Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2013: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
added one
added one
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Janet/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive3}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive2}}

Revision as of 18:57, 21 June 2013

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Hurricane Janet

Nominator(s): TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 14:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Janet was the strongest and deadliest hurricane of the 1955 Atlantic hurricane season, wreaking havoc in areas of Central America in September of that year. I feel that this article meets the FA criteria because it is generally well-written, concise, and meticulously referenced. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 14:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN2: formatting
Done - Added 'The' TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
Done - There was only one reference wikilink, which I removed. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check edition formatting for books
Done - Since the Cite Book fill-out form inputs editions with just numbers and not extra 'ed.'s I've removed the aformentioned 'ed.'s
  • Since when are the Milwaukee Sentinel and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published in Miami?
Done - I had used the location of the actual published story, and not the newspaper, so I've changed that. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at newspaper citations in general - there are significant problems with them
    • Not sure what's 'significant.' I looked through them and they seem to have consistent style. 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't need retrieval dates for GBooks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Removed retrieval dates for books hosted on Google. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (with the caveat that I was the GA reviewer)

Done – Relinked to the suggested article. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd remove the mention of "1955" in the 3rd lede sentence
Done – Removed. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moving towards the west" - this can be trimmed down to "Moving westward"
Done – Changed to suggested concise wording. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the refs in the 2nd lede paragraph?
Done – They weren't added by me, but since they didn't contribute much to the article, I removed them. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In its developmental stages near the Lesser Antilles, Janet caused significant damage on the island chain" - I'd get rid of "on the island chain", and if you wish, move "the Lesser Antilles" to after significant damage. BTW, the sentence says "caused significant damage... in damages" - is kinda redundant.
Done – Reworded the sentence. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "$7.8 million in damages" - why plural?
Done – Singularized. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in areas on Quintana Roo and British Honduras" - I think "of" would work better than "on"
Done – Changed word. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works)
  • "Janet's landfall as a Category 5 hurricane on the Yucatán Peninsula marked the first recorded instance that a storm of such intensity in the Atlantic basin made landfall on a continental mainland, with all previous storms making landfall as Category 5 hurricanes on islands." - this is weird and a bit longwinded and a bit unclear.
Done – I elaborated a bit. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the airlines Air France and Iberia" - I'd put "airlines" after "Iberia"
Done – Shifted wordings. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By September 22 the storm system had already attained winds of 60 mph (95 km/h)." - any significance of this intensity? You say later that it became a hurricane at 1200 UTC that day, so this sentence feels useless.
Done – Removed the information on that, and reworded subsequent sentences as a result. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time gale force" - add comma
Done – Since this goes along with the 60 mph statistic, so this has been removed. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "extended 75 mi (120 km/h) away from the center of Janet in its northern semicircle" - is this big or small?
Done – Since this goes along with the 60 mph statistic, so this has been removed. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the hurricane began to reintensify in favorable conditions" - this isn't backed up by the best track (the favorable conditions part).
Done – Added a citation for the advisories.TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Janet remained a small hurricane throughout its trek across the central Caribbean Sea, with gale force winds extending 125 mi (200 km) out from the storm's center by September 25, only slightly larger than while the hurricane was over the Windward Islands." - few problems. You use "hurricane" twice, and it feels on the weak side (structure wise). I propose something like - "While trekking across the central Caribbean Sea, Janet was only slightly larger than while it was moving over the Windward Islands, with gale force winds extending 125 mi (200 km) out from the center by September 25." Much tighter, less redundancy.
Done – Changed to a more tighter and less redundant wording. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Chetumal, Mexico. In Chetumal" - to avoid redundancy, why not "in the latter town/city/area"?
Done – Changed to 'in the latter city' TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once over land, Janet considerably weakened to a Category 2 hurricane with winds of 105 mph (170 km/h), but quickly entered the Bay of Campeche by 1600 UTC on September 28 after crossing the Yucatán Peninsula with a forward speed of 21 mph (34 km/h)." - too long.
Done – I split the sentence up and made the Category 2 part one sentence. Then, I switched the forward speed part and the emergence into the BoC part around. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Janet eventually made its final landfall 50 mi (80 km) north of Veracruz, Veracruz" - exactly 50 mi? And I'd say "the city of Veracruz" instead of "Veracruz, Veracruz", personally.
Done – CHanged to the recommended wording. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from Saint Lucia north to Dominica, and Grenada south to Tobago" - just gotta ask, but this is just Tobago to Dominica, excluding St. Vincent, right? Why not just say that? (or does source not?)
Done – Changed to suggested wording. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "remained in affect" - if it's a noun, it should be effect, if it's a verb, it's affect.
Done – Changed. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done – As far as I know, there weren't many preparations. Since it was a sudden storm for the Lesser Antilles, there weren't many preparations outside of quick warnings. As for the Yucatan Peninsula, there was not prepatory information outside of the evacuations mentioned in the TC encyclopedia. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it through the preps section. It's a really good article! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "During its existence, parts of the Lesser Antilles, ABC islands, and Central America were affected by Janet" - weird dangling participle.
Done – Changed to: "During its existence, areas of the Lesser Antilles, ABC islands, and Central America were effected by Janet."
  • "Strong winds were also reported to have destroyed docks and warehouses, and unroofed a hotel in' - remove those links in this sentence
Done – Links have been removed.
  • "All bridges in the island's interior regions were blown down" - blown down bridges doesn't seem quite right. Try finding other wording.
Done – Used the term 'collapsed' in place of that phrasing.
  • "St. Vincent was leveled" - was it actually leveled? That's a pretty strong assertion.
Done – Instead used 'mostly destroyed.'
  • "Further south" - when it's referring to distance, it's "farther". Ditto with " Further north" later on.
Done – Changed all instances of this text to 'farther'
  • The writing in "Lesser Antilles" is generally pretty meh, and could use more flow. It just doesn't seem up the standard of the MH.
Will look into this in a bit.
Done – Ahem. They were in low-Earth orbit. Fixed :P
  • Is there any impact in the western Yucatan peninsula?
Not done – Unfortunately I haven't found any information on Campeche, only sources state that it passed over the state but I haven't seen any impact there.
  • You're inconsistent whether you call it British Honduras or Belize throughout the article. Check how I do it for Hurricane Hattie.
Done – Consistesized this.
  • "damage to homes in Corozal Town totalled to $800,000" - no need for the "to". Also, it's "totaled"
Done – Fixed the aforementioned issues.
  • "In the British Honduras, the hurricane's effects were less significant than in Quintana Roo,[43] but in northern portions of the colony the storm killed 16 people and caused $5 million in damages." - few problems. First, "the British Honduras"? Second, you said earlier that that portions of northern BH "experienced the most severe devastation from Janet", so there are some contradictions.
Done – Changed up the context so there are no contradictions
  • "The strong winds also caused the crash of a relief plane, causing five deaths." - weird nominalization. Why not just "The strong winds caused a relief plain to crash..."?
Done – Changed to recommended wording.
  • " caused by Hurricanes Gladys and Hilda" - should "Hurricanes" be capitalized?
Done – No, they shouldn't.
  • "The floods contributed to a localized typhoid fever and dysentery outbreak,[49][50] causing over 1,000 people to evacuate out of the city." - was it the floods or the diseases that caused the evacuation?
Done – Clarified.
  • "An additional 36,000 people were being cared for in concentration camps." - uhh, Nazi? Wha?
Done – I did not know that concentration camps linked to Nazi concentration camps, but the source did say concentration centers, so I changed it to that.
  • "Although located south of where Janet made landfall, strong storm surge" - something is missing at the last part. It be cave man speak.
Done – I actually didn't know what the problem was, but I changed things around so it read "Although located south of where Janet made landfall, areas of Veracruz were inundated by strong storm surge, including the city's main streets and port."
  • "Rail operations along a railroad" - redundant?
Done – Removed the first 'rail'
  • "Further inland" - again, farther
Done – Yuppers.
  • "Further north, in Sonora, cotton crops damaged by Janet were estimated to amount to $12 million in damages." - I'm just gonna point this out with a generic - :/
Done – I got it :P
  • "to total to $200 million"
Done – Removed the 'to'
  • "led the passing of the 1955 Housing Act" --> "led to the passage of the 1955 Housing Act"
Done – Changed to recommended wording
  • How successful was the NHA in Barbados by the time the next hurricane struck?
Done – Added details about this.
  • "due to the food shortage and water shortage" - merge shortage
Done – Merged.
  • "Due to the food shortage resulting from Janet, food depots in Corozal, Louisville, and Orange Walk Town were tasked with distributing food. " - I think you should mention the word food a few more times
Done – Nah, I probably should subtract it a few more times. :P
  • "The threat of disease as a result of the damage caused by Janet forced a widespread vaccination against typhoid fever in affected areas." - weird structure
Done – Switched the structure a bit so it read "The potential for widespread disease following the devastation wrought by Janet forced a widespread vaccination initiative against typhoid fever in affected areas."
  • "supplied the colony with various relief supplies."
Done – Changed supplies to materials
  • "Federal relief agencies previously providing service for areas affected by Hurricanes Gladys and Hilda earlier in the year in western areas of the Gulf Coast of Mexico were ordered to extend relief operations to the Yucatán Peninsula." - alright, you use this sentence structure way too much in the article. Where you say something like [Noun adverbial phrase verb...]. It just creates a weird structure. Try switching it up, where you have a preposition in the front (such as "In areas affected by... federal relief agencies were ordered to extend operations").
Done – Did some work, and changed it to "In areas previously affected by hurricanes Gladys and Hilda earlier in the year, federal relief agencies were ordered to extend relief operations to the Yucatán Peninsula." Better?

