroductions= needs to be promoted to a top level heading. It does not seem to be a "conservation status" of any sort.
Don't like, separates from wild pops, changed to conservation jimfbleak (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. now thought/has been suggested -- check for peacock/weasel terms
I think I've got them all - only remaining thought and suggesting are where appropriate jimfbleak (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. has recently been and Until recently, the main cause of breeding, has now put protection -- vague --> how recent?
2006 for first occurence, second removed jimfbleak (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. have a good record for conservation -- how "good"?
I can't quantify beyond the BirdLife International source. If you think that good is inadequate, I'll remove the sentence, since I can't realistically evaluate better than a major international conservation organisation jimfbleak (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. heavily managed?
rephrased The birds were taken into captivity after jimfbleak (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. A trial migration using tagged birds confirmed the risks presented to travelling birds by pesticides. -- points to Ref 27. But the source there mentions tagging in future tense: To solve the riddle, more Turkish birds will be tagged next year by Czech expert Lubomir Peske.
I think you have misread. The first sentence of the reference refers to a past trial with tagged birds which were poisoned. Peske's future trial will be to find where juveniles winter jimfbleak (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. which had wings of brass and sharp metallic feathers they could fire at their victims -- what could be fired?
which had wings of brass and could fire sharp metallic feathers at their victims jimfbleak (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. origin should be used. -- rephrase. The word "should" sits odd here.
Only birds of known origin will be used in future captive breeding and releasing programmes. jimfbleak (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. as of July 2006 --> use the {{As of}} template
Done jimfbleak (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. dramatic mortality incident? check wording
major now jimfbleak (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Siege of Lal Masjid

Nominator(s): Mercenary2k (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because its well researched and fairly stable and well cited and netural and deserves to be FA. Mercenary2k (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose -- Prose and Mos issues. Needs a through copyedit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment With the exception of the map the images currently used in the article have serious issues. Two will probably get deleted soon, and File:Pic17.jpg needs to have an actual non-free use rationale written ASAP (as opposed to the current "rationale" that is just a plea not to delete it "at the time beeing") to avoid the same fate. --Sherool (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Typhoon Tip

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone, User:Hurricanehink


Typhoon Tip was the strongest tropical cyclone in the entire world, hence this is one of WPTC's most important articles. This was a collaborative effort between myself and Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) (he wrote most of the current meteorological history section). Hope you like it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Co-nom. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Prose is pretty darn good, but I found a couple breaches.
  • and offshore shipwrecks left 44 killed or unaccounted for. - ending is kind of awkward, could we reword this?
  • and later on the same day the tropical disturbance which would later become Typhoon Tip organized to the south of Pohnpei. - Organized? Also, that verb is over-used in that section.
  • The extratropical remnant of Tip continued northeastward and gradually weakened, crossing the International Date Line on October 22; it was last observed near the Aleutian Islands.[2] - Mention by/in Alaska, for ignorant readers.
  • In the last section, I think the one-sentence paragraph is close enough to be included in the big one.

I hope I can support this article. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Then, I support. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edgar Speyer

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk)


