Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Copy this text:{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}}, and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination.

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Nominator(s): User:David Fuchs


The last FAC received mixed support; users Awadewit and Steve suggested that it needed beefing up. I have trawled through all the sources I was about to wrangle up by visiting two libraries and putting out requests on interlibrary loan. Compared to the article a month ago, there's another 10KB, 1800 words, 24 citations and more than ten substantial, multipage sources added. The sections on effects, filming, and music, in particular, have been expanded by more than eight paragraphs. In short, I believe it is now as comprehensive as it can be. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Made in America (The Sopranos)

Nominator(s): –FunkyVoltron talk


I'm nominating the final episode of The Sopranos for FA status as I think it qualifies: It includes all the essential information and follows Wikipedia:Television episodes closely. The article has been peer reviewed. I know that the ratings sections is very short but I'd prefer to keep it like that. There are also two red links in the article for two decidedly notable actors; I'll create stub articles for them if that's a concern.–FunkyVoltron talk 13:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: There are four non-free images in the article. I have concerns with Wikipedia:NFCC #3 and #8. Fair use images should be used only when the readers' understanding of the text cannot be complete without the image. See the use of images in Mulholland Dr.. --Moni3 (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think they greatly enhance the article but I suppose one or both of the images in the Plot section could be removed.–FunkyVoltron talk 14:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between illustrating the article and including an image that ensures the reader cannot understand the issues in the article without referring to the image in question. Helping your cause for keeping the images would be referencing something specific in the image in the text. For example, if you included an image because of the characters interacting, the text should highlight that, and the image summary should also. It should be explicit. In the summary for Image:Mulholland Drive Mr Roque.jpg, look at the Fair Use Rationale, particularly numbers 1 and 8, and then the 2nd paragraph of the Mulholland_Drive_(film)#Style section. I recommend using this kind of fair use rationale in the images for the article. I would also recommend taking a long hard look at all four non-free images to determine if all should stay. You may end up removing two or more. Let me know if you have questions. Images are particularly difficult to deal with. I had to learn by doing what you're doing... --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes, such as RTE.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
All right, done.–FunkyVoltron talk 15:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I remember something about Al Gore being given a Halliburton with this episode in because it aired when he was on a plane, and not being allowed to open it until airtime. Or am I confusing it with The West Wing? Sceptre (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
No, that's true. Here's the story. Didn't include it in the article, though, as it seemed to be too trivial.–FunkyVoltron talk 16:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
It might be helpful to use all available sources to definitively cement its notability :) Sceptre (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Reading the Production section leads me to wonder about the prose of the rest of the article. The section is illogically organized, and reads more like a collection of facts than a summary of the episode's production. Odd use of present perfect tense in three of the four first sentences (the sentence structure also being dully repetitious). "To insure that the final scene..." - spot what's wrong here. BuddingJournalist 19:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, a collection of facts regarding the production is what the production is in the end. Tried to make the prose more varied.–FunkyVoltron talk 19:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
All right, I reworked the prose to the best of my ability—english being my third language—and tried to make the sections more coherent.–FunkyVoltron talk 19:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The section shouldn't strive to be a mere collection of random facts. It should summarize the production of the episode in a logical fashion, with prose that flows smoothly – from concept (who wrote the script; how did the ideas germinate?) to shooting to post-production. Here, the last three paragraphs are disjointed ideas. Readers find out when the episode was planned, but nothing more about its conception. By the way, the use of present perfect and "to insure..." is still there. You might want to try working with a native English speaker on the prose. "He has maintained that the final scene was filmed almost exactly as he had envisioned it, and has also denied that the ending is a setup for a future film, but has mentioned that a Sopranos feature is still a possibility, stating "[t]here may be a day where we all come up with something."" What Tony would call a winding snake. BuddingJournalist 20:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That might be the case with feature films were sufficient information for a section like that is available. For television episodes, however, that go in the general production section of the show's article. Have a look at some other featured episode and you'll find that they follow pretty much the same model as this article. Redid the sentence.–FunkyVoltron talk 20:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Luc Bourdon

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk)


Article about ice hockey player who died back in May at the age of 21. Already passed GA and had peer review a few weeks ago. All comments welcome, and will be addressed as soon as possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I enjoyed reading this article while not enjoying it, if that makes sense. It's been a while since I've reviewed something that I thought was really good, but it's sobering at the end. This is what I found during a full review. Most of these are just minor nit-picks; in this case, I find that to be a sign of high quality.

