Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2009: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
promote 4
promote 2
Line 1: Line 1:
== January 2009 ==
== January 2009 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanley Goble}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Iowa turret explosion}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benjamin Harrison}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benjamin Harrison}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tetrarch (tank)}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tetrarch (tank)}}

Revision as of 04:27, 6 January 2009

January 2009

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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:27, 6 January 2009 [1].

Stanley Goble

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Nominating this for FA because, naturally enough, I think it mets the criteria. However, for those who prefer something beyond the usual dry nomination spiel... From its inception in 1921 until the end of World War II, the history of the RAAF was often the story of two great rivalries at its highest echelons, between Richard Williams and Stanley Goble from 1921 to 1939, and between George Jones and William Bostock from 1942 to 1945. The "winners" in those two conflicts, Williams and Jones, are already the subjects of FAs; I’d like now to get the "runners-up" to the same level, starting off with this FAC for Stanley Goble, which is currently GA, and A-Class on the MILHIST project. Since passing ACR I’ve added further material and addressed one or two points raised in that review re. victories scored in World War I and sourcing for same. Any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Went back and checked links and http://www.airforce.gov.au/leaders/formerchiefs.htm deadlinks. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a great article which meets all the criteria. As a suggestion for further development, it may be worth expanding upon the factors which caused Goble to resign in 1940 - as it's fairly extraordinary that a senior officer would resign his command at the start of what was obviously going to be a long war, it would be interesting to flesh out his views on the EATS and his conflict with his deputy. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Was the Caudron a Caudron G.4? ϢereSpielChequers 14:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: An excellent, well-written and well-constructed article. I have a few small prose quibbles:-
    • "as had been his father", though grammatically correct, reads rather quaintly. Perhaps consider rephrasing
      • Came up with something different
    • Reference to the "new Royal Ar Force" (in the WW1 section) should be to the "newly-formed Royal Air Force".
      • Done
    • "Whilst" (in the Chief of Air Staff subsection) is, for reasons that escape me, a disapproved wikipedia word and should be replaced by "while".
      • Done
    • In the Circumnavigation section, "they encountered storms and disease". Storms I can understand, on a long flight, but disease? Does this simply mean that one or both were ill during the flight? Some brief clarification would help.
      • Modified
    • Quotations: the wiki line on quotes is that direct quotations within quote marks should be used for "unique phrases" or for comments of a controversial nature. By this standard I don't think that "conspicuous bravery and skill" or "curb Williams's independence" qualify as unique or controversial phrases, and since both are cited, the quote marks could go.
      • I would've thought that if we don't rephrase something we need to use quotes even if it isn't controversial, and I'd prefer to keep "conspicuous bravery and skill" since it's straight from the DSO citation. Re. "curb Williams's independence", in my own words it'd be keep Williams in check or limit Williams' automony, either of which I'd be happy to substitute.
High-quality stuff, well done. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a few comments.
  • 'Goble came to national attention in 1924 when he and fellow RAAF pilot Ivor McIntyre became the first men to circumnavigate Australia by air, journeying some 13,500 km in a single-engined floatplane. - Is it possible to get a conversion to miles?
    • Done
  • Goble died in 1948, at the age of fifty-six, two years after his retirement from the military. - Remove the comma after "1948".
    • Done
  • Although himself forced down on two occasions, he had avoided any injury during his active service. - This sentence is slightly confusing.
    • Modified
  • Prime Minister Stanley Bruce called the expedition "one of the most wonderful accomplishments in the history of aviation", his government presenting Goble with a gift of ₤500, and ₤250 to McIntyre. - The comma after "aviation" should be a semicolon.
    • I'd agree with a semi-colon if it read "his government presented" but with "presenting" I think the comma is correct. Happy to change to "his government presented" with a semi-colon if you'd prefer.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with comment.
  • Goble's wife and children are first mentioned in "Retirement and Legacy" section. I think this is OK but it would be better if that info was also found in the Lead and Reader was made aware of when he got married, maybe somewhere in the body of the article. A man's personal life is an important part of who he is and I don't think it is OK to leave that to a sentence in the last section. NancyHeise talk 03:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Nancy. Actually, "He married Kathleen Wodehouse in London on Anzac Day, 1922" is already mentioned in the Chief of the Air Staff section, which I think should suffice. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK there, I just think there should be something in the lead about the man's personal life but since this is a matter of personal taste, not an FA criteria, I still support the article for FA. It is very well done. NancyHeise talk 00:40, 4 January 2009 (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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:27, 6 January 2009 [2].

