Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2012

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 05:35, 6 September 2012 [1].

---

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Nominator(s): Waveclaira (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

looking for feedback to improve on

• conciseness of article
• helpful content that is missing

anything that has to do with references and sources will be updated, included, etc. so no need to comment on that. no need to comment on neutral point of view either. you should edit the article yourself instead of just commenting on anything you'd like improved.

Waveclaira (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Hi Waveclaira, welcome to FAC. Have you notified the main editors of this article already? See the instructions at the top of the WP:FAC page. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

im a main editor. there's no instructions about notifying. you should quote word for word. like "this"Waveclaira (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

and there's a template onthe talk page so everyone is automatically notified, just so you knowWaveclaira (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Skeptical comment. I am very concerned that this article does not (and perhaps, by its nature, cannot) meet criterion 1(e) [stability] — or whether we can get a stable consensus for criterion 1(d) [neutrality]. People are constantly arguing over the content and changing things back and forth in an attempt to make the article read according to their views (pro or con) on the topic. Am I being too pessimistic here? What do others think? — Richwales 00:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest this be speedily closed--the nominator is a new account whose only activity has been to nominate this. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:19, 3 September 2012 [2].

---

Curt Roberts

Nominator(s): Secret ^account 05:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... Roberts was trailblazer in his field whose name is relatively unknown today. First black player in Pittsburgh Pirates history, but only lasted a few seasons and went on to a obscurity. Hell most of his former teammates didn't learn of Roberts death until being approached by a journalist writing a major piece on him nearly 20 years later. I used or saw just about every source I have access to on the subject. There's a good number out there but it's simply not encyclopedic as it is rather trivial game detail. Thus the article is a bit on the smaller side. Thanks for Sarastro1 for the GA review and Giants2008 and The Rambling Man for the peer review feedback.

I saw the sources Giants2008 gave me and I used the two main ones he linked as a citation once, as the first book "Crossing the Line: Black Major Leaguers, 1947-1959" is riddled with errors and original research with no sources to back it up, including its section on Roberts. The second book is about Roberto Clemente discusses Roberts (a bit off-topic as well) from the Pittsburgh Courier perspective, which is a very interesting tidbit, but confusing to the reader unless I get a hold of the archives of the Courier which seems to be available only though the University of Pittsburgh library archives. So knowing that, I'll try to fix any concerns as quick as possible but note weekends are very hard for me. Thanks Secret ^account 05:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose The article lacks a picture (a requirement), seems under-referenced, and may be a bit short for a Featured Article. However, it seems well-written. Pokajanje|Talk 22:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is no length requirement for featured articles--check out the bottom of this table. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • How is this "under-referenced"? And pictures are not a requirement, per WP:FA?. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Criterion 3: "Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status." Images are a requirement. Pokajanje|Talk 20:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It does not at all. Perhaps read the sentence aloud. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 21:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That criterion is confusing. Does it read "It has images, and other media where appropriate..." or "It has images and other media, where appropriate..."? It could be taken either way, and I took it as the first. (In any case, the article lacks any media at all in its present state.) Pokajanje|Talk 15:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the subject played during the 1950s, and died very young a free image is practically impossible to find for the subject, unless I use a very low quality newspaper photo. Most of the images I've seen of the subject comes from the Associated Press or Topps both of which are way too risky and invalid for fair use. If someone can find a free image of Roberts go right ahead, but unless I'm required to put a image (ping FAC delegate), I rather pass for now at least. Secret ^account 01:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's a viable image possibility presented, it's not required. Sometimes there just isn't an available photo under a usable license. (That being said, there may be opportunities to include images not of the article subject, at your discretion). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I did an image search myself. All baseball cards of him are 1954 or 1955 Topps, which are still copyright; had I found Bowman (which I was hoping to) or a Baseball Digest image, then those would have worked. Adding the Topps one in would be okay under non-free criteria, but it doesn't need to be done just to be done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Topps is particularly strict with their copyright. There was a OTRS complaint a few years back on using their cards even as fair use so I'm not going to bother uploading them. I do wonder however, if material from The Sporting News was ever renewed. They have some high quality images that can be used. Secret ^account 18:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Don't switch from mdy to dmy within refs
• Compare formatting of FNs 14 and 21. Look for similar inconsistencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Done? Secret ^account 23:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – Sorry, but I don't think the writing is strong enough to meet criterion 1a at the moment. Also, while I can't say that I find the oppose that convincing, I do think there's a point to be made that one or two key details are missing. Sorry to hear that the Crossing the Line book wasn't that helpful.