I'm renominating this biographical article for featured article status 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. The article was previously nominated on 2 December and the comments that it attracted were dealt with as far as possible. One "oppose" was outstanding when the candidacy was ended on 20 December 2008, although it is impossible to provide the additional information requested. Minor changes have been made to the article since nomination was ended. DavidCane (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: I supported this at its previous FAC, and see no reason for withholding now. It is a well-written, comprehensive article about an interesting life. Brianboulton (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments: A very nice article. I have a couple of comments before I can support it though. (They are not all essential to gaining my support, but if you chose not to implement them please explain why here). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Would it be possible to place the quoted letter form Speyer to Asquith in blockquote format to differentiate it from the surrounding text?
  • The nine points raised by the inquiry: Were they the actual findings of the inquiry verbatim or is this a later synthesis by the editors of this page or subsequent historians? If it is a quote then this should be made explicit. If it is a later synthesis then there are a couple of punctuation errors that I didn't want to correct without establishing the lists origin.
    • They're my synthesis of the official report which was published in full in the Times on 7 January 1922 (ref 50). I think, I may have corrected the punctuation now but let me know if there is anything else which needs revision. --DavidCane (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The legacy section feels a little bit short: I suggest providing a brief mention of the histories of the tube lines and the Proms since Speyer's death (which tube lines were they by the way?). Is the house in Norfolk still a hotel? Does it have any form of government listing as a heritage site? His wife and children - what was their subsequent history after his death? Has there been any scholarship into the inquiry that either agrees with or disagrees with it? Have there been any calls for his name to be posthumously cleared? These are just ideas, but I think the section needs to be improved and expanded before this can be promoted.
  • Thanks for the suggestions:
  • The Norfolk house is still a hotel and is grade II listed. I have added this with a reference.
  • His wife, who has her own article, was a poet and lived until 1956.
  • Nothing much is recorded of their children apart from society page reports in the New York Times of their various weddings in the 1930s. They don't appear to have done anything notable or married anyone notable.
  • The underground lines were the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway (now part of the Northern line), the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (now the Bakerloo line) and the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway (now part of the Piccadilly line). These are listed in ref 5 already but I have added a bit more in the legacy section.
  • There appears to have been no scholarly review of his denaturalisation and no real call for a posthumous clearance, however:
    • The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article (ref 1) does end with the following "His services to London's transport, music, and hospitals need not be obscured by the events of 1915; but, though it may be that he was guilty of no more than minor technical offences against the laws of his adopted country, there can be no doubt of his pro-German sympathies." This was included in the 1949 original Dictionary of National Biography article on Speyer of which the ONDB version is an update.
    • The abstract of the Leanne Langley talk (ref 21) ends with "Speyer’s rescue of the Proms preceded the BBC’s by a generation, his own point of departure in a cloud of political controversy in 1915 ensured his contribution would be tarnished – still a blemish on the nation – which deserves redress."
I decided not to include these views in the article as they are really personal opinions and there is no campaign as such to have him cleared.
--DavidCane (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Many issues were resolved at the last FAC, which I did look over, though I did not !vote because I thought it would pass then. Still leaves that effect on me. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ursula Franklin

Nominator(s): Bwark (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it recently received GA status and after some further editing, I feel it meets the FA criteria for completeness, quality of writing, etc. Bwark (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I corrected the spaced emdashes, WP:MOS#Captions need attention to puncutation, and I put in a request to User:Brighterorange to run his script to correct the faulty dashes in the citations. (I do not know where to categorize this article at WP:FA if it passes, it seems to fit in at least four categories.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I would categorize this article broadly as "culture and society" but I realize categories are often narrower than that. For example, I see that the feature article on Harold Innis I worked on over the last year is categorized narrowly as "business, economics and finance." That may be because Innis was a professional economist (economic historian actually). Ursula Franklin is a professional metallurgist and research physicist, but I'd say her main contributions are philosophical or sociological ones and the article reflects that. Hope that helps. Bwark (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I have forwarded the e-mail dated July 22, 2008 from the publishing company granting permission for use of the photo of the book cover. Bwark (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Uranus

Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)


Operation Uranus was the Soviet encirclement of the German Sixth Army in Stalingrad, during the Battle of Stalingrad. This article recently passed its good article nomination, and I believe it's ready for a featured article nomination. Some notes:

  1. All images are taken from those provided by the Bundesarchiv to Commons, so they are all legitimate; the map was created by a Wikipedia user.
  2. There is no use of any online resources; all sources are published. I would say that the footnotes are all worked out, but I just saw one that has to be united; this should be taken care of soon, though.

Thank you! JonCatalán(Talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Dabs; pls check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
It's strange, because it tells me to disambiguate Kalach; I wikilinked it in the lead (the correct disambiguated link), but there was no wikilink originally. It still tells me to disambiguate Kalach, but I can't find the wikilink it's referring to. I even searched for every instance of the word "Kalach" in the text. Do I need to get my vision checked? JonCatalán(Talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've seen comments in other places that dab tool's results take time to update. If you think you got them all, wait some hours and check again. --an odd name 01:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I think toolserver.org is having problems; edit count says that I have 32 edits total on the page, while WikiChecker claims I've made 83. There may be a similar problem with the dabs page. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] British Bangladeshi