USS Iowa turret explosion

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk)

I believe that this article about a tragic accident aboard a United States Navy battleship is ready for consideration for FA. The article passed an A-class review with WP:MILHIST. Self-nomination but several other editors provided significant and much appreciated help including Allanon (a.k.a. the_ed17), Joe N, Otto4711, Cool Hand Luke, Dual Freq, MBK004, and TomStar81. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I'm not keen on the link to "doctorate" near the name of Dr. Richard Schwoebel. The foreword to his book on this subject describes him as a physicist with "technical expertise in studies of surface physics, material properties and safety issues". Would this be better than a link to doctorate? Still looking at the article.
  • Thompson, p. 358 calls him "Dr. Richard Schwoebel." It could be that Schwoebel is being self-effacing in his book, but I don't think it's a big deal. I removed the references to "Dr" and moved the image in question over to the right [3]. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Current ref 118 (IMDB..) needs a publisher and last access date outside the link title.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Is it possible to re-arrange the images so that Master Chief Stephen Skelley (center, facing camera) is not looking off the page, per WP:MOS#Images? (I realize it's not always possible to comply.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support I think this article is well done and meets FA criteria. However, it could be improved if some information were included about Moosally's retirement comments about the investigation. There are articles in both Washington Post and Boston Globe linked here [7]. NancyHeise talk 20:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I searched under "Moosally" in the Post's website and nothing came up. The Globe requires a member ship fee to view the article. What further information about Moosally's comments do feel is needed? Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I just clicked on the link I provided you and it did not go where I intended it to go. [8] this link has the names and dates of the Post and Globe articles that covered that notable event. I think Moosally's comments could be summed up in a single sentence. I also found this [9] book that could also be used as a source for his comments. I hope that helps. NancyHeise talk 05:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are still behind pay-per-view sites. Could you be more specific on what you think the article should say about Moosally's comments? I may be able to answer your concern with the sources I have if I ensure that I understand what is you're looking for. Cla68 (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cla68, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. This book [10] is fully available for use as a source of Moosally's comments. I think a sentence could be added to let Reader know Moosally's feelings about the investigation since he was intimately involved with the entire affair. I think that adding a quote would be fine too. Just let Reader know that at his retirement he felt this way about the investigation. NancyHeise talk 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking "Conditional" I see that Moosally's retirement quote is included now in Aftermath. Looks great! NancyHeise talk 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Although a bit on the long side, the information present here is extremely well backed-up. Definitely FA-Quality, well done! Cam (Chat) 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support so far. I haven't read all of it, and probably won't, but I've seen only good things. Thanks, Cla68 - it's interesting, and I wasn't aware of the incident until now.
A suggestion: On plutonium I saw content footnotes (as opposed to citation sources) listed in a separate section and demarcated by <ref group=note>foo</ref>. It may be more trouble than it's worth to change it, but you should be aware of the option. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've considered using a separate footnotes section but haven't decided yet on it. I might try it out on the next article I work on. Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now on criterion 3
  • File:16in Gun Turret.jpg - We need to know where this diagram was originally published to know whether or not it is a Navy publication and therefore in the PD. Please add the original publication information.
  • Is there any way to link to the image description page, that has the information about the photo on it? Note that at WP:IUP, it suggests linking to the HTML page that contains the image, not the image itself. Awadewit (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each article must have a separate fair use rationale that meets WP:NFCC (NFCC #10). Right now, I don't think that this image meets those criteria, specifically #8. I don't think that having this image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". If you believe the opposite to be the case, the fair use rationale has to make that case for this particular article. Awadewit (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose for including this fair use image says that "Clayton Hartwig is central to the controversy described in the article "USS Iowa turret explosion," therefore it is believed that a image of Hartwig is of educational benefit to readers." Could you please explain in the fair use rationale how Hartwig was central to the controversy? (After I read the lead of the article, I understood how he was central, but as a legal justification for the image this fair use rationale is extremely vague. It needs to be much more specific.) Awadewit (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:16inchload.jpg - Why do you believe that Charles Thompson II wrote this book as part of his naval duties? Currently the source information contradicts the author information a bit.
  • File:IowaVictimsDover1.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
  • File:Moosally and Bush.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
  • File:Richard Milligan.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
  • File:IowaBlackenedTurret.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
  • File:Milligan and Edney.jpg - This image needs a specific link to the DOD website so that we can verify the license without hunting around.
  • File:KelsoIowaBrief.JPEG - The source link is broken for this image, so we cannot verify the license. Please fix the link.

I will strike this objection once these issues have been resolved and I look forward to doing so soon. Awadewit (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not exchange the image of the gun turret with File:Iowa 16 inch Gun-EN.svg? JonCatalán(Talk) 06:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clayton Hartwig is a key figure in the controversy surrounding the Navy's investigation into the explosion. Thus, I felt it of educational benefit [17] to include an image of him in the article. If you don't agree then I may need to reevaluate that. Cla68 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, there is no way to directly link to the information page for the DefenseLink Multimedia images. The way they are presented is from a search results page that does not contain a unique location html. The only way to find them is to conduct a search under the image name, number, or subject. For the "disappeared" images I added access dates [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. Cla68 (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • File:Iowa 16 inch Gun-EN.svg is based off File:16in Gun Turret.jpg (same website as source), and thus suffers the same source issues as the scan from the book, featured picture or not.
  • File:Clayton Hartwig and Fred Moosally.jpg — I believe Awadewit is asking for the rationale to include this non-free picture. What purpose is it serving in the article, other than "here's a picture of Moosally and Hartwig together". Does it add to the significance of the article? Is it illustrating or conveying something that cannot be completely (accurately) expressed in words? If that is the case, then the rationale should be stated on the image page (the {{Non-free use rationale}} template has a "Purpose of use" field for this).
  • Personally, I think there is an overload of images in this article. In resolutions wider than 1024, the sequence of images that depicts the loading and firing of Iowa's guns is displaced one thumbnail image width to the left, creating an unsightly whitespace on the right. Are four pictures necessary for this? In terms of purpose, is File:IowaTurretExplosion1.jpg not similar to File:USS Iowa BB61 Iowa Explosion 1989.jpg? Jappalang (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source problem for the self-made diagram of the turret is different than if we wanted to use the original diagram itself. If we wanted to use the original diagram, it would have to be in the PD. If we want to use the diagram as a source, we only have to establish that it is a reliable source, not that it is in the PD. I agree that the source is hard to pin down and looks a bit sketchy. How reliable is this website? Awadewit (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - assuming that the image problems are worked out. IMHO, this is an excellent article, and I am proud to be mentioned at the top of this page even though I really didn't do much. Good luck, and (as I said in the A-class review) very good work Cla. On a side note, sorry for never getting to that references check that I said I was going to do during the A-class review... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Ed, assuming image issues are resolved. I read most of this during ACR but didn't get round to commenting/supporting, so pleased to do so now. An amazing amount of work has gone into this, and it succeeds in covering the nuances of a very tangled web. Well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I read roughly half of the article (I'll hopefully review the rest eventually) and the prose is generally excellent. This is a very comprehensive, engaging, and well-written article. I have one comment, however. The Background contains a block of images that should alternate alignments per WP:ACCESS. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:18, 31 December 2008 (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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:51, 3 January 2009 [28].