  • Comma after Manitoba Moose in first sentence?
  • Early life: Remove comma after Miramichi Rivermen?
  • "who now manages the local arena". Watch for date-specific items that may not stay updated, like this one.
  • Playing career: "Link Tampa Bay Lightning in the last paragraph of the section.
  • International play: Delink 2007 World Junior Championships, as the event is linked a few paragraphs beforehand.
  • Death: "During the 2008 NHL Draft, the Canucks management wore guitar pins to remember Bourdon, since he was an avid guitarist." Apostrophe after Canucks?
  • Typo in last paragraph: "New Brunswik".

In addition to these, I saw some references that need further formatting. There are a couple refs without a publisher, and one doesn't have an access date. Ealdgyth will be around soon to provide a full list of issues. Overall, though, I'm looking forward to supporting this soon. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything should be all fixed up now. Also went through the references and cleaned them up, so that matter should be good. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • In the Early life section, specify when he was born.
  • Shortly after the trade, Bourdon injured his ankle, suffering a fractured fibula, high and low sprains, and a second degree ligament tear. - Link ligament.
  • Bourdon made his international debut representing Team Canada in the 2005 World Under-18 Championships, held in the Czech Republic, earning one assist in a silver-medal effort. - Needs a source.
  • At the 2007 World Junior Championships in Leksand and Mora, Sweden, Bourdon scored the game-tying goal in the third period of a 2–1 shootout win over the United States in the semi-final.[19] In total, Bourdon picked up two goals and two assists in six games, as Canada won another gold medal. - Why are some numbers spelled out, but others not? "Two" and "2" for example.
  • The 2–1 is a score, which I've always seen given like this in sports-related FACs. I guess "a two to one shootout win" could be done, but I think it's fine the way it is now. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • During the 2008 NHL Draft, the Canucks' management wore guitar pins to remember Bourdon, since he was an avid guitarist. - "Since" → "because".

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. (The Simons ref is not italicised)
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes, such as TSN.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: Images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • As Ealdgyth mentions, italicize newspaper titles. Also, you alternate between Vancouver Province and The Province; which one is it?
    • Combine the two uses of "Penguins' Letang Loses Best Friend In Bourdon" into one source. BuddingJournalist 19:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Source for the career statistics? BuddingJournalist 19:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gerard K. O'Neill

Nominator(s): Wronkiew (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think that it meets the criteria. This GA has gone through both natural sciences and biography peer reviews. Many thanks to those who gave their advice. Gerard K. O'Neill was a physicist and author who advocated the colonization of outer space. Wronkiew (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback on the article. Wronkiew (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Query Hi that was an interesting read, it mentions that he had a son and two daughters by his first wife and was survived by four children. If you have any details of the fourth such as if this was with his second wife it would be good to add this. ϢereSpielChequers 19:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a few more details on the fourth child. His name was Edward, and he was the "half-brother" of Roger. Therefore it seems like a safe assumption that his mother is Tasha. However, I don't have any source material that comes out and names his mother directly, so I'm not sure how to work it in to the article. Wronkiew (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I can't see how to bring that into the article either. But I don't think that should stop it getting FA so I've switched to the talk page. ϢereSpielChequers 07:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: Images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wail al-Shehri

Nominator(s): --Aude (talk)


I mostly wrote this article about one of the 9/11 hijackers at the end of September, but have come back a bunch of times (with "strategic distance") to work on copyediting and MOS. I believe it's now ready for FAC, and as always, happy to address any issues. Please review! The article is not overly long (but not super short either), so hope that reviewing won't take too much of reviewer time. --Aude (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment can it be explained what a "muscle hijacker" is? I presume a guy who does the fighting to take over the plane, but couldn't fuind it in the Wikipedia article on hijacking. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment. You are correct. I took that detail out of the lead, since the term is undefined there. I also adjusted the wording in the article to define "muscle" hijackers as the non-pilot hijackers. --Aude (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I added a wikilink to Hijackers in the September 11 attacks#Muscle hijackers, though that article is only what I consider start-class. That will be the place to define the hijacker roles in further detail. --Aude (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Dabs, pls check the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for reminding me. --Aude (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as NEFA.
  • Current ref 40 (Confusion ...) the author name should be at the front of the reference like all the other references for consistency.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the references. I have made some adjustments. --Aude (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • The two Shehri brothers then traveled to Afghanistan in March 2000, where they ended up at an Al-Qaeda training camp. - Remove "Shehri" and "then".
  • As well, many young people in the region idolized Osama Bin Laden, who had family ties to Asir. - "As well" is a poor way to start a sentence.
  • Details on how the non-pilot ("muscle") hijackers were chosen for the September 11 attacks are vague, though they appear to be selected by senior al-Qaeda leaders in 2000 from the thousands of recruits at training camps in Afghanistan. - This sentence is slightly confusing. When I first read it, it seemed like "they" referred to the details that are mentioned in the beginning of the sentence.
  • Once Wail and the other muscle hijackers completed their training in Afghanistan, they received $2,000 so that they could return to Saudi Arabia to obtain clean passports and visas. - Remove "tjat".
  • Some time in late 2000, Wail traveled to the United Arab Emirates, where he purchased traveler's checks presumed to have been paid for by Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi. - Remove "some time".
  • Upon check-in, Wail al-Shehri was selected by the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS), as was his brother Waleed, and Flight 11 hijacker Satam al-Suqami, while Mohamed Atta, the pilot hijacker on Flight 11 had been selected in Portland. - This sentence needs to be reworded, as I'm not quite sure of what it's trying to say.