• "After becoming the starting second baseman for the Pirates in his rookie year, Roberts playing time decreased...". Apostrophe needed at the end of Roberts.
• Not sure why "Minors" is capitalized at the end of the first paragraph. I also think it could be made "minor leagues" to aid the understanding of non-baseball fans.
• Early professional career: "the same high school future professional athletes Frank Robinson, Vada Pinson, Bill Russell and Curt Flood, went to all within a few years of each other." I'd recommend removing the last comma and moving "all" to immediately following Flood's name.
• I know that Negro League statistics are lacking in general, but is there anything more that can be added? We're basically covering four years of his career in one sentence, which makes the coverage appear less than extensive.
• Comma would be nice after the first use of Andy Cohen's name.
• "and started to build a reputation as a excellent fielder". Second "a" should be "an" instead, as in "an excellent fielder".
• Major League career: "pressurized the team to integrate their team roster". Second "team" is a redundancy and isn't needed to get the sentence. It can easily be dropped.
• "Roberts finished the 1954 season as the primary starter in second base". "in" → "at".
• "the" should be added in "prior to 1956 season."
• One of the issues I have with the article as a whole is that it implies that Roberts was the victim of harsh racism, but doesn't go all the way to describe what he was going through. In the Clemente book, page 73 has a sentence that goes like this: "Christine Roberts, the player's wife, told Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writer Ed Bouchette that when she attended games at Forbes Field she heard constant shouts of 'Knock the nigger down!" and "Hit him in the head.'" This is quite disturbing to read, but it's informative in showing how racist some of the people in Pittsburgh were towards Roberts. Without some information like this showing the challenges that he faced, I can't say that this article is fully comprehensive considering that racism was the key issue any black player faced at that time.
• I'll also add that the snippet above has the name of Roberts' wife, which the article lacks. If a key biographical detail can be added, by all means do so.
• Later career: "Neither Jacobs nor McMahan lasted beyond the 1956 season in Majors." "the" is needed before "Majors".
• Pittsburgh Courier needs italics here.
• MVP should be spelled out a sentence earlier than it currently is.
• "where he led the league in fielding percentage with 987.". Period should be moved to before the number.
• "was" should be added to "but his playing ability diminished by the injury".
• Post-baseball: "A major piece written by Pittsburgh Post-Gazette journalist Ed Bouchette discussed Roberts career and struggles". Apostrophe needed again at the end of Roberts' name.
• Playing style and statistics: "Former teammate Nellie King called Roberts the best handler of "chopper" he ever seen." First, "had" should be before "ever seen". Second, to avoid a grammatical error it's okay to make the quote "chopper[s]", using the brackets to make it work better in the sentence while maintaining the intended meaning.
• "King cited the main reason why Roberts had a short career in the Majors was because..." just doesn't work well at all. Perhaps try "According to King, the main reason why Roberts had a short career in the Majors is that the Pirates...".
• Legacy: "the most notable whom was future Baseball Hall of Famer Roberto Clemente." "of" should go before "whom"; also, the Hall of Fame was linked earlier and doesn't need a repeat link.
• No need to capitalize Black or Hispanic.
• Another apostrophe needed after his name in "mentioned that Roberts legacy...".
• "for the opening of Pirates Highway Legacy Square Negro League exhibit in PNC Park." "the" should go before Pirates. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I fixed all the grammar issues, some of which was careless writing on my part, other is due because of my dyslexia. With the extra information, let me find if I could get extra information. I'm back in my studies so I should have access to some information that otherwise would have been beyond a paywall. Give it a day or two, class got canceled because of Tropical Storm Issac on Monday, so I have the time to search for the information. Thanks Secret ^account 06:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:21, 3 September 2012 [3].

---

Hoodwinked!

Nominator(s): Jpcase (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hoodwinked! was a computer-animated film released in 2005. Though it probably isn't as widely known as most recent computer-animated films, it is notable for being one of the first to be completely independently produced. Since I started working on the article a number of months ago, it has gone from Start class to Good Article status, and undergone a peer review. I believe that it is now ready for Featured Article status. Jpcase (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Passing comments from Crisco 1492:

Image review

File:Hoodwinked.jpg is fine

File:Hoodwinked st.jpg is too big and pretty much redundant to the poster. Doubt it passes the need for contextual significance (NFCC #8)

Any free images of the director or cast?