Parts of the article (namely the Mexico section and parts of the aftermath) could use some more copyediting. I'm also a bit concerned there are no Spanish sources. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a variety of Spanish sources, but many of them repeat the same information already listed. I will soon copyedit the aforementioned sections, however. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Constitution of May 3, 1791

Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything specific that has been pointed out in the last (August 2012) FAC has been fixed, and the article has received several other fixes since then. Bring it on. PS. Yadda yadda WPCUP participant. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from MasterOfHisOwnDomain: Shouldn't the article start "… was a document designed to …" (i.e., reverse the order of the first and second sentences) so that we know what it is before we know when it was drafted. If not de rigeur then that would be my preference. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about this, but moving this would actually require complex changes, at least in my vision, and those few words don't seem to be out of place - it's a bit like date of birth in biographies. I have no problem if you'd like to try to rewrite the lead, of course. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree - I think the only important date is the May 3, 1791, or maybe also the date it was annulled. I find the very short lifespan more important than the time it was drafted. How about this:

        The Constitution of May 3, 1791 (Polish:...) was a "Government Act" (Ustawa rządowa) adopted by the Great Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and lasted just eighteen months until it was annulled by the Grodno Sejm on November 23, 1793. It was designed... and culminating with this legislation adopted by the Great Sejm.

Also, from May 1791 to November 1793 is eighteen months, not fourteen. -- Ypnypn (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Math fixed. Regarding the lead, I'd be fine with that version too, and you are welcome to change the article accordingly. Personally I don't see a significant difference, so I won't change it myself, however. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Drive-by comment I've just cited this article as an example of why infoboxes are not always a good idea. It makes the picture and its good long caption unreadably small, and contains no very helpful information that can't be in the first lines. Suggest dropping. Also the MOS says images should not usually be fixed smaller than the default 220px, which many of these are, and for no good reason, as there is room in most parts of the article. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment Sadly this nomination has stalled and after six weeks here, I have decided to archive it. In my view the article is too detailed and reads more like a treatise than an encyclopedia article. Some radical cuts might be in order and efforts to break up large blocks of text, which make reading the article a bit of a chore. 18:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Priyanka Chopra

Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC), User:Prashant!, User:Bollyjeff[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been thoroughly researched and I believe it is a comprehensive and well-written account of the career of an Indian actress. In my opinion it is far more difficult writing about the career of an Indian actress than somebody in the western world because of the quality of film reviews and sources but I think this does a good job and picks the best sources we have available. The statistics indicate that it is within the top 750 most popular articles on English wikipedia. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Extremely important actress in India and increasingly in the rest of the world. The article seems to be well written and up to date.Ipigott (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat:

Early life and background

  • "Among the schools she attended are La Martiniere Girls' School in Lucknow[9] and St. Maria Goretti College in Bareilly.[10][11]" Apart from the tense, do we need to know the names of these two schools? I presume she attended a number of others too, but are these particularly notable—either generally, or for Chopra in particular?
Yes, these schools are very much notable. Not particularly for Chopra.—Prashant 10:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why the Prakash Jaju information and court case is in this section, when the chronology jumps back to 2002 in the next section.
Moved to "In The Media" section.—Prashant 10:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early success and setbacks

  • "an item girl": I'm struggling to think what this could mean: perhaps a definition or explanation of what an "item girl" is?
Linked to the article "Item number".—Prashant 10:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "signifying a flailing career": two films signal a flailing career? It's a bit of a leap, unless you attribute the phrase—or at least the sentiment—to someone (Joginder Tuteja, for example), or remove that part and beef up the sentiment at the end of the following paragraph, when it's six poor films on the trot?
Removed that line.—Prashant 10:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done down to the end of Recent work: more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

Television and stage performances

  • "in a Durban, South Africa concert celebrating": feels a bit clunky. Perhaps "In 2011 Chopra participated (with Shahid Kapoor and Shahrukh Khan) in a concert in Durban, South Africa celebrating 150 years of India–South Africa friendship"?

Filmography

  • The Notes in the table should be unsortable—sorting has no benefits for open text

Footnotes:

  • FN56, 76 & 119: you can lose the shouty caps for consistency
  • FNs 68 & 74 both show an equals sign after Rediff.com

I'm inclined to agree with Tim riley's comments below, that this is slightly over-detailed, but that is what its readership will be looking for, and if we don't serve the readers (within reason) then there is no point being here. Good work done by all and only a few comments to pick up on here before I move to a support. - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed all of the further comments, although I fail to see the issue with sorting the notes. On the plus side, it can allow one to count up the number of awards, special appearances, etc., and I cannot see any downside BollyJeff | talk 14:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Thanks for doing the above. In terms of the notes field, it's because there is no consistency in the information provided; in other words, the fields hold a number of different bits of information: awards, language of film, special appearances etc, all of which have no connection to each other, so its pointless and unnecessary to sort. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time Schrod and Tim and leaving your comments.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mild support – this is a very long article, and contains more incidental detail than I consider ideal (e.g. I don't care what her pet dog is called) but giving due consideration to the article's probable audience I think the length is all right. Film fans seem insatiable in their desire for detail. There is no bias that I could see and the prose is fine give or take a few unfamiliar phrases that I take to be technical terms (e.g. the "item girl" mentioned by SchroCat, above). The referencing is thorough and from a multiplicity of sources, which look authoritative enough, though a check wouldn't go amiss. I make no comment on the images (not my area of expertise). A few small drafting points:

  • In the media
    • "pay him 10 percent" – the article seems on the whole to be written in UK English, in which case (see MoS) you want "per cent" rather than "percent".
Fixed.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debut and breakthrough
    • "The Hindustran Times" – a publication for cross-dressers or a typo for "The Hindustan Times"?
Fixed.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical acclaim
    • "The string of poorly received films" – hyphen wanted after "poorly"
    • "the film centers on" – sudden US spelling
  • Recent work
    • "medalist" – ditto
  • In the media
    • "Subhash K. Jha lebelled her" – either "libelled her" or "labelled her", I imagine

That's all from me. – Tim riley (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All points fixed as far as I can see.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like the articles on Preity Zinta and Kareena Kapoor the main readers will be young Bollywood fans in India I think so having such details I think it quite necessary. I understand this sort of article isn't to everybody's taste, not mine usually either even though I've been involved in these articles, but articles on Indian actresses are rather different and more "commercial" than even articles on American and British actresses if you know what I mean. My own impression is that Bollywood movie stars are treated more like a product than an actor, but that's my opinion, I'm not sure people would agree with me.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jim I'm very busy at present. Generally looks sound, just some remarks on the lead to start with Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead does not fully reflect the body text. It is hagiographic and uncritical, apart from one mention of a "mixed reception", despite it being clear later that she has had other failures and criticism in her career. I have to say that the opening paragraph is the sort of thing that normally has me reaching for the "delete" tab.
Not sure exactly what you mean but we've said "subsequently earned wide critical recognition for the role of a seductress in the 2004 thriller Aitraaz" "chain of highly successful films" and "After a period with little acclaim, she was praised for her portrayal of unconventional characters". I think the intro would become too convoluted if we introduce too much criticism and success. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you'd like to be introduced?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little concerned that their are mos and grammar errors even in the lead. Indian Army should be capped, Army Public School should be linked at the first occurrence, and Miss World should only be linked once
Thanks for your input Jim. Done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • into the Femina Miss India contest, in which she finished second and took the Femina Miss India World title. — I don't understand. Did she come second or first? Or are these two different contests, despite the similar names?
In Miss India contest, the contestant who comes first is crowned the Miss India Universe title, and is sent to Miss Universe contest. The person who comes second is titled Miss India World and is sent to Miss World contest. Chopra came second.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need her name in the captions for the images where she is the only person. It's assumed that images are of the subject of the article unless otherwise stated. For example, the lead image should be just "At the 2012 Marrakech Film Festival". In fact you don't need her name in the other captions either, since it's pretty obvious it's her plus a male.
I think the convention on images for actors is to refer to them by surname at something. See other FAs like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, in fact most articles on actors do this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto This will be a bit drawn out with a few comments at a time I'm afraid due to real life.