Well done, overall. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I have adjusted the text, per your comments. --Aude (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: The two images that have been released by As Sahab - how was that permission given? Is it explicit in the website sources? --Moni3 (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As-Sahab has been posting videos on archive.org, where there is the option of posting them under creative commons licenses or releasing into the public domain. As Sahab has selected public domain for the videos, including the one that the two images/screenshots are taken from. [1] --Aude (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tragic Kingdom

Nominator(s): Tezkag72 and Escape Artist Swyer


I'm nominating this article for featured article because Escape Artist Swyer and I worked on it to get it to GA, and then had it peer reviewed, which recently closed (we fixed all the problems.) So, we want to know if it is capable of being one of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer. Tezkag72 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom: We've spent a while working on this article since finding it like this. It stunned me that such a great album should have so poor an article so I got to work. Tezkag72 soon joined me and we've worked together since. This is my first FAC, btw. I hope it can be classified as one of Wikipedia's best. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 22:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I bought the album in January or so, and when I looked it up on Wikipedia in August or so to learn more about it, I noticed how bad the article looked. I found out that Escape Artist Swyer had been working on it for a bit, and I joined in. Through the course of the two months, we got it from a Start to a B, and then a GA. Now, basically we're trying to complete the process. It's my first FAC, also. Tezkag72 22:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Maralia Welcome; it's nice to see some new faces around here! A few comments to get you started:

  • Every citation to an online source needs an accessdate (some are missing).
As far as I can see, they're all there for the "cite web" sources. Tezkag72 00:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Refs 4, 5, 6, and 12 appear to be online sources without accessdates. Maralia (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I tried to edit it, and accessdates are indeed in all of them, they're just not showing up. Tezkag72 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The fair use rationale for Image:No Doubt - Tragic Kingdom.jpg needs minor clarification (the rationale does not explicitly state that it is a rationale for use in this article).
Why not? It's the album cover. Tezkag72 00:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
See my response to the next question here—there is a fair use rationale on the image page, but it's not clearly designated as being for use in this specific article. Maralia (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC) done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 16:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
What does that mean? (sorry it's not your fault. I just don't understand those.) Tezkag72 00:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
See WP:FURG for an explanation of what a fair use rationale is. You might consider using a preexisting template such as Template:Album cover fur. done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 16:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Eric Stefani is linked twice in the main prose, but Gwen not at all.
Yes she is, as far as I can see. Where should I be looking? Tezkag72 14:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gwen and Eric are both linked once in the main prose: the background section. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 16:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The link to Paul Palmer leads to a disambiguation page.
Done. Tezkag72 00:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is the article in Category:Atlantic Records albums? I see that Atlantic partially financed Interscope, but Atlantic is not mentioned in the release history, nor in the entire article. Am I missing something?
Done. Tezkag72 00:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! Maralia (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

One more issue: references 7 and 9 aren't formatted the same as the rest; they have a date appended to the end of the citation—where an accessdate normally displays—but I think those dates are actually publication dates. You need to either use the same cite templates as used for the rest of the references, or manually format them to display in the same way. Maralia (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth -

Damn, No Doubt could've waited 'til this was promoted to reformat their website. Will go find new urls. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 16:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
  • Current ref 44 (Charts-Surfer...) is in German, and should note this in the reference. Any other foreign language sites should also note the language in the reference.
Done. Tezkag72 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I note Maralia caught the formatting issues in the references, and I second her recommendations.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments by indopug
  • It could do with a solid copy-edit
In which areas? Tezkag72 14:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Since most of the songs on Tragic Kingdom were written by lead vocalist Gwen Stefani, and were about her experiences in life, and those from No Doubt's previous album were written mainly by Eric Stefani, who left the group before Tragic Kingdom was recorded, the style of music changed from what No Doubt had previously produced"—very long sentence.
Done. Tezkag72 14:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "commercial sound" in Background is a rather ambiguous phrase.
Removed. Thanks. Tezkag72 22:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no need to have such detailed info about the singles. They have their own articles, don't they?
  • Can yo[u break that rather large Critical reception paragraph?
How should I do that? The only way I can think of is breaking it between positive and negative reviews, but there aren't any mainly-negative reviews there. Tezkag72 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What's the point of that release history section? How are a list of catalogue numbers supposed to help the general reader?
I removed those once, but PiracyFundsTerrorism said that WikiProject Albums's guidelines said that it's encouraged to have such a box. I checked, and it does say that. What should I do? Tezkag72 22:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Tragic Kingdom spawned seven singles from 1995 to 1998, including "Just a Girl", "Spiderwebs", "Excuse Me Mr.", "Sunday Morning" and "Don't Speak"." -- is this needed at all in the lead? The infobox lists these out any way.
Well, every FA album article I've seen does that. Only five of the seven singles are listed because the other two didn't chart, didn't pass WP:N, and don't have articles. Tezkag72 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I've cut it to "Just a Girl" and "Don't Speak". These were the most well-known singles from the album. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 17:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Overall, very good work, but it needs fine-tuning. I'll try to help if I can with a ce and maybe add some more reviews. indopug (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: Recommend you alter the Fair Use rationale for the album cover similar to Image:Michaeljacksonthrilleralbum.jpg. --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 17:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Rheinmetall 120 mm gun

Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)


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

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, since they changed their layout and no longer include their sources on each page it's hard to prove, but their information comes straight from the manufacturer. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there's no need to. I remember why that sentence even exists; it was done to allow the article to be included as a "Did You Know" (they needed an online source). I argued that the site wouldn't be considered reliable, but they added it regardless. The muzzle velocity is actually already mentioned in a sentence previous to that one, so I removed that sentence and the source altogether. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, they insisted that you use an unreliable source merely because it's online, even though it's unreliable? Anyway, resolved, thanks Jon. And may I say how much your referencing and sourcing has improved in the last few FACs you've brought! It's a pleasure to see the vast improvement! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! I have hopes of putting an article I'm about to work on through DYK, but I have a feeling that they will bring up the same requirement. I might have to link to this FAC. :D JonCatalán(Talk) 20:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support

A few points:

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

Image review: Issues with Image:Korean Army K1A1 tank.jpg. Source does not match. Site and link to apparent permissions are entirely in Korean. I don't understand how GNU is claimed for this image.

  • Source on Image:M829.jpg is a dead link. Without that source, it's not possible to determine the image is a work of the US military and in the public domain.
  • All other images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the image of the round with Image:USARMY-M829A2.gif, which seems to be properly sourced. The image of the South Korean tank has been changed to Image:Merkava3dKasag001.jpg, which was uploaded by a user as his own photograph. Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 18:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Speyer

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk)