Prose review

Several sections are only a sentence or two long.

Several paragraphs are only a sentence or two long.

Direct quotes need citations.

Percent symbol should not be used, use "percent"

Kinda worried as you have 5000 words depending on a grand total of 50 footnotes (I've hit 50 just going to 2000 words) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for leaving some suggestions. I've changed all uses of the % symbol to the word percent. The only paragraph I see that is under three sentences is the following;

"Hoodwinked! received a one-week, limited release in Los Angeles on December 16, 2005 to qualify for Oscar consideration. A nationwide U.S. release was scheduled for Christmas Day, 2005, but it was moved to January 13, 2006 to avoid competition with other films released during the holiday season."

I'm really not sure how this could be expanded upon. It covers information regarding the film's release thoroughly. If you have any suggestions on how to expand it, then I will be happy to add them to the article, but I don't really see any problem with the current length of the paragraph. Are there any other paragraphs under three sentences that I am missing? All quotes in the article are referenced. If a reference doesn't immediately follow a quote, it is just because all of the subsequent information is sourced with the same reference. Am I supposed to always follow a quote with a reference, even if the same reference is used for the subsequent information? As for the number of references, I'm not sure why this should matter. Everything in the article is properly sourced.

Would you suggest removing the image of the film's soundtrack? I'd rather not, since I feel that info boxes look bare without images, but if its use isn't justified under copyright laws, then I am willing to remove it. I'm honestly not sure whether there are any free images of the director or cast. There probably are, but I'm not very knowledgeable about copyright law, so I wouldn't know what is okay for use.--Jpcase (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd suggest it, yeah. This suggests that it isn't really accepted by the community (check out the deletion debate they link to)

Regarding the paragraphs, that "release" section is the least of my worries. The last paragraph of "plot" and "accolades" are bigger problems, methinks.

Regarding quotes, it's generally a good idea to give a citation immediately afterwards (at the very least at the end of the sentence), for easy verifiability. I can't find a specific guideline or policy for that though, although WP:WHYCITE emphasises that quotes and opinions need cites.