Early life and background
  • Why do we need to know of her father's death?
Her father was the most important person in her life, it would be like mentioning Reagan's death in Nancy Reagan's article (well, maybe not, but I think you know what I mean).♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not to know that with the current version. I think the close relationship should be mentioned in that case and then his death date would look a lot less random. -- CassiantoTalk 12:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it next to some contextual information. BollyJeff | talk 15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among the schools she attended are..." -- "were" surely?
Well spotted, done!13:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Chopra was the only Indian in her class in the United States..." -- Redundency of "United States." We speak of this in the previous sentence.
Removed.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Debut and breakthrough (2002–04)[edit]
  • "...the role went to another actress." -- Do we know who?
Amisha Patel I think, Prashant may wish to confirm this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that actress was Patel.—Prashant 14:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you add this? -- CassiantoTalk 12:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was added. You can check.—Prashant 12:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, who are Rediff.com? Could we have a brief description of them as I had to click away to find out.
  • Did she just say "biggest" or did she use the whole sentence "biggest learning experience of her career."

Up to here, more to follow. -- CassiantoTalk 12:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cass. Yes I know Rediff.com sounds like a lousy non RS. I thought that once, but it is actually one of the leading film websites for Indian film and widely accepted in articles on here as a decent source and the critics are on par with those for major newspapers like The Hindu and Hindustan Times. I'm not sure a summary of them is needed, most Indian readers would know, I've said Indian news and entertainment portal Rediff.com to introduce it for non Indian readers, that should suffice.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Doc, yes I didn't see that. -- CassiantoTalk 12:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto continuing...

  • "... spending a day in the hospital in recovery." -- Repetition of "in" and redundency of "the": suggest -- "spending a day recovering in hospital."
  • "Chopra's performance received mixed reviews, Taran Adarsh describing it as "mechanical". -- "Chopra's performance received mixed reviews, with Taran Adarsh describing it as "mechanical".
  • "Chopra played independent working woman Simran Saxena (Bachchan's love interest) in the film." -- Redundency of "in the film".
  • "After special appearances in three films..." -- Are these the films we have just mentioned, or were there a further three films?
I have addressed all the issues. No, those three films are are not mentioned.—Prashant 11:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would say "further three films" just to separate them. -- CassiantoTalk 12:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Critical acclaim (2008–11)
  • "...followed the lives (and career ups and downs) of... ." -- "...followed the lives and careers of... ." I think all lives and careers have ups and downs.
  • "Chopra's performance and appearance in the film were praised." -- performance and appearance are one of the same aren't they?
Tweaked.—Prashant 11:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recent work (2012–present)
  • I would be careful with the last paragraph as per WP:CRYSTAL. Things do change so frequently in the film business, and this would require updating as and when these productions have taken place so to put them into a past tense.

Pit stop, back soon... -- CassiantoTalk 10:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you would not complain as we keep updating it regularly.—Prashant 11:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just checking. -- CassiantoTalk 12:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Music career
  • "Her first recording, the song "Ullathai Killadhe" in the Tamil film Thamizhan (2002), was made at the urging of her director and co-star (who had noticed her singing on the set)." -- Who was this?
  • "...based in Los Angeles. Travelling to Los Angeles... . " -- Repetition of "Los Angeles".
  • "...is scheduled for release in 2013. Her first release... ." -- Same here with "release".
Fixed.—Prashant 01:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Television and stage performances

I can't see any issues.

Column writing

A bit brief to have as a sub-section IMO, but I can't see any issues with it.

Philanthropy

I can't see any issues.

In the media
  • "... and is considered one of the most popular Bollywood celebrities in India." -- Considered by who?
  • "Film critic Subhash K. Jha..." -- Why is "film" capitalised?
  • "...and listed her Barfi!'s character "one of the finest inwardly ravaged characters in Bollywood". -- Firstly, the period should come before the closed invert; secondly I would reword this slightly to say "and listed her character in Barfi! as being "one of the finest inwardly ravaged characters in Bollywood."
  • Why is "biggest advertising campaigns" quoted? Who said this? Would this not look the same devoid of quote marks?
  • "...even threatened her to expose her private life." -- "...even threatened to expose aspects of her private life." I don't feel you can "expose" a private life seeing as we all have one.

That's yer lot, a good informative read (if a tad too long). I have watch listed it, so no need for templates on my talk. -- CassiantoTalk 00:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adressed all your issues. Also, she is considered as one of the most popular celebrities in India not by just media, public or others but overall. That's why the following things are listed. We can't list that she is considered by the media or public, but different factors are responsible for it be it her roles, her endorsements, her personality, her media rankings.... which are listed below and are sufficient.—Prashant 01:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. To say "is considered to be" is an unsupported attribution and should be followed up with at least one of the names of a person or section of media such as critics etc... -- CassiantoTalk 07:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Prashant 09:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support — per resolved comments. Good, important article. -- CassiantoTalk 12:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving your comments was my pleasure for the improvement of the article.—Prashant 13:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cass, appreciate you taking the time and your support.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

That link is not dead. It is working properly but, Checlinks always shows India Today links as dead. Prashant 13:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Magazine Pratiyogita Darpan said that Chopra gave a "splendid performance as a small town girl who makes it big in the world of fashion — Pratiyogita Darpan is a GK monthly, mostly used for students preparing for competitive exams. --Tito ↂ Dutta 13:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.—Prashant 13:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chopra's recent reaction on Mallika Sherawat's comment "India is a regressive nation for women" fits right after Chopra often speaks out on women's issues: against female infanticide and foeticide Reference here --TitoↂDutta 13:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, it's not that necessary. She was not talking about women empowerment or on such issues. She was just slamming Sherawat's comments as According to Chopra, that sends negative overview of India. We don't want to sound like a tabloid.—Prashant 13:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments - looking pretty good overall. Will take another look. queries below. Overall, I don't think it is too detailed, and the material about each film makes the text more engaging and less listy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd balance the lead a bit as Jim says - I'd remove the sentence about which school she went to and add one about several early films receiving mixed reviews...

The school names were removed from the lead and I have added a line about her unsuccessful films and mixed reviews.—Prashant 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with some comments: Bollywood articles have gained much popularity in the internet, and never to forget Wikipedia. The WP Film India task force is, what I understand the active WP groups, working collaboratively to create quality contents, and least focusing on quality. The lead section I feel is bit longer, but can not be scaled down. It outlines the entire article, and meets the "lead requirement". What can be worked on is to improve the referencing by adding locations and authors name to it. Will also try and replace the references wherein subscription is required. Otherwise, the article is well built and stays on the subject. Thanks to all who have worked and are still working. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 06:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on the referencing and replaced some of the subscription required sources with free notable ones.—Prashant 05:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • In the lead, the area around Barfi! has double punctuation because of the exclamation point. In this case, it's fine to remove the period afterward.
  • The CNN-IBN quote in the lead could really use a cite. Quotes are among the few things that generally should be referenced in the introduction.
  • Debut and breakthrough: "Chopra had signed Abbas-Mustan's romantic thriller Humraaz". Feels like it needs "for" after "signed".
  • Early success and setbacks: Another bit of double punctuation by Bluffmaster!
  • "staged a protest against release of the film" needs "the" before "release".
  • Recent work: "and" needed before Audrey Hepburn.
  • Music career: Remove the comma in 1 July, 2013".
  • The all caps in reference 113 should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed, thanks. BollyJeff | talk 02:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Giants. It was a great help.—Prashant 05:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's some time since my original comments. Those have been dealt with, and subsequent reviewers' suggestions have imprived this article to the point where I'm happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. It helped in the improvement of the article and it was my pleasure dealing with your comments.—Prashant 05:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (Bollywood Hungama OTRS, own work). Souces and authors provided.