Benjamin Harrison

Nominator(s): Coemgenus

This article was promoted to GA a few months back, thanks to the work of editor Charles Edward, among others. Since then, I've added some more information and believe it to be of FA-quality. Coemgenus 23:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This article is very good. I found one statement which needs a citation: For the third vacancy, which arose in 1892, Harrison nominated George Shiras. Shiras's appointment was controversial because his age — sixty — was considered advanced at the time. Majoreditor (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cite is to the same pages as the previous cite, so I added it again. I changed the wording a bit -- the issue apparently wasn't that they thought he would die soon, something to do with his pension. Coemgenus 03:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. Question: would the "legacy" section benefit by adding a brief assessment of the effectiveness of his presidency and public attitude toward Harrison? Majoreditor (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is any public perception of him nowadays. I'll look in the sources. Coemgenus 16:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Weak Support I read the article with great interest. I found no major problems (except one, see below) that can prevent it from becoming featured. I only want to say that according to MOS you should use either spaced ndash or unspaced mdash (and this should be consistent throughout the article). Spaced mdash should not be used. I fixed spaced mdashes myself, but you should check, because I might have missed something.
The only problem that I found is the 'Legacy' section. It actually says nothing about legacy, but contains mainly trivia. I think the section should be disbanded and the information should be distributed among other sections. Ruslik (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I integrated it; see my comment below. Coemgenus 17:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query In the tariff section the phrase "was had the" is ambiguous and the whole section is unclear as to whether the measure was passed. Either the measure went through in which case it "was the" or it failed to be enacted and "would have been" ϢereSpielChequers 13:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that one. Coemgenus 17:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Also you have a map for the Presidential election he lost, (though I think the Upper Peninsula is coloured incorrectly on it) but why no map for the election he won? ϢereSpielChequers 16:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the 1888 map. The 1892 map is colored as it is to represent the Michigan divided its votes between the two candidates. Coemgenus 17:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all that. ϢereSpielChequers 18:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute with Chile has a different explanation for the riot than the article linked. Accepting refugees in one and intervention in the other. Worth checking that out and bringing the articles into line with each other (I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't multiple views as to the cause of the tension).
The post Presidential section leaves me with some questions:
Apart from the boycot of their father's wedding to their cousin there is no further mention of the rift with his elder children, were matters subsequently resolved?
If his time in California was brief, in which year did it end?
Why in an otherwise chronological section was the book publication out of sequence, was that when it was written?
Why was his book not published for nearly two decades after his death? ϢereSpellCheckers 00:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Of course I have spent considerable time working on this article myself, so I am a bit biased :). The legacy section is the only area I am still concerned about as is noted above. It was in fact a trivia section at one point, which I significantly pared downed, put into prose, and labeled legacy hoping to at some point get more information on his legacy (which I have yet to find much). We should probably remove that section and try to integrate into the rest of the article before we grant FA status. Charles Edward (Talk) 14:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • In the Early legal career section, specify "In the same year".
    • At the end of the section, there's a man named Fishbank but the firm was called Fishback; which is right?
    • There's a redlink for the Regiment in the Civil War section; link can be removed if no article exists.
    • In the next paragraph, "the 70th Indiana" sounds weird.
    • Should the image of the house in the Early legal career section go under Indiana politics by "to build a grand new home in Indianapolis."?
    • "losing by 5,084 votes": How few is that; out of how many?
    • Under United States Senator, do we know which cabinet position he was offered?
    • Election over Cleveland: "90,000 fewer popular votes" How much is that in proportion to the total number cast?
    • The post-presidency section, especially the Venezuela attorney part, could be lengthened a little, especially since it's mentioned in the lead.
      • I did some copyediting throughout the article, mostly punctuation and minor phrasing, but these are what I wasn't sure about. Overall it is an excellent and very informative article. I had read it in a very short state last year, and you have done an excellent job improving it! Reywas92Talk 18:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added total vote numbers for the two instances you noted. In regards to the cabinet position, my sources do not indicate which position, but only states "a position in the Garfield cabinet". I also expanded the post presidency section a bit with another source. I also corrected the name of the Indiana regiment and changed the link to point to the Indiana regiments page. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing them. The sources I have also don't specify which cabinet job. "70th Indiana" is the form of name I've heard for other Civil War regiments, too, so I'd suggest we leave that as is. Christmas Eve probably wasn't the best time for me to nominate this for FA, but I'll try to keep up! Coemgenus 20:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Comprehensiveness worries. I only read the "Family and education" section, but I feel like it could be beefed up a bit to better describe his background. It does an adequate job giving a timeline of what happened in his early life, but I think an FA biography should go a bit deeper.
    • He was seven when his grandfather was sworn in as President. What kind of impact did this have on his childhood?
    • "He maintained a membership in the Sons of the American Revolution." Who's "he"?
    • "In 1845...In 1847...In 1850" The repetition makes for some dull reading here.
    • "he was provided with a tutor " Was he struggling with his studies? He had tutors before this though, according to Calhoun and Moore. The quotation from his first tutor Harriet Root about him being "the brightest of the family" might do well integrated here.
    • What kind of childhood did he have? Was his family well-off? Middle class? What did his father do at the time?
    • "In 1847 he was enrolled in Farmer's College" Might want to make it clear whether this was for preparatory or undergraduate work.