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

Comments -

  • Strongly suggest expanding the lead quite a bit, it's very skimpy for the size of the article.
Will do tomorrow. They're always a bit short.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Overlinking - no need for "New York", the "German Jewish" in the Family section (as it's linked in the lead), "works of art", etc.
Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 1 (Oxford Dictionary of National biography..) I'm assuming you're referring to the Barker, Theo ref in the References? Might make more sense to make the footnote "Barker".
Correct and done. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Alphabetize your references, please
done. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 2 does not go to the marriage record, just to the home page. What makes this a reliable source, anyway?
Unfortunately the search results are not persistent for any great length of time. The information here is the same as that used by Ancestry.com except that it is free and is complied from the original microfiche of the birth, marriages and death registers.
nothing particularly but, it's primarily provided as a link to pictures of his house.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems to have changed somewhat since I originally linked to it. A better link would be to this which states the full dedication and which I have used instead. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
They are the publishers in conjunction with Boosey & Hawkes of the score for Salome. Doing a bit more digging, I have found on the B&H site a direct link to the first page of the score showing the dedication, so I have linked directly to that instead. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Intrinsically nothing, but the fact that he was a trustee is covered by reference 1. Reference 24 is supplementary to that, in part to provide some background on the gallery itself. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing particularly. I have found a reference since this was added in the new york times to his subscription of £1,000 to the Scott fund which I will replace this with.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Data is from a list complied by the United States Geological Survey. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica and Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica/S6 for the same information on Wikipedia.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a comprehensive list of stringed instruments (over 10,000 listed by nearly 300 makers (see the home page for the numbers), so I think it's safe to assume it's reliable.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 56 is lacking a publisher
Publisher is Killick & Co. Reformed the ref to make this clear.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This wholesale reversion [2] was rather unconsidered:
    • It's nice to avoid "this" clauses in formal writing when they can be rewritten. You reverted to "this was characterised by novels warning of the rising military threat" and "the parts of the Act of Settlement that prohibited this"
    • "Following the British declaration of war with Germany... Following a Royal Proclamation on 11 September 1914...." - you prefer two consecutive "following"s beginning a sentence?
    • "Accusations of disloyalty and treachery were made against him in the Press" - I had removed the passive and the capitalization of Press
    • "In June 1915, Sir George Makgill, Secretary of the Anti-German Union applied for permission" - needs a comma
    • "In December 1915, Lord Chief Justice Lord Reading, rejected the application" - doesn't need a comma
  • Eh? –Outriggr § 01:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: The source for Image:Qnshall.jpg is a dead link.

WrestleMania XXIV

Nominator(s): iMatthew


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

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

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

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

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Done with some replies. iMatthew 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, but a review of the lead only revealed a lot of questionable prose. Here's what I found.

  • Put the tagline reference after the quotation mark.
    • I can't figure out how to fix that. Look at the text for the infobox, it's weird.
      • Just forget about this one. Apparently, the template does that automatically. I don't think it can be fixed without editing the template. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Nine professional wrestling matches were programmed for the event". Don't think program is a better choice than scheduled, which I've seen in previous wrestling FACs.
  • "that featured The Undertaker's defeating World Heavyweight Champion Edge to win the title."
  • Logo in the infobox needs a link that specifically shows the logo as a source. One of our image reviewers can determine what else is needed.
  • "From the six scheduled bouts on the undercard, three received more promotion." More promotion than what?
  • Remove comma after Career Threatening match?
  • US dollar link isn't needed in the lead. As WrestleMania XXIV was held in the US, it is an American topic, and us Americans don't need links for our own currency.
  • Spell out Corp. in Enigma Research Corp.
  • Non-breaking spaces needed for the three million-dollar+ dollar totals in the lead.
    • Where? iMatthew 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
      • In between $51.5 million, $25 million, $1.8 million, and $23.8 million. Hit the edit page button to see how this is done; the space doesn't go before the first number, but rather before the million. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "ended up pumping an estimated $51.5 million instead of the projected $25 million into the local econony..." The original projection is harming the flow of the sentence. Either re-word it or just have it in the body.
  • "The Central Florida Sports Commission estimated that the event created numerous jobs and brought around 60,000 visitors to the city for the event." "Numerous" is too vague, can a reasonable estimate be given? Also, "for the event" should be dropped, since it's redundant with the earlt part of the sentence.

I recommend seeking a copy-edit for the whole article. If the lead has a large number of problems, the body probably needs work too. Let me know when these are done, and I'll review more when I can. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done with a few comments. iMatthew 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Dabs in the toolbox need attn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed.--WillC 05:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Significant contributors - you should have notified the significant contributors of the article about this FAC, since they are the ones who helped edit the article.SRX 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments from the lead.
  • From the six scheduled bouts on the undercard, three received more promotion than the other three. - "other three" → "others".
  • Is it possible to cut down on the usage of "bout" in the second paragraph of the lead.
  • Tickets for the event went on sale to the public on November 3, 2007. - Is there a better term for "went on sale"?
    • Not that I can think of.
  • For the second year in a row, WrestleMania broke the record for the highest-grossing pay-per-view in WWE history, as well as for the Citrus Bowl, grossing US$ 5.85 million in ticket sales. - "For the second year in a row" → "for the second consecutive year". Also, there is no space between the $ and the number.
  • The Central Florida Sports Commission estimated that the event created jobs and brought around 60,000 visitors to the city. - "around" → "approximately". Also, "estimate" is a term usually reserved for exact numbers, so "estimated that the event created jobs" reads oddly.
    • Suggestions to fix it?
  • WWE and the city of Orlando hosted festivities that spanned a five-day period within the central Florida region. - "city of Orland" → "City of Orland" (notice the change in capitalization).
  • More than one million people ordered the event on pay-per-view, grossing $23.8 million in revenue. - "More than" → "over".