Thank you for the image check.—Prashant 17:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Crisco 1492—striking oppose, for reasons posted here and at WT:FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am gravely concerned about what appears to be heavy canvassing regarding this nomination from Prashant. Aside from posting on my talk page as I had recently reviewed some unrelated Indian film nominations, the editor has posted on several editor's talk pages asking them for a review, whereas these editors had no input or interest in the article previously. I seem to recall getting emails as well, but they never left my junk folder and are now deleted. If this is grounds for an early close, so be it. It seems I'm not the only one getting annoyed: here's Brianboulton's response. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This may have been explained above, but anyway, there was only one Miss India contest, but three titles given, one of each going on to Miss World, Miss Universe, and Miss Asia Pacifica or something like that. Chopra technically came in second place, which is why it may be not right to say the she won Miss India, without specifying the world part. As for Prashant, he seems to be a very immature person, that does not learn from his mistakes and does not take advice well. Myself and other editors who worked hard on this article had warned him in the past about canvassing and I am shocked to see this happening again. I hope that you would not hold these actions against the others who have poured much effort into this article. BollyJeff | talk 15:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a third FAC without Prashant's involvement, I would let bygones be bygones. However, the extent of canvassing (both what I've linked above and possibly other stuff I haven't looked for) may put the validity of some of the above supports in doubt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect Crisco, I think what you just said is very insulting to most of those who've taken the time to review this and imply that they're not capable of making a fair decision. Some of us frequently review each other's articles and are aware of what FA projects each of us are working on. And if we see serious issues with articles each of us would most certainly object.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not saying that it did, nor do I mean any disrespect to them. I know most of the reviewers myself, have reviewed articles written by them, they've reviewed articles written by me, and highly doubt they would have been swayed by such canvassing. However, a tainted process is not one to build an FA on. In an election in which the winning candidate was caught giving cash incentives to voters (for an extreme example), even a sincere and well-earned vote would be looked upon with suspicion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no worries, but I think most of us here are aware that FAC is not a vote and most of those who've taken the time to comment here are regulars at FAC and I'm sure we're all fully aware that they're fair and capable reviewers.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted at WT:FAC and asked a delegate to drop by and, essentially, check if I'm being overly cautious with the possibility of a tainted process and indicate if they consider any possible tainting enough to derail this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Crisco, I only asked you, Brain and Wehwalt but none of you all reflected at the fac. Ask each and everyone. You can't deny that the article is well-written and meets FA criteria. So please, respect that.—Prashant 16:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My deepest most profound apologies to Crisco and Brian. I told Prashant to not go pestering people over this FAC. He has completely betrayed me to the point I will no longer have anything to do with him or respond to him again; he's let me down tremendously by not taking my word for it. Please ignore this Brian.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest shame is that this article otherwise had (has?) enough supports to pass once it had had a source review, unless the delegates had other issues they noticed — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I told him this and I told him at least 5 times to not go pestering people over the FAC. I don't believe his asking you and Brian to review this should affect the outcome, please ignore Prashant's pushiness delegates, he's inexperienced with FAC and I think what tempted him was an over eagerness to pass the article, being the first FAC he has been involved fully in. I don't think he really truly understood that it isn't a vote or was even aware of our guideline against Canvassing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I am tempted to archive this nomination on the grounds that it has been compromised by canvassing. Had Prashant directly asked for support, I would have no hesitation in doing so. But, I accept Dr Blofeld's apology and explanation. Now I would like to see a formal apology from Prashant. I am especially concerned over the use (and possible abuse) of our email facility and Prashant's lack of remorse. Graham Colm (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham for understanding. Prashant has apologized to Brian but that's about it. He can be a very constructive editor, as evidenced by this and several film articles which are GAs and possible future FA candidates, but above all he lacks maturity and patience. I think he (wrongly) thought that by asking Brian and other people to review the article it would result in it passing quicker, at least he didn't beg for support as you say Graham which would have been an immediate fail. I'm sure we can all remember the excitement and eagerness of achieving our first FA on wikipedia which is what I'm sure motivated him. Anyway, I think it's about time he formally apologised here as you say, looking at Brian's talk page I don't think he was aware of the canvassing guidelines even though he was warned not to hound editors over the FAC. Let's move forward anyway, some constructive comments below to be answered.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't time now to investigate fully but on what I've seen here, I'm loathe to penalise Blofeld and BollyJeff for the actions of an inexperienced associate whose actions they both repudiate. As has been noted, the requests to Crisco, Brian and Wehwalt were indeed pushy but not outright requests for support. Those three editors are highly experienced FAC people whose reviews are always valued and who can be relied upon not to be swayed unduly. It's for that very reason, however, that I regret they've been hassled. I should note here that I've also had experience of Prashant's too-eager use of WP email. Like Graham, I really need him to understand the inappropriateness of his actions. That's it for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologise to Brain and Crisco, as I'm very sorry for that. But, I haven't asked any of the supporters by email. The people I asked didn't even reflected to the fac page. I was not knowing about Canvassing in particular but Dr. Blofeld had told me not to ask anyone regarding the review. I thought if I directly ask them, then It would be helpful for the improvement of the article. No one can deny that it meets all FA criteria. Also, I don't think that anyone will support only seeing my email. If you see the supporters, they are very established and experienced. There is no question that they would listen to me. If I would have sent them email, they would have. reacted in the same way as Cisco reacted. Please, don't accuse the supporters and respect our hard work.—Prashant 02:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Victoriaearle: I noticed this at FAC talk and so took a look, at a single paragraph here, comments below:

In 2008, Chopra starred opposite Harman Baweja in his father's Love Story 2050. Chopra played a double role, so she coloured her hair twice; once red to portray the girl from the future and then black for the girl of the past.[68] Her performance was poorly received; Rajeev Masand stated that Chopra shared no chemistry with her co-star and "fails to inspire either affection or sympathy".[69] She next appeared in the comedy God Tussi Great Ho, portraying a TV anchor opposite Salman Khan, Sohail Khan and Amitabh Bachchan. The film was generally seen as a cast-off of the Hollywood comedy Bruce Almighty,[70][71] although writer and director Rumi Jaffrey claimed it to be "a village folk tale about a Brahmin".[72] Chopra next starred as a kindergarten teacher in Chamku opposite Bobby Deol and Irrfan Khan, and played the role of Sonia in Goldie Behl's fantasy superhero film Drona opposite Abhishek Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan. Drona, widely criticised for its extensive use of special effects, marked Chopra's sixth film in succession which had failed at both the box office and in the eyes of the critics, although Sukanya Verma of Rediff.com praised her performance, believing that she displayed convincing action heroine skills.[62][73] Critics generally began to write her career off.[62]

  • Footnote 68 = deadlink
Replaced ref.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fails to inspire either affection or sympathy" > jarring to have present tense in a para full of past tense
  • artice says shared no chemistry > source says share no chemistry
I've reworded both the above into a context which fits.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film was generally seen as a cast-off of the Hollywood comedy Bruce Almighty" > not sure what this means
It means that most people believed the plot was badly plagiarised from Bruce Almighty, I thought this was clear? I think it's relevant to mention this for our western readers. I've reworded anyway for clarification.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in the eyes of the critics" > could probably be tightened a bit
Reworded.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sukanya Verma of Rediff.com praised her performance, believing that she displayed convincing action heroine skills." > a bit tough to parse. Something like: :*"Sukanya Verma considers she was convincing as an action heroine"?
Reworded.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critics generally began to write her career off.[62]] > "write her career off" doesn't seem encyclopedic. BUT - I did spot-check this kudos for paraphrasing a difficult bit. Nonetheless imo it still needs rewriting.
Reworded, OK?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed bag is good Victoria, thanks for taking the time to review this. I believe I've addressed all of your points.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, not always sure mixed bag is good! Anyway, I think you mean knock-off instead of cast-off but if it's an Engvar issue, should probably reword to avoid confusion. Here's another random paragraph where I found some issues:

Chopra became the first Indian actress to feature in school text books when her life became a chapter in the Springdales School's curriculum affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. Her life is discussed in the first chapter of the "Environmental science" book named Roving Families, Shifting Homes. The book also included pictures of her family members and the moment when she was crowned Miss World in the year 2000.[209] Although she is known for her media-friendly attitude, Chopra is reticent to discuss details of her personal life in public.[210] The actress has had a Twitter account since January 2009, and has the greatest number of followers of any Indian actress;[45] her website, iampriyankachopra.com, went online in August 2010.[210] According to Chopra's former secretary Prakash Jaju, Chopra signed an agreement a month after winning the Miss World title in which she agreed to pay him 10 per cent of her fee for every movie, stage show and advertisement.[211] Chopra terminated her contract with him due to unwanted interference in her life in 2003.[212] In 2004, Jaju allegedly filed a case in a Mumbai court against Chopra in which he demanded 13.7 million (US$235,640) for outstanding fees and even threatened to expose aspects of her private life.[211][212] In 2006, her father Ashok Chopra lodged a complaint with the police alleging that Jaju was threatening Chopra and was sending her obscene text messages.[213] Jaju filed a case accusing the daughter and father of cheating; he said that they had employed gangster Chhota Shakeel to threaten him. However, Madhya Pradesh High Court cleared the Chopras of the charge. Later, Jaju was arrested in Mumbai for allegedly sending Chopra obscene messages.[213]

  • Her life can't be a chapter in the curriculum; try trimming down and recasting
Her life is discussed in the first chapter of Environmental Science book.—Prashant 15:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, understood and I've rewritten. It's an issue of prose: her life isn't a chapter in a curriculum. The book has a chapter about her, and the book is taught at a school. Victoria (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friendly attitude & reticent doesn't seem to relate to the previous sentences re the textbook; if it does, tie it together somehow
Moved where it fits better.—Prashant 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again w/ Twitter acct: how does this relate to textbook?
Moved where it fits better.—Prashant 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jarring jump to Jaju > but there are a number of sentences in a row about him (the text messages might be too much detail) & the court case could probably be presented more succinctly
Are you saying that we should have a whole section for this controversy? I think it has enough information about that incident and it gives full information about it. —Prashant 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, fine as you've fixed it. Victoria (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selected referencing issues
  • Current footnote 210 doesn't go the article cited
Cited another source.—Prashant 13:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the Hindustan Times, there is a big ad, but the source is there. If you mean The Tribune, that link has many articles; hers is about 3/4 of the way down the page. BollyJeff | talk 14:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the one with the ad; the numbering has changed since. If there's a permalink w/out the ad, that would be good to have. Victoria (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current footnote 211 has this text in the source: Priyanka's father Ashok Chopra had lodged a complaint with a police station in Mumbai alleging that Jaju was threatening him and her daughter. ... but ... our article sources to footnote 213 this text: In 2006, her father Ashok Chopra lodged a complaint with the police alleging that Jaju was threatening Chopra and was sending her obscene text messages > it's too close to the source
Changed a bit.—Prashant 13:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the phrasing "lodged a complaint" is from the original source and thus is an example of WP:Close paraphrasing. Some spotchecks are probably in order. Will begin those now and report below. Victoria (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—Prashant 15:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do the following: read through carefully, make a few copyedits, and come back. In the meantime you'll need a source review - not able to do those - and you all should check to make sure they match. Sometimes they get moved during a FAC. I have checked images and see lots of yellow OTRS flags, so that's something. Just so you know, this will take a bit of time. Victoria (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: My sense is that the prose needs more tightening and some restructuring might be required. The following are again examples only from a single para, and I've done some copyediting there:

  • "Chopra is described as a sex symbol and a style icon.[190] She ranks high on lists of the most powerful, popular and attractive Indian celebrities" > the second sentence has already been mentioned in the previous paragraph so somewhat repetitive
Moved that sentence, where it fits better.—Prashant 17:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She is known as "Piggy Chops", a nickname given her by co-stars on the set of Bluffmaster! in 2005.[194] " > this is jarring. Can it be combined with another sentence? I'm not sure what it refers to
Moved it below and combined with another sentence, where it fits appropriately.—Prashant 17:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2006 and 2012, the UK magazine Eastern Eye placed her first on their "World's Sexiest Asian Women" list,[195][196] and she was featured on Verve's list of most powerful women in 2009 and 2010.[197][198]" > this comes after "piggy chops" and the descriptions of fashions, and it's already (to some extent) been mentioned, so should be moved elsewhere and maybe trimmed.
Moved.—Prashant 17:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • Brand endorsement: interesting, but maybe trim a little?
Trimmed few sentences.—Prashant 18:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking - I delinked sex symbol but noticed sari not linked, so check linking throughout. Also noticed duplicate links per the duplicate link detector.
Removed duplicate links and linked necessary things. Everything is linked only once as per Wikipedia:REPEATLINK.—Prashant 17:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose - can really use some tightening.
Will definitely follow your words.—Prashant 18:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks - done a few and not found any other egregious problems but be very careful about adhering too closely to the source.
Well, one thing I can guarantee you are the sources and they don't have any problems. Since, you also didn't found further problems.—Prashant 18:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that it's close, but not quite there and needs some more work. I haven't read the entire article and unfortunately don't have the time right now for a full review, but will try to revisit in a few days when some of the above have been addressed. Victoria (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you haven't read the article yet, but you are saying it is close but need some more work? Tell me, How can anyone reach a consensus without even looking at the situation? It is unfair. You are insulting the people who have supported above and most importantly our hard work.—Prashant 18:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Graham/Ian and Victoria, please ignore this outburst and see it as another example of his immaturity and lack of experience with FAC. Victoria, I look forward to seeing your further suggestions, I value your input and hope that after you've finished the article will have been further improved and you're ready to support. Prashant, seriously, never refer to constructive criticism at FAC as "unfair" or "insulting" or infer that it is an attack on your hard work. Please refrain from further outbursts here please. All input at FAC is very welcome in order to get the best possible outcome. Above all you've got to learn to be patient, it really doesn't matter if it passes today or next week, more important is that different pairs of eyes give the article a vigorous going over and we ensure that the final product is the best possible article we can produce.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood Blofeld, I'm not against the constructive comments. My only thought was that if you haven't read the whole article then, how could you decide the result? Other than that, I'm happy that Victoria is putting lot of effort in improving the article. I'm grateful to her for her effort and I think that her comments are very essential.—Prashant 19:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment: I will be archiving this nomination in a few minutes. I do not want it to be seen as an example of a successful FAC. We are short of reviewers and cannot afford to allow editors who are prepared to contribute reviews to be put off the process by antagonistic responses from a nominator. To Dr Blofeld and Bolljeff, I am sorry for the extra work this will involve and applaud your engagement in our FA process, but I cannot ignore the behavior of the co-nominator. To Prashant, while I understand your enthusiasm and also thank you for engaging in our FA process, your conduct is not acceptable. Consensus is reached by a community of editors, not by individuals. My role is to judge whether a consensus had been achieved and nominators are expected to help the delegates in this regard. Unfortunately, you have done the opposite. I look forward to seeing this nomination back at FAC in two weeks and expect to see full compliance from you to our traditions, which, most importantly, includes respect for other editors. To the reviewers, thanks for your time and hard work in reviewing this nomination, without which this process could not function, I hope you don't feel that your valuable time has been wasted. Graham Colm (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Kantian ethics

Nominator(s): ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article on and off for quite some time now, and always intended to take it to FA. I've spent the last few days making the last improvements and I think it is now ready to be a Featured Article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're braver than I taking on a topic like this. I think there's far more literature that you should really be citing- for a topic this huge, I'm surprised to see such a small bibliography. A few general questions, with pointers towards more literature.

  • No mention of Onora O'Neill? She's surely one of the more prominent Kantians working today.
  • Likewise, P. F. Strawson wrote a book on Kant, and he's very well regarded in moral philosophy generally
  • I don't know who Michael Stocker is, and I'm not sure why he deserves a whole section. Surely there are any number of other, more noted philosophers who have criticised Kant's ethics? Off the top of my head, and glancing at what's missing from the article, what about Nietzsche's attacks on Kant, the critique of Kantian ethics from the utilitarian tradition (Mill himself, if I remember correctly, cites and challenges Kant) and Alasdair MacIntyre's criticism (and subsequent criticism from the new wave of virtue ethicists?). There'll be liberal and Marxist (Marx refers to Kant himself) critiques of Kantian ethics, and certainly post-modern critiques, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
  • I've never read them, but Béatrice Longuenesse and Paul Guyer are cited a lot on the Stanford article, and seem to be well-published on Kantian ethics. Have you taken a look at their work?