    • No mention of the deaths of his mother/siblings and how it affected him?
    • No mention of the influence of Robert Hamilton Bishop?
    • Why did he want to transfer?
    • How did he do at Miami University? How did his activities/performance there shape him?
    • Might want to devote some words to his decision to pursue law instead of the ministry after graduation.
    • No description of how he met/fell in love with Caroline Lavinia Scott? BuddingJournalist 22:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some details of his early life. I don't want to add too much, partly because it will be of less interest to most readers than his adult life, and partly because there isn't much about it in the sources I have. Do you think Bishop influenced him that much? Calhoun devotes two paragraphs to Bishop, but never mentions him again. If you have access to the Sievers books, there may be more in there (almost certainly; they are lengthy) but I don't, so I can add no more than I have. Coemgenus 00:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, one certainly needs to strike a balance. I just feel that more discussion would be worthwhile on how his childhood and early life shaped him and his future, rather than listing what happened (in this year, Harrison did such-and-such). For example, see the early life section of Ronald Reagan, which discusses his faith. Both Calhoun and Moore say that he was heavily influenced by Bishop, and Calhoun spends time talking about his political writings/speeches he made while at Miami University. I think it'd be interesting to note that at Miami, he was already distinguishing himself as a leader and public speaker. The full text of Sievers is available online for free courtesy of the great folks of archive.org: http://www.archive.org/details/benjaminharrison007546mbp. BuddingJournalist 02:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to that website for the Sievers -- I'll look it over and see if he has anything to add, and I'll see if I can summarize some pertinent info from the other sources, too. Coemgenus 04:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit from Sievers to the Early Life section. Only the first volume is online, so I won't be able to do the same for later parts of his life. Coemgenus 15:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many image layout issues (see WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS#Images). Official White House portrait of Benjamin Harrison is looking off the page, and several images are above sections rather than within them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've corrected the issues you've mentioned. Please let me know if there are further inconsistencies with the MOS. Coemgenus 18:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question about research - The first thing I did when I came to this article was look at the list of references consulted. I was shocked that there were so few and shocked that the article relies almost exclusively on one biography. However, I know nothing about Harrison scholarship, so, I trotted over to JSTOR and looked up a review of the Calhoun biography. Unfortunately there was only one (not a good sign). It was generally positive, but it mentioned that the biography is part of a TIME series that "clearly hopes to appeal to a wide audience". I'm concerned that the scholarly biographies on Harrison have not been used to write this article. Unfortunately, I do not know what those are. Have the editors endeavored to find and use all of the biographies of Harrison while researching and writing this article? For most of the major biographical articles I've written (such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Joseph Priestley, and Mary Shelley), I've had to read seven or eight biographies and I haven't written on a figure as well-known as a US president. Awadewit (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All biographies I know of were used, with the exception of the second and third volume of Sievers. If you discover any others, and if I am able to procure them, I will be glad to see if they have any new information worth adding. Coemgenus 15:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3
  • File:GenBenHarrison.jpg - Without an author for this image, we cannot assert that 100 years plus the life of the author has passed. Do any of the Harrison books give more information on this photo, such as its publication date or its photographer?
  • File:Billion dollar Congress.jpg - Do you have the issue and volume number for the magazine this was published in? Note that WP:IUP says "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information) and not just title and author." This is true for magazines as well.
  • File:DJBrewer.jpg - The LOC page says "copyright Clinedust, Washington, DC" but it also says "created/published c.1907". Now, if it was published in 1907, it is in the PD because it was published before 1923. However, it was only created in 1907, that is not the case. Do you know anything else about this photo?
    • The LOC says it was published in 1907. That's good enough for me. Coemgenus 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The LOC says that is was "created/published in 1907", as I stated above. There is a difference between being created in 1907 or published in 1907 (the LOC unfortunately is not drawing the distinction here for whatever reason). Since, the LOC is claiming that Clinedust owns the copyright, we need to be sure that this image was published before 1923. That is why I am asking, do you have any further information regarding the publication of this image? Awadewit (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't upload it; all I know is what is contained on the source page on the LOC website. I doubt they're violating the copyright any more than we are, but I can't substantiate it from the info there. Coemgenus 03:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The LOC leaves it up to users to determine copyright - see their extensive tutorial here. Not everything in the LOC is PD and not everything has enough information allowing us to use it on Wikipedia (the LOC's rules are different from our rules). The way around the problem with this image would be to demonstrate that the author has been dead for over 70 years (but we don't know the author), 95 years since the first publication or 120 years since the creation of the work. That is why it is important to know when the image was published versus when it was created. You can see why the publish/creation distinction is important. We can only use the image if it was published over 95 years ago. I was hoping one of the Harrison books might mention it. Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I swapped it for a different pic. On the new picture's page at LOC, it says there are no known restrictions on reproduction. Coemgenus 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • "No known restrictions" actually doesn't mean PD. We have to establish PD. It looks like this passes the "pre-1923" test, since no one else is claiming the copyright and we have a reason to believe it was published before 1923. Lucky, since the photographer died in 1952! Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These issues should not be difficult to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2009 (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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:51, 3 January 2009 [29].