I may have time to give a fuller review later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've removed the image, and combined the last paragraph of the plot section with the paragraph preceeding it. It feels somewhat disconnected with the rest of the information in the paragraph, but there really isn't any way that I could expand the last paragraph without going into extraneous detail. As for the "accolades" section, what would you suggest doing here? The film was only nominated for one award. I could delete the accolades section and simply mention the film's Saturn nomination at the end of the "Critical response" section, but it would still have to be its own one-sentence paragraph. I've added a reference to the end of every sentence that includes a quote, except for in the first paragraph of the "Analysis" section, since it would require putting the same reference at the end of every sentence. It seems a lot simpler to just use the one reference for the entire paragraph. --Jpcase (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• In articles such as Ruma Maida generally I keep the prose regarding awards short, allowing me to introduce a table. Other editors write what the film lost against for its individual awards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that a table would work here, since the film was only nominated for one award. The article already states that the film lost the award to Corpse Bride. --Jpcase (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps merge it with reception? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• I can do that, but it will still only be one sentence. Personally, I would prefer to leave it in its own section, so that readers won't have to navigate through the whole "Critical response" section to find information on an award nomination. Is there an actual rule on Wikipedia that a section has to be more than one sentence? --Jpcase (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading" at the MOS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for pulling that out. I still feel that the article would be more convenient for readers if the sentence was included in its own section, but I will go ahead and merge them, so as to comply with policy. --Jpcase (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Prose comments:
• "It tells the story of the Little Red Riding Hood folktale as a police investigation," - "It retells the folktale Little Red Riding Hood as a police investigation,"
  • Done --Jpcase (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• "before expanding nationwide" - perhaps "having a wide release"?
  • Hmm, I'm not sure. "before expanding nationwide" sounds much better to me. Is there any important reason why this should be changed? --Jpcase (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It was released internationally too, n'est pas? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, but not on January 13. The film's nationwide US release seems notable enough to be mentioned in the lede, but I'm not sure that its international releases need to be alluded to there. --Jpcase (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• "This was in part based on director Cory Edwards' concerns over exposing children to the high level of cynicism that can often be found in the genre." - Perhaps just "Edwards'"?
  • Since there were two Edwards involved in making this film, I feel that it is important to distinguish between them. --Jpcase (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Alright.
• "Critical reception to the film was varied. Negative reviews criticized the film's animation and considered it inferior to the Shrek series, while positive reviews praised the film's script and cast." - Perhaps merge. "Critical reception to the film was varied; although the film's script and cast were praised, its animation was panned." or something similar.
  • Personally, I prefer this as it is currently written. Why do you suggest the change? --Jpcase (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • To avoid repeating "reviews" and to condense it a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I changed it to "Critical reception to the film was varied; although the film's script and cast were praised by many reviews, the quality of its animation was heavily criticized." --Jpcase (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
        • That's even better! Alright, I'll leave some more comments tomorrow (my time). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Wikilink on the first occurrence, or just don't include the casts' names in the plot.
  • I removed the cast names from the plot section. --Jpcase (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• "and led by detective Nicky Flippers (David Ogden Stiers), Red, Wolf, Granny, and the Woodsman are all questioned about the events leading up to the incident." - Perhaps "and Red, Wolf, Granny, and the Woodsman are questioned by detective Nicky Flippers (David Ogden Stiers) about the events leading up to the incident."
  • Done --Jpcase (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• A couple of the testimonies may be able to be merged into single paragraphs.
  • I merged the paragraphs detailing the Woodsman's testimony and Granny's testimony together. --Jpcase (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Boingo plans to add an addictive substance to the stolen recipes, and then explode the forest, making way for new real state for expanding his business." - Any indication how the two are related?
  • They are just two different ways of improving his business. The addictive substance would likely increase sales of his snacks, and the new real estate would provide various other ways for him to make money. A diagram that he shows in the film suggests that he would build a zoo, mall, amusement park, casino, etc. --Jpcase (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Cast section: If its not a full sentence, it should not have a period.
  • Done --Jpcase (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• That's it for today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Names should be linked on first occurrence outside the lead.
  • Thanks for taking care of some of those yourself. I also linked Todd Edwards the first time his name shows up in the Production section, since he isn't listed in the cast section anymore. Should all words linked in the lead, be linked again in their first occurrence outside of the lead? For example, "computer-animated", "Little Red Riding Hood", "Rashomon", and "stop-motion"? --Jpcase (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think so, yes. The lede is generally counted separately for linking purposes.
      • Done. --Jpcase (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• References with multiple pages benefit from {{sfn}} or {{harv}} templates.
  • I don't really understand what I am supposed to do here. --Jpcase (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Watch overlinking
  • Thanks for taking care of some of these as well. Should "The Walt Disney Company" in the Distribution section be de-linked? It is the first occerence of the company's full name, but a previous use of "Disney" links to the same page. --Jpcase (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't link it.
      • Done --Jpcase (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• previously been employed with an ill-fated independent animation studio which Hoodwinked! producer David Lovegren had helped to start. - Name?
  • Unfortunately, the reference does not give a name. --Jpcase (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I found the name of the studio in another reference and have added it to the article. --Jpcase (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• (such as ones produced by Pixar) - Doesn't seem necessary
  • Removed --Jpcase (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Avoid contractions like "couldn't" in original text
  • Looks like you've taken care of this. Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• "and dirt was rubbed into the colors" - Avoid figurative language. Perhaps a more literal phrasing
  • The actual quote from the reference is "We wanted it to look as organic as possible, even with the color palette. We rubbed dirt into all the colors so that the look wasn’t the candy-coated, brightly colored pastel world that a lot of CGI films have." --Jpcase (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Several sentences are rather long (lots of clauses) and could be split.
  • Which ones? --Jpcase (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Anything with four or five commas could probably be split. "The Nightmare Before Christmas was cited as an inspiration for the filmmakers to try to bend the shapes of characters into extremes, and choices unconventional to computer-animated films were intentionally made, such as making one of the Woodsman's eyes bigger than the other, and giving Red only four fingers, so as to make her look more like a doll." is an example.
      • I've split that sentence, and rewritten a few other sections. Tell me if there are any other specific sentences that need to be split or shortend. --Jpcase (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm down to "soundtrack". More tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I see that you tagged the sentence, "After unsuccessfully trying to find new opportunities for the brothers, Montgomery set up a meeting for them with Kanbar, who had invested in Chillicothe." "Them" in this sentence is referring to the Edwards brothers. Is this unclear? --Jpcase (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, nix that.