I'm certainly not an expert in Kant, but I'm spotting holes in the coverage. J Milburn (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Jim Umbricht

Nominator(s): Secret account 21:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... been working on this article for the past year or so, probably the most comprehensive on the net. Reviewed by several top sports contributors. Tragic sports figure. Secret account 21:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query.
are you sure he was 6 foot 4?
"becoming the captain of both his senior year." should that be "becoming the captain of both in his senior year." or "becoming the captain of both for his senior year." ϢereSpielChequers 00:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Reference has him as 6 foot 4, and that's the source that is used for all baseball biographies, fixed the second concern. Secret account 20:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix. The article mentions his height once, citing it to an obit that doesn't give his height (though it does support the nickname). Then there's an offline reference that I haven't checked, and then the third reference, the one I linked to in my query, which gives his height as 6 foot 5. Baseball Reference is used elsewhere in the article, but at present not for the height. I only spot checked those two facts, have no opinion as to what the overall balance of sources say. But currently when you click on the references after reading his height, the first height you come is different to the one in the article. Not a big difference, but the thing about inline citations is that you expect them to tie up with the parts of the article that they support. ϢereSpielChequers 23:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I peer-reviewed this article in early December, but reading through I noticed a large number of issues which were raised at that PR and which have not been fixed or addressed. Given that there are some fairly big prose issues apparent in the first few paragraphs, I suspect this article is not quite ready yet. I also notice that the nominator has only made 4 edits to the article this year, which does not suggest a last push to get it FA-ready. Here are some initial points, and for the rest, please refer to the PR. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He was best known for his year-long battle with malignant melanoma.": This does not seem necessary in the lead, particularly as this "battle" is detailed in the third paragraph of the lead.
  • "Nicknamed "Big Jim" owing to his height of 6-foot 4-inches,[1] Umbricht was born in Chicago but grew up in Georgia.": What is the connection between his nickname and where he was born. If there is none, these phrases should not be linked like this.
  • "Umbircht" used three times in the second paragraph, when "he" could be used for variety, but not at the start of the third paragraph, when "his" is used. A paragraph should always begin with a name rather than a pronoun.
  • "He pitched the entire 1963 season": How do you pitch a season? I'm aware that this is standard baseball speak, but surely a FA should use more formal language?
  • "Umbricht's health deteriorated soon afterwards and he died six months later": As I asked at the PR, later than what? No date is given for his death to be compared to.
  • "Early career": As mentioned at PR, this section is stats-heavy, and seems just to be a regurgitated list of numbers and results. Which makes for hard reading.
  • "Umbricht left the game in position for the win": From the PR, "Although I understand what this means, I'm not sure it is the best phrasing".

Reading on, there are quite a few unresolved points which were neither replied to nor addressed at the PR. Which rather defeats the purpose of having one, and so I am stopping here for now. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • To comment, I'm willing to give this a review as well, but since Sarastro has opposed, I'll defer to his judgment; address the PR concerns first before tackling FAC. Wizardman 15:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I don't know if any work has been done on the article yet, but just in case here are some thoughts from me:

  • Repetition from one sentence to another in "the future home of the Colt .45s. The Colt .45s...". Try to avoid this by changing one of the sentences.
  • Early career: "He was named to the first-team All-SEC". For better ordering and avoidance of an abbreviation, try "He was named to the All-Southeastern Conference first-team".
  • "The Pirates assigned Umbricht to its Triple-A affiliate". "its" → "their"? Kind of hard to have a singular item like this match with a plural team nickname.
  • Pittsburgh Pirates: Don't need to repeat the Pirates link with another at the end of the previous section.
  • Last sentence of the section's third paragraph needs a cite.
  • Athens Banner-Herald should be italicized in ref 3. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Dexter's Laboratory

Nominator(s): Paper Luigi T • C 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it was recently promoted to GA and I feel that the article has had significant improvement since then. Paper Luigi T • C 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I've started to read through, but I'm seeing too many problems for FAC.

  • Is it not worth mentioning somewhere early in the article the target audience?
    • I've changed "American comic science fiction animated television series" to "American comic science fiction animated children's television series" as the series is mainly geared toward children, though I feel that that is too many adjectives. Paper Luigi T • C 03:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The series follows a boy-genius named Dexter who has a secret laboratory filled with an endless collection of his inventions. He constantly battles his annoying sister Dee Dee, who always gains access to his lab despite his efforts to keep her out, as well as his arch-rival and neighbor, Mandark." This feels a little informal. endless ... annoying ... lab
  • "By 1999, 52 episodes and a television movie were produced" Had been?
  • "In 2001, the network revived the series under a different production team at Cartoon Network Studios since season 1" I can't work out what this means.
  • "the series finally ended on November 20, 2003." Finally?
  • "Dexter's Laboratory became one of Cartoon Network's first" It didn't become one of the first. It either was or it wasn't.
  • "and it led to a change in direction for the station centering on more original animated programming." Poor writing
  • "The show achieved high ratings and had a positive reception." What does this tell us that the previous line doesn't?
  • "On January 22, 2013, an unaired episode of the series titled "Rude Removal", which was originally shown only at comic conventions, was released via Adult Swim's official YouTube channel." Recentism? This doesn't warrant so much attention in the lead.
  • bookcase is overlinking
  • "Dexter is normally in conflict with his ditzy older sister, Dee Dee (voiced by Allison Moore in seasons 1 and 3, and Kathryn Cressida in seasons 2 and 4), who always mysteriously gains access to his lab no matter what he does to try to keep her out." Again, informal and jovial.
  • Should we really be abbreviating "laboratory" to "lab"?
  • "who amusingly never notice" It's not up to us to say what is and isn't amusing
  • "Russian-esque" is not really a word, and the source doesn't say Russian-esque- it says Russian
  • "lives down the block from him" informal
  • "Mandark's schemes become significantly more evil, his laboratory darker-looking, industrial and angular, in contrast to his original brightly lit lab which had more rounded features." his his his
  • I'm worried about the series overview lacking references. The last paragraph, for instance, reads very much like original research. The purpose of the second to last paragraph is unclear.
  • The term "segment" is repeatedly used, but never explained.
  • "Monkey often appeared in the Justice Friends segments and vice versa, having teamed with his fellow superheroes while Dexter and Dee Dee sometimes appeared in the Monkey segments." Poor writing.
  • "with his lovely partner" Too informal
  • I'm again seeing a lot of what looks like original research in the recurring segments section
At this point, I stopped reading, sorry.
  • I think there may be more merchandise out there than you have included. For instance, there are books. A Google Book search suggests that there are loads.
    • It seems you're right on that. I'll find a way to include the books, and I'll browse through the CartoonNetwork.com archive later on to scope out other things I've missed. Paper Luigi T • C 03:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This book seems to contain some potential useful analysis, and is a good scholarly source. I see it's cited, once (and badly- the author of the article in question isn't even mentioned). I can access a full electronic copy of the work- I'll leave a note on the article talk page.

Sorry, but I do not feel that this article is ready for FA status. I suggest that you first find someone willing to spend some time cleaning the prose and double-checking the sources, and work on finding references for the unreferenced sections. It may also benefit from peer review. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In regards to the "target audience", Cartoon Network didn't really target a particular audience in their early years, especially with the World Premiere Toons shorts, which Dexter's Lab is one of. The show has a lot of "parental bonus" - risque gags, double entendres and pop culture references only adults would get. That being said, it really is subjective. A lot of cartoons in the 90s were like this... Another thing about using "lab" instead of "laboratory" - The show was often referred to as Dexter's Lab by the network itself, as well as the staff. yonnie (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would adults be watching it if they weren't watching it with children? Almost certainly not. It was aimed at children, and I'm sure we could find a source that was more specific (5-12 year olds? I don't know). I don't object to mentioning that it was called Dexter's Lab, but it's official title is, and always was, Dexter's Laboratory, I assume. I was talking specifically about when we refer to "the lab" in the main body of the article. That's an informal contraction. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This 1997 article contains the closest thing I've found to a target audience so far, which is, "Shows on Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon skew towards the 8-12 set". Paper Luigi T • C 04:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Karma in Jainism

Nominator(s): Rahul Jain (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a well-sourced and beautifully written article. It meets all the criteria of a Featured Article. If there is any minor issue left out, I will clear it as soon as possible. Rahul Jain (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have not read the article, but I can see at once a few problems:

  • Uncited text. Examples: final sentence of "Material theory"; whole second paragraph of "Reincarnation and transmigration"; whole fourth paragraph of "Four states of existence"; possibly more.
  • Several sections are presented in bullet-point format rather than in proper prose.

In addition, a couple of minor issues: citations should be at the end of blockquotes rather than at the beginning; check use of "p." instead of "pp." in page ranges, and inconsistent spacing after "p." or "pp."