Tetrarch (tank)

Nominator(s): Skinny87 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article becauseI believe it meets all of the standards required for a Featured Article. Interestingly, if passed this would be the first British tank to become a Featured Article! Skinny87 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support & comments
    • Tetrach should be disambiguated (see the dabs finder to the right of this page).
    • Sources look good; all published sources.
    • Images all have public domain tags, but someone more experienced should take a look at them.

JonCatalán(Talk) 20:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Catalan. I realize the dab should be resolved, but I can't because I have no idea what the tank is named after - the system of government, the emperor, or who knows what else. None of my sources state why it was named that, which is odd. I suppose the only way to find out would be some original research at the Imperial War Museum or Bovington Tank Museum. Skinny87 (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — as follows:

Thanks Jappalang. I have to admit I don't know anything about the images in question, as they were both there when I started working on the article. The first one might just be an edited version of the photo you found, but for the colour one I have no idea. What happens now in that respect? Skinny87 (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted the user who uploaded it to see if he can help. But if it can't be resolved, there are some nice black and white PD photos on the IWM site I can replace it with, so it's no hassle if it has to be deleted. Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a colourised image might be copyrighted, the image could be deleted from Commons. If the uploader is unable to help, removing the image from this article would be fine and would not hurt the article. After all, like you say, there are other images of the Tetrarch. Jappalang (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I replace the image now to make things easier? And what about the first image? Skinny87 (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be best. As for the first image, I think it is fine since the original image has been found (and removing trees is unlikely to be such an effort that it becomes copyrightable), thus the validity of the PD claim should hold. Personally, I would leave it in unless someone comes up with a valid argument for non-PD. Jappalang (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll replace it now - I've found a nice image of the side of a Tetrarch that has nice ev - should've thought of it earlier. Thanks for the help!