Nominator(s): Mohsin (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because,it meets the criteria, it is well written, every section or sentence is backed up by reliable sources, and is understandable throughout. I have worked really hard on this article, by adding every type of information to this topic, and believe it is a really good article. Mohsin (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Dabs; pls check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. There is quite a bit of MoS cleanup needed; please see my edit summaries and sample edits. It might be useful to ask Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to help out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment This article needs to work on improving prose. There are a lot of run-on sentences with unclear messages. The article needs a trim and sentences need to be reworded for simplicity and clarity. I am sorry I can not support at this time. NancyHeise talk 03:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Refs 16, 46, 70 are dead links. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now - sorry, the article is comprehensive and generally well-researched but their many problems with the prose—redundancy and repetition are a big problem. I also have concerns over WP:NPOV particularly in the section on youth gangs. I have in my notes a list of 25 examples of poor writing, but I am reluctant to record them here because experience has taught me that these alone will be addressed. This article needs a fresh pair of eyes. I do not like saying all this but this FAC is premature. Please do not give-up on your efforts, there is a lot of great stuff here, but the article needs more work to bring it up to FA standards. Graham Colm Talk 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note: I have agreed to copyedit the article Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Noted. Graham Colm Talk 21:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
(Progress: I have copyedited up to and including "Religion", and will try to complete the rest on Friday.) Brianboulton (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] All Hope Is Gone

Nominator(s): REZTER TALK ø | blackngold29 | Gary King


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I beleive it meets all the FA criteria and has gone through a GA process and a recent Peer Review. REZTER TALK ø 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - Refs 25, 26, 33 and 41 are dead links. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    Fixed. The two remaining dead links actually work even though they are reported as dead. Gary King (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


The following references refer to these sources:

Gary King (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Left the two out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Media review - All media have sufficient fair use rationales, verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I also fixed that one disambiguation link yesterday. REZTER TALK ø 15:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] USS Iowa (BB-61)

Nominator(s): TomStar81 (Talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because from where I sit it still meets all FA-established criteria. I do know that there are a few things left that need addressing, but I think I can handle those without too much trouble. I wish to thank Cla68 (talk · contribs), he helped get the article concerning the turret explosion through FAC, and validated this article's sources on the explosion for this FAC attempt. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Links for ref 20 and 47 are dead. Several dabs require fixing. - Mailer Diablo 13:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Links are fixed. Of the dabs I have fixed all but four; two (USS Iowa and Evasive action) are false positives, USS Iowa is a dab because established procedures at SHIPS demand a bad link for other ships sharing the same name, and evasive action links to abad page where the term is explained. The other two dabs (Thomas Hayward and Captain) I can not seem to locate, so I will try again later. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
    • I must be honest and state that I actually have no idea what the problem is here, nor do I know how to fix it. It would seem to me that since the citation templates are suppose to cover all aspects of sourcing citation that there should be no trouble mixing one type of template with another, however it appears that my understanding of the policies is in fact incorrect. Could you clarify what needs to be done to resolve this problem? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The following deadlinked:
    • http://www.cedarland.org/war.html
      • As it happens this article can do nicely without this link, so I replaced it with the DANFS link for New Jersey. Thank you for bringing this to my attention though, because the cederland link provides a lot of information in the Lebanese civil war section for the battleship New Jersey, and will need to be replaced in the New Jersey article before any FT attempt. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/aircraft/UAVs/pioneer.htm (Note that it's just a link title in the refs also, so would need to give a publisher and a last access date)
      • Replaced this with a functional link and added the remaining parameters as requested. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • What is "All Hands, October 1985, pg 40"? A publication? I see later that there is a link to a pdf of it, so it's a magazine. The references to this magazine need to be formatted like a magazine, with authors when known, the magazine title in italics, the publisher of the magazine (I presume the US Navy), etc.
    • I actually tried to get as much of that as was possible down, but in many cases I couldn't find things like the author and such. I will look into addressing the remain problems forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Newspaper titles should be in italics, you can use the work field in the template to accomplish this.
    • It appears that all links are now italics, so I beleive this has been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original (even just parts of the title).
    • I think I found and correct all of capitalization errors. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Current ref 40 (Mark 7..) is lacking a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review

Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    • Both images have been replaced. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahoy there Hi Tomstar, nice read, but what's a TF 77 as in "was operating with TF 77,"? Also can we have more details on crew sizes, we have "Complement: 151 officers, 2637 enlisted" but not the year that statistic applied and how much that changed with the various refits. ϢereSpielChequers 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just this second gotten into the house, and we are about to leave for dinner, but I can answer your TF question: TF 77 is short for Task Force 77, a naval surface group that would have been composed of battleships, cruisers, destroyers, brigates, carriers, or some combination there of. On the other issues, yours included, I will begin looking into fixes this evening or tomorrow, circumstances permitting.
As it happens we have a page on Task Forces with a whole section devoted to the USN task force concept, so I have linked that term for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The pages in citations are inconsistent, mixing pg. and p. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. I have also dash copyedited the references. Cam (Chat) 02:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you wikilink "Shakedown" to something that explains the term? Some non-military people (like me) have no idea what that term means. It is military jargon that should be either defined or replaced with another more encyclopedic term. NancyHeise talk 03:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I can link shakedown for you, but since I am familiar enough with the jargon terminology I regret to inform that it doesn't register as needing a link unless someone points out the words in question. To compensate for this, I would offer to link or rplace all such words in the article if you would bring them to my attention here. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - well written, heavily cited. No objections from me. Cam (Chat) 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Turn Left (Doctor Who)

Nominator(s): Sceptre (talk)


Another Doctor Who series 4 article up for featured status. It's not as long as my Silmaril, The Stolen Earth, but at 33KB, I believe it is long enough for a 45 minute episode to be promoted to FA. I think I've sorted out all of the FA criteria, but I would accept suggestions for prose. Sceptre (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Image review - I added the copyright holder to the FUR. The sole image in the article now meets WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Three dabs require fixing. - Mailer Diablo 13:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    It's like I have my own TARDIS! I fixed it an hour before you said that ;) Sceptre (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Realized that the tool is lagging over a few days. - Mailer Diablo 15:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. There seems to be a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the internment camp scene in the episode, as opposed to the main plot of the bug on Donna's back and Rose's return and warnings. Certainly it's an important scene, but not at the expense of the overall plot. Perhaps it'd be better to frame it within the overall dystopian atmosphere of the episode? It might also make more sense for the infobox image to be something relating to the episode's main plot, such as a shot of Donna in the UNIT time machine with the bug on her back, or of the stretcher with the Doctor's hand clutching the sonic screwdriver. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • From a standpoint of WP:NFC, it's hard to justify a different image since both can be explained with words easily - a bug on someone's back, or the sonic screwdriver in the hands of the covered Doctor's corpse - and otherwise have no commentary outside of the episode itself to use. (Ok, maybe the bug in relationship to the previous DW episode that used the model, but again, it's still easily described by text). On the other hand, the image that Spectre's used here is one that was part of a powerfully emotional scene as stated by external sources. It may not be the most representative scenes, but it is much easier to assume this is a good rationale for the use of NFC than either of the other two examples. --MASEM 19:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah. Production-wise, it was an important scene; it was supposed to show to the audience really how fucked up the alternate world was. And the reviews I was able to find (mid-season reviews tend to be a bit more difficult, in my experience, to look for, and four or five are enough) all picked up on how powerful the scene was. And while it isn't really an important scene plot-wise, the plot is only one third of an episode article :) Sceptre (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Just a note: it's kind of a fallacy that non-free images have to come from the plot. It helps, but just taking it solely from the plot stymies most chances of creating a decent rationale for use; c.f. The Stolen Earth and The Unicorn and the Wasp. Sceptre (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Unclear on the use of WP:ITALICS in the "Writing" section? Please ask User:Brighterorange to run his script to correct the WP:DASHes in the citations. Also, citation formatting is inconsistent, some retrieved on, others Retrieved on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    The italics are kind of a loan from my Wikiquote editing; they're supposed to indicate stage directions. Done the dashes issue in the citations. Sceptre (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Syracuse University