Brianboulton (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed most of the concerns you raised. I went through the whole article again to provide citations and references wherever they were required. Also, I reworked with the formatting of citation. I used the templates for consistency. I agree that several sections are bullet-point format, but I think those actually do require a list for better organization of information. Rahul Jain (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- With no commentary for a month, this review has well and truly stalled so I'm going to archive it. Just glancing through it, I still see paragraphs that end without citations. Furthermore, although there's no requirement for an article to pass GA before being nominated at FAC, it's something I'd recommend achieving before re-nominating here. Checking the article talk page, it also appears the last peer review was in 2009, so another is probably in order as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Stephen Lynch (politician)

Nominator(s): Designate (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh out of his campaign for U.S. Senate, this is U.S. Representative Stephen Lynch of South Boston. He represents a shrinking wing of Massachusetts state politics, the socially conservative fiscal-liberal labor voters. He may not have accomplished much as a Congressman, but his career story is a bit more interesting than the mainstream progressive Democrats he serves with. I don't know what's next for this guy but his biography should be of interest to anyone with a passing interest in American politics, so I hope we can make this a featured article. —Designate (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't italicize quotes
  • Don't use bare URLs as citations
  • Dead link
  • FN18: page?
  • Boston Herald or The Boston Herald? New York Times or The New York Times? Be consistent
  • When using Washington as location, specify DC
  • FN61: formatting
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These things are fixed now, thanks for checking. Hopefully someone can do a review for this article. —Designate (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Wow, this one never really got off the ground did it? With only the source review after six weeks there's not much to do except archive -- a peer review might aid in generating some more interest, after which you could re-nominate here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 01:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. —Ed!(talk) 01:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have the following comments:

  • As I noted in the A class review, this article really should include references to Thomas Ricks' recent book The Generals, which provides fairly detailed analysis of Schwarzkopf's generalship during the 1990-91 period. Ricks strongly disagrees with the notion of the 1991 war being "decisive", and argues that Schwarzkopf's flawed war plan contributed to a fairly poor outcome given the extent of the Allied military force's superiority. This may not be a consensus view, but Ricks is a high-profile author and his book has attracted a fair bit of attention.
  • The material on Schwarzkopf's relationship to the Media during the Gulf War wrongly argues that he encouraged free-ranging media coverage of the war. In fact, the media operated under significant restrictions which were loosened in subsequent wars.
    • Added a little more clarity on this. —Ed!(talk) 04:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is now contradictory - it starts by saying that Schwarzkopf gave the media considerable access, but then states that the media was tightly controlled. I think that there are academic-type studies of the role of the media in the Gulf War which would be worth looking for. I'm also not sure what's meant by "In spite of this, several high-profile reports publicized the CENTCOM strategy" - does this mean that his war plans were leaked to the media? Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the 6th Infantry Division in Allied-occupied Germany" - the Allied occupation of Germany ended well before 1959
  • " In July 1960, Schwarzkopf was assigned as aide-de-camp to Brigadier General Charles Johnson, who commanded the Berlin Brigade.[36] Schwarzkopf was stationed in West Berlin." - this could be compressed into a single sentence (the Berlin Brigade was stationed only in West Berlin)
  • Why did Schwarzkopf volunteer to leave a teaching position at West Point to serve in South Vietnam?
  • "the 500,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam were demoralized and in poor condition, racked with rampant drug use and disciplinary problems as well as a lack of support from home" - all elements of this sentence are disputed by modern historians, and it's clearly inappropriate to use this as a blanket statement concerning the state of the military in 1969 (the general view these days is that the Army was largely in good shape at this time, but things got much worse later on).
  • "He immediately established an extremely rigorous training regimen" - why? Was the division poorly trained when he assumed command?
  • "and became well known for his hard driving leadership of the division." - 'well known' among whom? Phrases like "hard driving leadership" are also somewhat problematic - they're essentially military cliches (no-one is opposed to 'hard driving leadership'!), but are unclear - can you say what his command style and approach involved?
  • "Among his duties, he sat in on arms reduction talks" - 'sitting in' on a meeting isn't an active role, so was this really part of his duties?
  • "The operation was a learning experience for Schwarzkopf, who saw the need to develop greater cooperation between the services for future joint operations" - what did he do to implement this during his time as a senior commander? (there's nothing on the topic at present)
  • "Schwarzkopf devised an operational plan, dubbed "Operation Desert Storm," to be based on speed and mobility, using the desert warfare strategies based on British commander Bernard Montgomery's defeat of German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel at the Second Battle of El Alamein in World War II" - this doesn't seem accurate. Monty's overall strategy at El Alamein was to use infantry and artillery to slowly work through the Axis defences, and then unleash his armoured forces. It didn't work as the defences were tougher than had been expected, and the armoured forces ended up being used to support the infantry. The slow pursuit of the defeated Axis forces after the battle is generally considered to have been a major failure.
  • The material on the Gulf War hardly mentions the fact that Schwarzkopf was leading an amazingly diverse international coalition. How did he manage cross-national relations? (which would have been one of his main tasks)
    • I've added a paragraph on this in the 'Desert Shield' section. —Ed!(talk) 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Most of the allied forces, however, were not combat veterans, and the allied commanders wanted to fight cautiously to minimize casualties." - almost none of the US troops were combat veterans either, and Schwarzkopf was also highly risk-adverse (hence the lengthy air campaign before the ground forces went into action and the cancellation of plans to conduct an opposed amphibious landing in Kuwait). Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He oversaw the strikes from his war room in Riyadh amid a flurry of press coverage" - the media was in the war room?
  • "Within 90 hours, his force had destroyed 42 of 50 Iraqi Army divisions at a cost of about 125 killed and 200 wounded among American troops" - what about the non-American casualties? Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an extra point, "His accomplishments were praised in a manner much differently from commanders who returned from the Vietnam War and the Korean War" reads awkwardly (and what was this difference?). Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few books to cover these points. I'll be adding them over the next few days. Going to have the same problem with Ricks that I mentioned in the ACR, my only access to the book is through Google Books which has no page numbers, so the pages will be a total guess for those refs. —Ed!(talk) 06:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've responded to all of your points and made a bunch of fixes. Let me know what you think. —Ed!(talk) 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just struck my oppose, and have no objections to this article's promotion and would be pleased to see it on the main page. However, I don't think that I'm going to support promotion either I'm afraid Ed. Unlike many of your other efforts, this article never really gets under the skin of its subject (who is a much-written about person) and I think that there's probably scope for further improvements, particularly on the material covering his senior leadership which never really digs deeply into what he did and why. But as I said, I have no objections to promotion. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think Ed! has done a good job in addressing the myriad issues with this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Delegate comment -- I'm afraid that after remaining open six weeks without approaching consensus to promote, this seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Georgia Tech Research Institute

Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I resolved the comments on the first FAC before it closed, so I've returned for more feedback; I'm pretty proud of this article and hope that one day, it gets the star. I currently have another FAC (G. Wayne Clough) open, but User:ResearcherQ has volunteered to co-nom per the rules of one FAC/person, but is busy until at least Monday. Disavian (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns were addressed and its a worthy article, so I'd like to provide my support for promotion. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article seems fine for the most part. I only have a few issues:

There were quite a few redundant uses of 'also', which I took the liberty of trimming. Hopefully that doesn't cause a concern. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. :) I'll try to get to these asap. Disavian (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my issues. Good luck with your FAC. Praemonitus (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I will add comments here as I go through the article; I don't have much time this morning so it might be a day or two till I get through it.