(outdent) Colourised image replaced with [30], which is hopefully labelled correctly and such. Skinny87 (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments — I think a further copyedit (maybe by an editor divorced from the article, so he or she can edit from a different angle) could be in order. There are redundancies (such as the sentence "The Mk VII was designed to be the latest design in a series of ..." can be reduced to "The Mk VII was the latest design in a series of ...") and repetitiveness (such as the two "designed"s in "First, the tank was designed to solve the problems found in previous light tanks designed by the company ..."). Some ideas could be rearranged to yield more compact paragraphs (presentation), such as mentioning the "two-man turret" with the armaments instead of dumping it in a sentence bordered by engine specifications and transmission system. Jappalang (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll get going with a copy-edit as soon as I get back from visiting London today! Skinny87 (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am such a wikiholic, I swear. I've given the article an initial copy-edit, dealt with your suggestions and got a few repetitive words, Jappalang. Would you mind looking again and seeing if it's up to standards yet? Skinny87 (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Skinny87, I still think it could do with a fresh pair of eyes. For example,
  • in the lede, "The Tank, Light, Mk VII, also known as the Tetrarch, was a British light tank, produced by Vickers-Armstrong in the late 1930s, which saw service during World War II. The Tetrarch was originally designed to be the latest in the line of light tanks they had built for the British Army, and also to improve upon its predecessor, the Mk VIB Light Tank, by introducing thicker armour and extra fire-power in the form of a 2 pounder gun." presents a few issues.
  • "Tank, Light, Mk VII"? Bishop names it the "Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch", while Tucker calls it the "Mk VII Tetrarch Light Tank (A17)".
  • Gasp* Here we go. Right, changed it to 'Light Tank Mk VII, also known as the Tetrarch'. I was basing it off of other wiki articles, shouldn't have done that, my bad.
  • The primary subject (and hence the focus of the readers) of the first sentence is the tank. The second sentence has "they" as a pronoun, which I understand is supposed to refer to the manufacturers; however, the primary subject remains on the tank, and the sentence structure is not conducive to help readers flip back to recall Vickers-Armstrong as "they".
Right, changed as well to 'the company'
  • From what I read in Chris Bishop's The Encyclopedia of World War II, the later models of the Tetrarch's predecessors had equivalent armour (thus making the claim of "introducing thicker armour" questionable). Tucker's Tanks even stated the Mk VIB was protected by 14 mm of steel.
Got to look into this, will come back to it.
I must've got that wrong, but I've altered the lead and development section to reflect that the armour was not increased. Maybe I got it confused with the Mk VIII; I did work on them both at the same time.
  • the copyedited phrase "The Mk VII possessed a machine-gun, but also mounted a 2 pounder 40-millimetre (1.6 in) main gun, the first Vickers-Armstrong light tank to do so, both of which were in a two-man turret;" tries to squeeze too many ideas, and ends up awkward. It could be broken up into something like "First, to address the lack of heavy weaponry in its previous light tanks, Vickers-Armstrong installed a 2 pounder 40-millimetre (1.6 in) main gun on the Mk VII. The cannon was paired with a 7.92 mm Besa machine gun, and the two guns were mounted in a two-man turret.", although this suggestion would also require the rework of the preceding sentence ("First, the tank was designed ... and were insufficiently armoured.").
Righto, thats changed, as is the preceding sentence.
  • the description of the "unusual steering and mechanical system" is quite confusing to a general reader and at odds with a source. Tucker explains it as a "modified Christie suspension" that steers the front wheels, thus bending the tracks for gentle turns, and follows the old ways for sharp turns. The current article text talks about "lateral movement" of the wheels, tilting and turning them to change the direction of the tank (underlined for emphasis). The text, as it is structured, also seems to hint that all turns are made in this manner (instead of the hybridised manner as described by Tucker). Was Tucker wrong, or was the concept just awkwardly worded for the article?
  • Mutters* That was a source of...disagreement a few weeks ago between myself and another editor. I've rewritten it now as it was awkwardly worded. It got a bit confusing, but hopefully it makes sense now.
I am pretty sure that most information about the Tetrarch is in this article, thus satisfying comprehensiveness. Prose, however, still needs work in my opinion. I believe help may be requested at the Guild of Copy Editors and peer review volunteers. Jappalang (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments; I have requested an editor to do a copy-edit, but I don't know how long it will take; I'm worried it will fail the Candidacy if I can't get it copy-edited soon enough.
I've given it another copy-edit; maybe that'll help in the mean-time, got a few things in the Ironclad and Tonga sections anyhow. Skinny87 (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny87, I am going into further details on the talk page of this FAC. Jappalang (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I think this has been resolved. Skinny87 (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Tetrarch (tank)#Variants refers to a 12 hp engine, is this 12 cylinder? ϢereSpielChequers 14:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I'm honestly not sure. I'm completely clueless about mechanical things - are the two things a major difference? Does something need to be changed or clarified? Skinny87 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, my bad. Looking the two things up, I've changed it to cylinder; 12 hp probably wouldn't even get the Tetrarch moving! Thanks for catching that, I've corrected the Mk VIIIs article as well. Skinny87 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense! ϢereSpielChequers 00:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from the lead:
  • The Tank, Light, Mk VII, also known as the Tetrarch, was a British light tank, produced by Vickers-Armstrong in the late 1930s, which saw service during World War II. - Too many commas.
Commas de-comma'd!
  • The War Office ordered 70 of the tanks, an order which was eventually increased to 220; however, production was delayed by a number of factors. - This sentence would be better as "The War Office ordered 70 of the tanks, which was eventually increased to 220; however, production was delayed by a several factors."
Changed!
  • As a consequence, only 100 to 177 of the tanks were ever produced. - Remove "ever".
Changed!
  • As a consequence, the majority of the Tetrarchs produced remained in Britain, although twenty were sent to the USSR as part of the Lend-Lease program. - Change "As a consequence" to "as a result" to avoid repetition with a similar phrase in the lead. Also, why is "twenty" spelled out?
Changed again!
  • A lack of gliders meant that they did not participate in the Allied invasion of Sicily in 1943; instead they were attached to the new 6th Airborne Division, becoming part of the 6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment. - "A lack of gliders meant that they did not participate in the Allied invasion of Sicily in 1943" → "A lack of gliders prevented them from participating in the Allied invasion of Sicily in 1943".
Thanks for that, altered
  • Is it possible to remove some instances of the word "saw" in the lead? It seems kind of odd, seeing that tanks can't see.

Nice work overall. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 04:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're gone, and thanks for the comments and the compliment! Skinny87 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've spent 10 minutes trying to find flaws in this article, either in what I there or isn't, and find it to be a great article. The closest I could get to criticism now would be the reliant on Flint, though he is the authoritative voice on Tetrarchs as I understand it, so, difficult to see that as an avoidable thing. (ec: Damn you Ironholds!) --Narson ~ Talk • 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In my opinion the article should pass. I can't see what needs copy-editing.

Glubbdrubb (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Spent some time copy editing it, hopefully O.K. I fount the article very interesting and clearly presented. The only issue is that, perhaps, some more of the military terms could be wikilinked or explained. I found a link for pillbox. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - should "75 mm artillery pieces" be wikilinked to Ordnance QF 75 mm or Canon de 75 modèle 1897? —Mattisse (Talk) 05:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copy-editing, much appreciated; after double-checking Flint, the latter link to the French 75 is correct. Skinny87 (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2009 (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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:51, 3 January 2009 [31].