• "to avoid competition with other films released during the holiday season." - Which films?
  • The reference doesn't name any specific titles. Chicken Little, Zathura, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and Cheaper by the Dozen 2 were some of the family films in release at the time, but could I mention them without it being considered Original Research? November and December are always major release months ever year, so I don't think that it is really necessary to name which specific films Hoodwinked! would have been in competition with. The point is, Holiday Season = Lots of High Profile Movies Coming Out. --Jpcase (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• "$50,000 short of the box office's number one spot." - Held by?
  • Glory Road. I added this to the article. --Jpcase (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Perhaps note that 47 percent is "rotten" on RottenTomatoes
  • Done --Jpcase (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Fix the quotation marks from the slanted ones to straight ones. Overall you may want to paraphrase some of the quotes. A lot of this stuff is just taking the summaries from their reviews, by the looks of it.
• Several of these quotes in the reception and analysis section are rather wordy and should be trimmed or better paraphrased.
• Associated Content is not a reliable source. See this. Is Mr. Sexton a previously published author on the subject?
  • Here is Timothy Sexton's profile [4] It says that he has published two novels, and contributed chapters to two other novels. I see that you have tagged every sentence in that paragraph, besides the last one with a "citation needed" tag. I explained above that I wanted to just use the one reference at the end of the whole paragraph, since I thought that it would be less cluttered than to place the same reference at the end of every sentence in the paragraph. Is this not acceptable? It seems clear that all quotes in the paragraph come from the same article, so I would think that one reference for the whole paragraph would suffice, but I will add references for each sentence if you think it necessary. --Jpcase (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • As posted above "Direct quotes need citations.". Paraphrasing would help cut down on that. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
• More information on the sequel (quantification for the commercial and critical failure comment) may be useful.
• After going through the critical reception and analysis section I'm not too pleased with the quote farming in those two sections. A bit of paraphrasing can go a long way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
• FN1, 21: formatting
• FN38: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • For Rotten tomatoes, see this essay. WikiProject Film accepts it and MetaCritic — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#Reception — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, but those links allow the use of RT in very specific circumstances, and its current use in this article is not limited to those circumstances. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Which specific circumstances are you referring to? --Jpcase (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Review consensus scores and external links. The article currently uses the site for run time, a quote, and a release date. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
          • The quote is Rotten Tomatoes' consensus. The essay linked to by Crisco 1492 states that "Rotten Tomatoes' reported 'consensus' and Metacritic's 'metascore' description are prose that may help readers understand a film's reception." As I understand it, Rotten Tomatoes' consensus and percentage of positive reviews should not be used if the film was released before 2000, or if only a limited number of reviews for the film have been collected on the site. Hoodwinked! was released in 2005 and the site has over 100 reviews for the film, so this should not be a problem. I replaced Rotten Tomatoes with Justin Chang's review of the film for Variety as the reference for the film's run time. I assume that when you say that Rotten Tomatoes is being used for a release date, you are referring to the release date of Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil. I was actually just using it as a reference for the film's negative critical reception and hadn't thought to include a reference for the film's release date. Would this be an acceptable reference? http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=74032 --Jpcase (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The fullecircle blog post is an interview with Cory Edwards, the director and co-writer of the film. The authenticity of the interview can be verfied, since it is linked to on Edwards' own official website (see here - http://coryedwards.com/?p=95). I asked whether the interview would be an acceptable reference on the reliable sources noticeboard (see here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123#fullecirclestuff.blogspot.com interview) and was told that it might be okay, as long as the verification from Edwards' site was also included. As for cinemareview, I've been somewhat unsure of the site's reliability, but since it was never questioned in any of this article's previous reviews, I assumed that it was probably okay. I am willing to remove it though, if you feel that it is not an acceptable reference. --Jpcase (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Alright, I've removed the cinemareview reference, and rewritten that section of the article. The Nancy Churnin review for the Dallas Morning News doesn't seem to have been officially uploaded to the internet, however the actual newspaper issue that contains the review can be viewed online through Google News (see here - http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=20060118&id=iQEyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6qIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5595,552315). I do not know whether this would be an acceptable link for Wikipedia. If you feel that it is okay, then I will link to it in the article, but otherwise, I don't think that any link is necessary in order to use the review as a reference. What are the formatting issues that you are referring to? --Jpcase (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:21, 3 September 2012 [5].