  • "The federal effort ultimately failed": What federal effort? That paragraph seems to be just talking about state initiatives.
    • I see how that's not clear. Let me give you the relevant source material (emphasis mine):
      In that year, in a move related to the ongoing federal debate on establishing engineering experiment stations with legislation similar to the Hatch Act, the Georgia General Assembly passed an act, "Establishing State Engineering Experiment Station at the Georgia School of Technology," included as Appendix B. The act set up the station for, among other purposes, the "encouragement of industries and commerce." Because the federal legislative initiative failed to create engineering experiment stations and because the state did not appropriate funds for start-up or operations, the station at Georgia Tech remained only a paper organization until 1934.
    Disavian (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sentences of "Establishment" seem a bit repetitive. How about: "The Georgia Board of Regents provided the new Engineering Experiment Station with $5,000 ($449,000 in 2013), and Georgia Tech provided infrastructure and personnel. The station started operation in April 1934." This omits "directly", which I don't understand; what does it mean to say that the board of regents "directly" allocated the money?
    • If I had to guess, I'd say it is typical to funnel money through the various schools that comprise Georgia's university system. For the board of regents to directly allocate funds would probably be unusual but not unheard of. Your version is much clearer, though. implemented it, diff Disavian (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Bunger died not long thereafter in August 1941. (section break) In 1940, Georgia Institute of Technology president Blake Van Leer appointed Gerald Rosselot the assistant director of the Engineering Experiment Station. Rosselot was the organization's director from 1941 to 1952." This is a little out of chronological sequence, and slightly confusing for the reader; I can see why you did it this way but it would be nice to clean it up a little. How about: "However, Bunger died not long thereafter in August 1941. (section break) Bunger's successor was Gerald Rosselot, who had been appointed assistant director by Georgia Tech president Blake Van Leer in 1940" and leave the date of the end of Rosselot's tenure to later in the narrative?
  • "In 1940, Georgia Institute of Technology president Blake Van Leer": according to the article on Van Leer, he wasn't president until 1944.
  • "...increased support from industry and government eventually counteracted low state support." This repeats "support", and I also don't think "counteracted" is quite the right verb. How about: "...increased support from industry and government eventually compensated for low state support", or maybe "more than compensated for", if that's the case, as it appears.
  • "$240,000 ($7,055,000 in 2013)": I suggest going with -5 on the roundup parameter, to give $7.1M; -3 gives a spurious impression of precision (assuming that the $240K is itself a rounded number). The inflation template is used multiple times; I'd suggest doing the same throughout -- I think the value of the last non-zero unit in each number should be the same, relatively; that is, a 1 in the $10K column represents about 4% of $240K, but a 1 in the $1K column represents only 0.014% of $7.1M.
  • "the 1946 establishment of the Industrial Development Council, renamed to the Georgia Tech Research Institute in 1948 and to its present name, the Georgia Tech Research Corporation, in 1984": this gave me flashbacks to the James E. Boyd FAC, where this came up. That's a super-confusing name change, and I don't think you can let it pass without explanation. I'd suggest re-using note 4 from that article, or some slight modification of it, but I also think you need to clarify things a little inline -- the reader is going to be stopped in their tracks as it stands.
    • Yeah, that was a fun FAC. I kind of miss it. Anyway, I took a stab at using the text from that note from the Boyd article in the GTRI article itself, it seemed relevant enough. diff. Disavian (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Rosselot resign his post because of the conflict with Emerson? At the moment it's implied but not stated. If the sources are specific I think the article should be too. Further down you say he "left to work for Bendix Corporation", so perhaps it wasn't because of the conflict.
  • "his participation ensured the eventual success of Scientific Atlanta and facilitated subsequent technology transfer by Georgia Tech's VentureLab and the Advanced Technology Development Center": Two things here. First, is this referring to Rosselot's participation in Scientific Atlanta? If so, how about "his participation in Scientific Atlanta ensured its eventual success"? Second, it's not clear what you mean by saying that his participation "facilitated subsequent technology transfer"; can you clarify?
  • "Cudd reversed this trend such that EES's 1952–53 Annual Report stated that 66 faculty in 15 schools performed research at the station that year": I don't like "such that". How about "Cudd reversed this trend—so much so that"? Or "to the extent that"?
  • "made a last-minute request to the contract organization in May 1954 to cover the $20,000 deficit": will the sources support "the resulting $20,000 deficit"? And if you're inflating other dollar numbers, shouldn't you also inflate this?
    • I suppose we can inflate that one too, diff. That number is explicitly mentioned in Dress Her In White and Gold (Wallace pp. 240-241):
      This is apparently a quote from Van Leer's 1953-54 annual report: "All of these activities resulted in creating a serious financial drain on the budget of the Station. The net result was that the surplus carried over from the previous year's operation was exhausted, and in May 1954 it became apparent that unless expenditures were reduced a serious budgetary deficit would result. Dr. Calaway took immediate and vigorous steps to meet this unexpected situation, and at the close of the fiscal year the Georgia Tech Research Institute agreed to pay slightly over $20,000, which would otherwise have been a deficit."
Disavian (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cold War" doesn't seem the right title for that section; it covers the period of the Cold War, but is not entirely about military research. How about "Cold War era"?
  • The sentence starting "In 1954, a faculty committee" doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of the paragraph it's currently attached to; how about moving it up to the end of the previous paragraph, which mentions budgets?
  • "and then appointed as Director of the station from July 1, 1957 until 1961": you don't usually capitalize "Director" in this context; should it be capitalized? And how about mentioning that Calaway was the director he took over from: "and succeeded Calaway as director on July 1, 1957" -- I think you could skip the end date, since it will be covered later.
    • Hmm, I just went ahead and gave him a sentence. I might want to look to see if he did anything noteworthy that I haven't mentioned. Let's see... ENS 246 says he became the GT Chemistry Director in 1948, and ENS257 mentions him winning that Sigma Xi research prize. DHWG 240-241 mentions him taking the position after Cudd left, and that he was Director of the School of Chemistry at the time, and that he was the one that took care of that $20,000 advance from the Georgia Tech Research Institute (the contract organization) to prevent the deficit. In 1955, the Rich Electronic Computer Center, a new wing on the Hinman / Research Building was dedicated, which was paid for by $85,000 from the Rich Foundation and a matching grant from the Georgia Tech Research Institute (the contract organization). Hmm. I moved a bit of stuff around for this one. diff. Disavian (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, what do you think of adding a table of all the directors towards the end of the article, perhaps in the Organization section, in "Structure"?
  • "While at Georgia Tech, Boyd wrote an influential article about the role of research centers at institutes of technology, which argued that research should be integrated with education, and correspondingly involved undergraduates in his research." This needs copyediting: the subject of "argued" is the article, but the subject of "involved" ought to be Boyd, not the article.
  • It would be nice to quote the year the Applied Systems Lab was founded, instead of just saying it resulted from 1970s research -- that could place it as late as the mid-1980s.
  • "facilitated technology transfer in over 40 developing nations": I don't think this is what the source says; as far as I can see it only talks about technology transfer in Latin America and Egypt.
  • "this era began EES' role" -- a bit awkward; can you rephrase?
  • 'The period of student unrest in the late 1960s that resulted in protests at many university research centers that worked on contracts for the Department of Defense was not particularly seen at EES or at Georgia Tech. Long credited the school's "conservative student body" for the absence of any protests against the station's defense-related research.': how about 'The late 1960s saw a period of student unrest, and university research centers that worked on contracts for the Department of Defense were often the site of student protests. Neither Georgia Tech nor EES became the focus of protests, and Long attributed this to the school's "conservative student body"'.
  • "Institute president Arthur G. Hansen's" -- Hansen wasn't a president of the GTRI, according to the navbox at the bottom, so which institute is this? Was he present of what was then called the GTRI and is now the GTRC? I assume that's what you are referring to, but I think it needs some inline clarification.
  • I don't fully understand what's meant by "completely integrate the station into Georgia Tech's academic units". Was the plan to eliminate the separate existence of the EES? Or something else?
  • The Technique needs to be identifed as the student paper when mentioned; the Atlanta Constitution is well enough known that I don't think it's necessary there.
  • In March 2010, Cross was named to the new position of Executive Vice President for Research for the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he oversees all research at Georgia Tech: seems odd to spell out Georgia Tech's full name again at this point, and link it again too. How about: "In March 2010, Cross was named Executive Vice President for Research, a newly created position within Georgia Tech with oversight over all research at the university"?
  • "Out of the approximately 1,050 research scientists and engineers working for GTRI in June 2011, 19% had attained a doctorate, 53% had up to a master's degree, and 28% had up to a bachelor's degree": the source has been updated to 2012 and I would suggest updating the numbers. I think "up to a" doesn't work; I think you mean "had at least a", but to me "up to a master's degree" means "had a master's degree or something less".
  • "At a given time, laboratories may work with 200 or more agencies simultaneously" is unsourced and I think might be rephrased, once you source it -- do you mean all laboraties together, or any given laboratory?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Mike, if you're going to make further comments shortly, I could leave this open a bit longer but without consensus to promote after 6 weeks I'm afraid it's really due to be archived... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ian; I'm going to try to finish the review this weekend and expect to be able to. I believe I will be able to support once everything has been addressed; of course that would only bring this to two supports. If you would promote with two supports, then it would be good if you could leave this open for a few more days. My support would not include comprehensiveness as I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to be sure of that, though it seems comprehensive as far as I can tell. If you don't think you would promote with two supports, then I would suggest allowing Disavian to bring this back immediately under the "lack of reviews" clause; I'd be happy to continue reviewing the next iteration. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Mike. Of course we try not to make promotion a matter of number of supports but instead comprehensiveness of reviews, but the fact is we need more eyes on this no matter what. I think therefore we call a day on this one and give Disavian a chance to finalise everything before having another shot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2013&oldid=560955446"