Lockdown (2008)

Nominator(s): User:Wrestlinglover
previous FAC (00:39, 20 October 2008)

I am nominating this article for FA status because, well I want it to be an FA. I have no good reason to nominate it. Since its last FAC, I believe all of the problems have been taken care of. The sourcing problems has been resolved. WrestleView was a big problem in the last review. All the sources from WrestleView have been removed besides two. They only source minor things that need a source. It has had a copyedit by someone who has nothing to do with the Professional wrestling project and has never read the article before. It has been cut down a great deal. Going from 44 kilobytes to 39 kilobytes. The prose issue, I believe, has also been taken care of, but I'll let you, the reviewers, decide that. If there is any problems with the article I will take care of them immediately. Just name them and I'll get right on them.--WillC 23:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved long discussion to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Lockdown (2008)

Comments - Overall, it's in much better shape than at the start of the first FAC. In a full reading, I still found a few nagging prose concerns, though. Not too much, and it shouldn't take long to resolve them.

Keep in mind that this is at least my fourth review of the article, so I'm familiar with the writing by now. Giants2008 (17-14) 05:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left a couple notes under responses above. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I got them. I must have not been paying attention.--WillC 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I know you don't agree with the removal of that match, but I do feel that the article is better for it. With my concerns about summary style and prose alleviated, my primary remaining issue is the two questionable sources (Pro Wrestling History.com and Wrestling Observer.com). If these can be resolved, I'll be ready to support. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wrestling Observer should only have one reference in there and it is a review of the event. I mention in the only version why the Observer is reliable. Pro Wrestling History is only maginable reliable. Though it only sources attendance and match times. Maybe this helps.--WillC 04:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this will help, Wrestling Observer is operated by Dave Meltzer, a prominent professional wrestling reviewer and reporter, in this case, his website is being referenced for a critical reception versus sourcing important information. Pro Wrestling History is not reliable as a whole, in this case, its not referencing anything major or important like results, but instead the attendance and match times, which can be seen and heard on videos of the event (which is where this source gets its information). If PWH is still sketchy, {{cite episode}} might work better here then.--SRX 17:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, all of the facts cited by the two questionable websites could be provided from the broadcast. That's probably the best option. Primary sources should be kept to a minimum if possible, but I don't see any problem with using them in this case. The facts aren't controversial, and a broadcast or DVD reference would be more reliable than what is currently used. At this point, why leave any doubts? Giants2008 (17-14) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm not all here today, exactly what are you asking me to do? TNA never announces how many people they have in atttendance, nor during the live event or on the DVD. I can remove the Wrestling Observer ref if you want.--WillC 00:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is saying that you should remove the PWH references and cite the content with {{cite episode}}, thus citing the broadcast. The WO can stay since its used for reception and criticism purposes.--SRX 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
But the times nor attendance is ever stated. TNA has no mention of time length in the DVD or anywhere. What is the point of citing something that does not have that information? The Wrestling Observer ref has nothing to do with reception.--WillC 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either do more research or remove it from the infobox or wherever is is mentioned.--SRX 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
WO cites were replaced. Do WrestleView or PWTorch have the match times or attendance? I'll probably end up supporting it anyway since the facts aren't controversial, but I want to ensure that the use of PWH is needed. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PWTorch has the times but tend to roundoff. They don't give the attendance though. WrestleView does not give the times.--WillC 23:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Support - The questioned references aren't citing anything contentious, so I'm willing to accept them as is. Finally, I think that it's good enough to meet the standards, though I admit to reading this too much recently to have much distance from it. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:16, 1 January 2009 (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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:51, 3 January 2009 [33].

The Simpsons Game

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), TheLeftorium

Before working on this article with User:Theleftorium, it looked like this. It has come a long way from that, and we now believe that it is ready for FA. Gary King (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations, such as BBFC, in the references.
  • Current ref 27 (Hopper, Steven..) is lacking a publisher.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done Gary King (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should this be here? "Users should not add a second nomination until the first has gained support..." etc etc. Scene7 was only nominated a couple of days ago & has no support yet. And FAC is pretty crowded at the moment. Would there be any harm if this waited a while? Brianboulton (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) Oh, I see it's a co-nom. I suppose that's within the rules? Brianboulton (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could switch the nominations, if that makes a difference? Gary King (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If its within the rules, no problem as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what decides which reviews are included in the reception box at the bottom of the page? Is there a reason why say scores of the Wii or PSP version from GameSpot and IGN aren't included when they are available? The first sentence of the Reception section reads "The game received generally positive reviews, receiving an aggregated score of 71% on Metacritic for the Xbox 360 version of the game." - the link provided describes a score of 71% as "mixed or average reviews", not "generally positive". Guest9999 (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed the overall reaction wording. Also, the Infobox now includes scores for every console—scores are only included in the Infobox if their references are also used somewhere else in the article. Gary King (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense, thanks for the information. Guest9999 (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Are all those release dates needed in the infobox? They make the infobox very long, and I can't imagine how the info could be useful to the general reader. As a counterexample, album/single infoboxes are recommended to only display the earliest date.
  • The fake-games links to their original ones (eg: Medal of Homer to Medal of Honor) are confusing. I thought for a minute there that Medal of Homer had its own article. Either delink them or mention clearly "(a parody of Medal of Honor) indopug (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a recently promoted FA as an example that I can use for the infobox? For the moment, I want to keep the dates there as I'd rather have them in the article than not, and I'd rather have them in the infobox than in prose. I've unlinked those links. Gary King (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really work with video game articles so I don't know about that, but you can see this at Thriller (album) (which has been rereleased many many times). indopug (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The date given in that infobox is probably the first worldwide release date of the album. It's different from the release dates of this game. Plus, it wouldn't change much, anyways, since at least one release date should be given for each console. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Myst IV: Revelation uses a show/hide function for the multiple release dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Gary King (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with two comments.
    • Do you think the image in "gameplay" should be a bit smaller? The text between the image and the bottom of the infobox seems a bit squished together.
    • I think the dates should be listed how they are. Otherwise they make the infobox too big.
    • Otherwise, great job. Tezkag72 15:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the image; it wasn't even at the correct paragraph before, but it is now, and it also doesn't squish the text between the infobox anymore. As for the release dates, it was placed into a collapsed box after the discussion right above yours, and I think that it does indeed help to make the infobox smaller nicely. I don't quite understand what you mean, also, because you want the collapsed box removed but say that it would otherwise make the infobox long, but if I removed the collapsed box and didn't hide the release dates by default then the infobox would be longer initially. Gary King (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I originally thought there shouldn't be a "show" function, but I changed my mind, went back, crossed it out, and put my other opinion, which is what I think now. I guess I'll just remove the crossed-out phrase. Tezkag72 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Gary, the writing in the lead doesn't fill me with confidence.