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Nikki

  • "Ric Flair in his last match at WrestleMania XXIV, who lost to Shawn Michaels." - this is grammatically incorrect
  • "All wrestlers belonged to the SmackDown! brand – a storyline division in which WWE assigned its employees to a different program, the other being Raw" - I thought wrestlers from all three brands participated in WrestleMania.
  • It sounds confusing to call Cena the #1 Contender and then Triple H the same thing later on ("Triple H also became the #1 Contender..."). Maybe they would be better referred to as "a top contender for the championship" or something along those lines....something that indicates there can be more than one. Does WWE refer them both specifically as #1 Contenders?
  • "At No Way Out, The Big Show (Paul Wight) made a return to the company." - it might be good to add how long he'd been absent, so "At No Way Out, The Big Show (Paul Wight) made a return to the company after a (add time span here) hiatus."
    • How would I source that. That's why it was removed.
  • "Jeff Hardy was later removed from the match after being legitimately suspended by WWE for violation of the company's wellness policy" - this might make more sense to a non-fan if the fact that it was a drug violation was made clearer
  • "During an interview, WWE production manager Brian Petree mentioned that video reinforcement should prevent anyone from being obstructed by the steel structure." - anyone's view?
  • In the main event section, I don't think it is made clear enough that Sweet Chin Music is the name of Michael's superkick.
  • Some of the move names are in italics (like Pedigree and RKO) and some aren't (like Sweet Chin Music and FU). Make sure it is consistent throughout.

Nikki♥311 03:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Done with comments. ayematthew ✡ 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: Images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Scout Moor Wind Farm

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum


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

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

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

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

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

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've changed the "they work for you" reference to the original Hansard source. Richerman (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • NUAE is a german company name - what it stands for is not given anywhere - not in English anyway! I've changed the title of the ref to NUAE Geotextiles Ltd. News.
  • Rochdaleonline seems to be online news only, however the opening date is non-controversial and I've added a newspaper reference from two days earlier that says it will be officially opened on that date. Richerman (talk) 14:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments by Mgm|(talk) -- 12:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "A protest group was formed to resist the proposals" You never mentioned proposals before. Shouldn't this read "A protest group was formed to resist the construction of the wind farm" or something similar that fits better in the flow?
  • "Visible from as far away as south Manchester, the wind farm was officially opened on 25 September 2008, after "years of controversy",[4] at a cost of £50 million." Contains too many commas. Bad prose.
  • "The underlying geology broadly belongs to the Lower Coal Measures and is a mixture of hard rock and soft shale" (missing word)
  • "spans across to" needs rewording.
  • The last bit of the history section had me confused. Are you sure we need exact quotes here below the bill quote?
  • "exacerbated", "subsidence" and "grout" are not the sort of word I would think the typical reader knows.

I did some minor editing of my own during this review.- Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • "proposals" changed to "proposed construction".
  • "Visible from as far away ..." rewritten.
  • Added missing word in "The underlying geology ...".
  • "spans across to" changed to "extends to".
  • Minor rewrite to avoid use of the word "exacerbated", grout and subsidence now linked.
--Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. All my comments were addressed. Karanacs (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Comments

  • It says that the turbines can be seen from south Manchester - how far away is that?
  • Is there any information about the habitat management plan that they were supposed to come up with?
  • The lead appears to contain information that is not in the body of the article (forgive me if I missed it) - that it spans 2 mi, also the comparison with the offshore wind farm
  • How wide is the moor? What percentage is the wind farm using?

Karanacs (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Added distance from south Manchester.
  • Added the total area of the moor, and the area occupied by the wind farm.
--Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Moved information from lead to body of article Richerman (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Boeing 777

Nominator: User:Chergles (talk)


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

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

Comments -

  • It's usual to put magazine and newspaper titles in italics.
Many of the references use the template and the template did not italicize the titles. This is a wikipedia style error, not our error. I'll manually add italics. Chergles (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this is from confusion with how the fields work in the {{cite news}} and other cite templates. Work is the field you use for the title of the magazine, publisher would be the company behind the magazine. Ealdgyth -