Nominator(s): OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been substantially rewritten and referenced with proper citations. It follows the outline of a similar article Georgetown University which is an FA. It meets the standards of many articles about private and public universities in the US. It meets all of the criteria of WP:Featured article criteria. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Images - is this the reason for your username? If it is, remind me to rib you about how absurd an androgynous orange puffball is for a mascot :P Anyhow, this is going to take a while but File:Otto.png needs a FUR for this page as well as its main page. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, hence my name. I'm going to have do an ANI for a personal attack against Otto. Oh, no wait, I hate that mascot. Back in my day (I'm older than dirt), we had much better mascots. This one is truly lame. But please, a dumb mascot is no reason to oppose this article. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
A dumb mascot isn't a reason, them rejecting my application after I wrote the best goddamned essay ever is :P Anyhow, images:
Ah hah!!!! So you're filled with anger and hatred against the Cuse??? :D OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Syracuse University Seal.png - the seal is no longer used on the main Syracuse site, which they have redesigned; thus the URL is outdated. Under the 'replaceable' field, it says: "No, Fair Use doesn't apply" - huh?
  • File:Otto.png and File:SyracuseOrange.png - the syracuse orange typeface isn't really an issue as it's PD, but wouldn't it make more sense to have less fair use images by removing Otto from the infobox? He's got his own page where such an image can be found, and I would expect the content which justifies the image per NFCC is found in that article.
  • You're right. I removed it, cause it's annoying. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed Otto. I'm keeping the logo, since it meets the standards that it is being used to identify Syracuse University. I'm going to read about it more. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have contacted SU's licensing departments about the logo and seal. I'm not sure I need permission, but I'm just making sure. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, if you actually remove the above as improperly free, please do something about the images on Commons rather than just removing them from the article (people seem to do that, but that just causes more issues down the road :P) I'll see about actually reading it sometime later. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on those, but I have no experience or interest in dealing with the images at commons. I just uploaded my first image last week, and I wasn't even sure I did it right. IMHO, I'd delete every single freaking image. I'd rather read than look at pictures, but hey, that's my feelings. AND, I think you were talking about the Dome Ranger. Now that's one annoying mascot. For a University that has a top level athletics program AND one of the top communications schools in the country, you'd think they could get this right. I'm starting the Down with Otto movement!!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the TV or radio logos are needed in the article. The Maxwell School image needs to be deleted on Commons and not speedy deletion here on enwiki. You can make a list of images here (or my talk page) to be deleted on Commons, and as an Commons admin, I can take care of them. --Aude (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
See, I don't know anything about this. LOL. I'm trying. And yeah, I never liked the logos there. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I took most of Mr. Fuch's suggestions (in the process, learning a thing or two about licensing of images), and removed suspect images. I also dumped that silly WERW and WAER logos. Not really necessary. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments - The only two big things I see are that the "Campus" and "Student life" sections are somewhat lacking in references. Also, the article says, "The Syracuse Center of Excellence in Environmental and Energy Systems is scheduled for completion in 2006." Was it completed? Also mentioned under #Downtown is the "Connective Corridor", which looks like according to [1] may be completed now. Otherwise the article is very well done. --B (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • OK B, this will crack you up. The Syracuse Center of Excellence in Environmental and Energy Systems has not been completed because asbestos was found in the building they're using. Excellence in Environment I suppose. It was supposed to be completed last month, but I can't find anything to confirm that. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed both items. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have questions regarding some of the images' licenses - most notably CitrisTV's logo. I highly doubt that it is actually licensed in CC2.0. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Oppose 1a, 1b, 2b.
    • Information is haphazardly spread among various sections.
      • Alumni call outs appear in sections outside of the alumni section: fraternities, media,
        • I'm going to pushback here. Since I'm going to guess that about 50% of ESPN is made up of Newhouse grads,[citation needed] I think mentioning the number of notable alumni who make up sports programming in the US is important to the article. If you can suggest a way to do this gracefully, I'm certainly not going to stand in the way of improvement. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The article neglects major topics.
      • Where is the information on the organization/administration? How many schools? Who's the president? Board of trustees? Accreditation? Endowment? What is the relationship between the faculty and administration? Addressing Utica College and SUNY-ESF would likewise be better addressed in a standalone organization section rather than in academics.
      • Important academic topics are slighted. What are the largest/most popular programs? What's the academic calendar? Chapters