  • Packing too much into the second sentence—and and and: "The game was developed, published, and distributed by Electronic Arts and released in North America in October 2007 and worldwide in November 2007." Try this: "The game was developed, published, and distributed by Electronic Arts; it was released in North America in October 2007 and worldwide in November 2007."
  • "As" is a bug-bear in English, especially for non-native readers. Does it mean "because" or "while"? "The game follows the five Simpson family members—Homer, Marge (with Maggie), Bart, and Lisa—as they learn that they are part of a video game and are given superpowers to resolve several situations." Try "...—who learn they are ...". You could lose the "that".
  • "The Simpson family travels to four scenarios in parodies of other games to collect key cards used to infiltrate their creator's mansion and ultimately save their predecessors from destruction." So they save their predecessors by travelling to those scenarios or not? If so, add "to" before "save". There's a lot of this type of meaning-altering ellipsis of "to" and "will" I'm seeing in FACs.

Maybe it improves later in the article. Tony (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I believe User:Theleftorium has got them. Gary King (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 - We need to hash out the fair use images! Cage match!

  • File:The Simpsons Game - screenshot.png - I question the need for this fair use image. It is very hard to see the HUD elements in the image, which is the ostensible reason for its inclusion. You really have to peer at the screen to see them and they are very unclear even when you do manage to peer in.

Looking forward to quickly resolving these issues. Awadewit (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done the first. The second is the best screenshot we've got. Other screenshots would show the HUD that small, too, but at least this one is bright and also shows both Bart and Lisa, two of the four main characters. Fixed the Groening. Gary King (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the reason for the screenshot is to show the HUD elements (as is outlined on the fair use rationale). If those elements are really too small to be seen, there is no reason to have the image. I would suggest removing this image. Awadewit (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've tweaked the rationale and the image caption. The screenshot also shows Lisa using her saxophone special power to stun enemies. She's playing her saxophone and the wavy lines coming from her indicates the stun power, which is affecting the wood logger enemies. Gary King (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not discuss the visual aspects of the saxophone's power, however. Remember, that there has to be critical commentary associated with the image. Right now, the article states that Lisa uses her saxophone to stun enemies. Can you add a bit more to the article that would justify having an image of that happening? Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image. Gary King (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I have struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with quick comment (haven't looked above at all). Any more recent estimates for sales total? Otherwise, I can't find anything seriously wrong about it. I'm a tad concerned the writing might not be the most encyclopediac (like in the plot section), but I realize that might be difficult given the content. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the most recent we could find, but we'll keep looking. Gary King (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with small comment. The External links section looks rather small compared to other Featured Video Game Articles. Are there any other sites which would be appropriate for that section? Paper Luigi (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added links to GameTrailers and MobyGames. —TheLeftorium 23:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • They praised its visuals and writing, which included many parodies of other video games, while they criticized its short length and poor camera system, which does not always function properly. - the lead is in a past tense, so the does should be a did
  • She can use it to flick, smash, freeze, or send lightning bolts to enemies as well as lift certain items. - comma before as well
  • The Simpsons Game, which parodies video games from 30 years ago to the present, was forced to have some of its content removed after several video game companies complained about it. Rizzer, however, was still pleased with the amount of parody in the game and considered The Simpsons the "perfect vehicle to poke fun at the games industry". At the 2007 Games Convention in Leipzig, Germany, a poster for "Grand Theft Scratchy", one of the levels in The Simpsons Game and a parody of Grand Theft Auto, was asked to be taken down by an employee of Rockstar Games, the company that develops the Grand Theft Auto series of video games. - is this verified by ref #18? --Truco 15:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
All done. Yep, that's all verified by that ref. Gary King (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow you're quick with these comments, Support promotion to FA after meeting WP:WIAFA.--Truco 15:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
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/Featured_log/January_2009&oldid=262241459"