---

Georgi Kinkladze

Nominator(s): Oldelpaso (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Kinkladze is a Georgian footballer best known for his time in England. For a period in the mid-to-late 1990s, he was pretty much the only reason I kept going to matches. The article has had one previous nomination, four years ago (where does the time go?). He's been out of the public eye in the intervening time, so little is new since then, but it should hopefully be more polished now. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments: I've read down to the end of the Man City section so far. No major problems, but I noticed several instances of tabloid-style journalese, which is not really appropriate for an encyclopedia and suggests POV. Plus a few instances where the prose could be tightened. A general copy-edit wouldn't hurt at this stage. I'll try and look at the rest in the next day or two if I can. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• The lead looks a little short, and per WP:LEAD, should cover all the main points in the article. It should say more about his early career and his Man City career based on what I've read so far.
• "In 1991, Georgia became an independent state again, but independence brought civil war as rival factions fought for control.": This looks a little forced here, coming between information about Kinkladze's career. Unless it can be shown how this affected the player personally, there may not be too much need for it. But it may be part of the slight problem with chronology in this section, per the next comment below.
• Second paragraph of "Early career" is a little odd. First sentence: signs for Dinamo; second sentence (no date); second sentence: Georgian independence in 1991; third and fourth sentences: senior international debut in 1992. Then the start of the next paragraph returns to his first season for Dinamo. This needs looking at, I think.
• "the pair combined for one of Georgia's six goals": This is slight journalese, particularly for the non-specialist who may be a little lost!
  • Not sure what to do with this. The source quotes Arveladze, mostly about his friendship with Kinkladze. As part of it he mentions this match as the first time they both played for Georgia, and says "he [Kinkladze] provided the assist for my first goal". If "combined" is no good for a non-specialist, using "assist" would be little better. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think a linked assist would actually be better as it is a technical term, rather than jargon. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Footage of Kinkladze's performance resulted in interest from clubs in Italy": Clunky prose. Maybe "Italian clubs became interested in Kinkladze after seeing footage of his performances"?
• "Georgia thrashed Wales 5–0": More journalese, and potentially slight POV issue.
• "At the return match": Will non-sports fans understand this?
• "Kinkladze had scored 14 goals in 21 outings": Sporting journalese here with "outings"
• Is there a relevance to Kinkladze being Ball's first signing?
• In the early life section, there is not much about his performances. How did he perform? How many goals did he score? Did he win awards? What did critics say? The only detail is about his struggles at Saarbrucken. However, I understand that not much detail may be available.
  • Beyond what's already in the article, there is very little, and what sources do exist often contradict each other. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I suspected as much. No problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• "Manchester City's form stuttered…": More journalese.
• "Kinkladze quickly became a terrace hero": Ditto, and I'm not sure everyone will know what a terrace is.
• "The first win, by 1–0 against Aston Villa, finally arrived on 25 November 1995": Not sure everyone will know that this was some substantial distance into the season.
• "press and supporters touted Kinkladze as the star player of the Manchester City side": More precision needed here. Any specific people may be useful to give at least one short quote, but why use "touted" here?
• Not sure the Kinkladze v Juninho part adds much here.
  • It attracted quite a bit of press attention at the time. For example if you look at the ref, it says "Kinkladze" or Juninho" more times than the other 20 players put together. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not personally convinced, but I have no objection to it. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• "However, he instead opted to stay at Manchester City…" Need to lose either "however" or "instead"
• "Manchester City's freefall…": Journalese?
• "He had a reputation for playing defensive midfielders, which led to his Everton team being nicknamed the "Dogs of War".": I don't think the detail about Everton is necessary.
• "He made his return at a muddy Vale Park": Is the state of the pitch relevant?
  • Kinkladze was slight. His attributes were suited to a passing game, and completely unsuited to a physical battle played out in a quagmire. The match was a watershed moment in his City career. Going into a lot of detail for a single match would be undue weight, but I tried bringing it together with the Royle quote to highlight two themes of his final season at the club: getting kicked into the air at shabby football backwaters, and his fractious relationship with Royle. Similar thinking was behind the "Dogs of War" background – an attempt to explain Royle's seemingly paradoxical position of deciding his team would play better without its most gifted player. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • To be honest, if it is shown in the sources that this was a watershed moment, it is worth going into a little more detail. I don't think that the match comes across as pivotal in the way it is written at the moment, and the "muddy" comment seems a little odd out of context. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • More detail added. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• "that wasn't right... ...too often since his arrival": Why the repetition of the ellipsis? Just one is required.
  • It appears that I have used ellipses incorrectly my entire life! Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• "…contained hardman Vinnie Jones,": Journalese and POV.
  • Jones was notorious for his violent approach, moreso than any player in his era. The sentence could do with something to convey this, suggestions would be welcome. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Maybe "Kinkladze was targeted by Vinnie Jones, a played with a reputation for a violent approach, even in the tunnel...". But to include this, I think it may need a ref for his reputation if this is not in the source already. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Reworded using a quote from a piece about Jones. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• "but calamitous defending, including a freak own goal": And again.
  • Press reports of the match variously describe the first QPR goal as "comical", "a calamity" and "a horrendous mistake", but even these descriptions pale in comparison to those of the second, an own goal, which was unquestionably freakish, and is invariably included in those top-10s of best/worst own goals e.g. [6] [7] [8] [9]. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but a more encyclopaedic wording is needed: maybe "but poor defending, culminating in an unusual own goal"? Sarastro1 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Reworded. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• "City no longer controlled their own fate": This is not really needed.
• What about international football at this stage of his career? Sarastro1 (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Implemented or addressed except where I've commented. With regards to international football, the Wales games were something of a high water mark for Georgia. After this they were mostly cannon fodder, so Kinkladze rarely had the chance to shine. I'll see what I can add. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

More comments: I've read the whole article now, and looks good generally. Just a few more suggestions. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• "but starts were a rare occurrence": "but he made few starts".
• "Kinkladze was not even issued a squad number for his second season"
• How was his tactical request to Smith received? Accepted? Ignored? It's kind of left hanging.
• "and played the full 90 minutes in a 1–2 third round home defeat against Rangers.": Why does this need five references? Even for a more controversial statement, five refs seems excessive.
• "for Rubin's consolation goal": Journalese.
• The 5-1 win for Rubin seems to be covered in too much detail (and there is another "combined"!) for a relatively unimportant games. I don't think any other match receives so much.
• "He provided an assist in four consecutive matches": Is there no better way to cover this than to use 4 refs?
• "In the new season, Berdyev intended to switch to a 4–3–3 formation and use Kinkladze alongside Damani Ralph and Vladimir Bairamov in attack.": This seems an odd piece of phrasing. Did he or didn't he?
• Why is Georgian national team linked in this section rather than earlier?
• "despite reports to the contrary by some Russian press sources": Not really necessary.
• I think the sections after Derby County suffer a little from overdetailing in places, which may reflect the source quality and coverage. Parts read like they are describing current news events. But not a huge problem, just needs a quick check.
• "Unwillingness to tackle and accusations of a lack of effort were also the source of Joe Royle's omission of Kinkladze from his Manchester City side": Cause, rather than source, I think.Sarastro1 (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sourcing does become a problem for the latter part of his career. There's little in English, so I received sourcing help from User:Jhony, a Russian speaker. Unfortunately, he is long inactive, so I cannot ask him about the Russian language sources, and I'm stuck for additional ones. I've removed a couple of parts; the 4-3-3 part isn't so relevant as Kinkladze got injured the first time the formation was used. The bit about Smith would need the help of a Russian speaker for me to reword, so I've removed it as well. For the assist refs, those sources are all I have, but I've bundled them into one. Not so tidy in the references section, but better than having it look unsightly in the body. Other comments from this batch should hopefully all be addressed. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Tentative support: Pretty happy with this now, although I would like a few reviews from football people before committing to a full support. I also want to have a last read through myself, but overall looks good. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Don't have time to read through the whole article now, but one thing from the first sentence: "also spelled as... Gio". Looking at the reference, it's clear that Gio was a nickname rather than an alternative spelling so this shouldn't be included. The others (Giorgi, Georgiou) are fine because they're just different ways of transliterating from Georgian, but Gio is definitely not. BigDom 11:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Reworded to "or shortened to". Oldelpaso (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair compromise. I'll try and have a look through the rest of the article now I've finished the one I was writing earlier. BigDom (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Just minor comments over sourcing and prose, I'll have another look later on

• "The team failed to win a single game in the first three months of the season" slight inaccuracy here. Checking the season article, they beat Wycombe Wanderers 4–0 in October, so perhaps it could be rephrased to "In the league, the team failed to win a single game..."
• Ref 1 was published on BBC News – BBC Sport Online was only launched in 2000
• Ref 20, 22, 26, 28 were published on The Independent on Sunday
• Ref 68 was published on guardian.co.uk, not The Guardian newspaper Lemonade51 (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

More comments Been meaning to return to this, apologies for the hold up:

• Is it teammate, stated under Early life or team-mate used elsewhere?
• Likewise be consistent with first team (is it that or first-team)?
• Where's the citation for "Italian clubs became interested in Kinkladze after seeing footage of his performance, and the Italian press nicknamed Kinkladze the "Rivera of the Black Sea", but no concrete attempts to sign him took place."?
• Should it be titled 'Club career' when it also includes his international career? Perhaps rename to 'Playing career'?

Otherwise happy to support. Refreshing article to read. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• Redundancy in "Kinkladze stayed with the club despite relegation to the Football League First Division in 1996, but the club continued to decline." Don't like the two "the club"s here, especially in the lead. Could make one into Manchester City.
  • I still see this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 12:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Whoops, definitely now done. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Still think there's one too many words in "stayed with the Manchester City", namely "the". Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
        • *wipes egg from face* I must be the world's worst proof reader. Sorry about that. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Early career: There's no need for another Dinamo Tbilisi link here, given that there's one already in the previous section and one in the lead.
• Manchester City: "Manchester City were relegated to First Division". Should "the" be added before First Division?
• Ajax: Since Maradona was linked before, we don't need another link in the quote.
• Derby County: A word too many in "but none resulted in the a contract offer."
• Anorthosis: Why was the win over Trabzonspor historic?
• Should "the" be added before Cypriot Super Cup?
• Publisher of ref 111 should be italicized.
• Conversely, Soccerbase shouldn't be italicized in refs 157–160. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

All addressed. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments Looks like a well-written and referenced article, but here are some comments

• it would have been better if some images of him on the field were put (only if available)
  • I agree entirely, but sadly no suitably-licensed ones exist. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think the following line is really appropriate for this article: In an effort to resolve his homesickness, his mother moved to Manchester to provide him with familiar food. It can be either wholly removed to replaced by His mother moved to Manchester to provide support
  • I'm unsure. Clayton's book devotes a full page of material to this, with food clearly the most important aspect. "Support" seems vague to me, but perhaps there is another wording that would be suitable? Oldelpaso (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• COMMON NAME: Internazionale → Inter Milan
  • While the article is currently at Inter Milan, it is currently the subject of a contentious Requested Move debate. Though Inter Milan is a commonly used name, it is also technically incorrect, a bit like saying Everton Liverpool. I would contend that it is better to educate our readers by using the proper form, particularly as it is wikilinked. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Kinkladze's former international team-mate → Kinkladze's former Georgia national teammate (only my own opinion, can be ignored)
• I would recommend to title the last paragraph of Rubin Kazan section under "Post-retirement"
• Also, shouldn't there be a section about his International career?
• A small section about his personal life wouldn't hurt

If you have any question, please let me know. I'll try to contribute to the article myself as well if necessary. --Yerevanci (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

While writing the article I considered the possibility of both a separate personal life section and separate international career section but in each case decided against it. In the case of personal life, there is little in the public domain beyond what is already in the article, so the result would be a small stubby section, or the messy chronology that would result from tacking events later in his life to the current "Early life" section. Likewise, a "post-retirement" section would only be two sentences due to paucity of available sources.

His international career was a tougher call. Much of his international career was intertwined with his club career, this made me decide that the narrative of the article would be better served by including significant international matches as they occurred chronologically. Early on it was the Moldova match that piqued the interest of scouts in other countries, then the Wales games that alerted British clubs and press to his talent. Later his international involvement generally depended on how frequently he was playing at club level. Another factor was that Kinkladze never played in a major tournament, and for most of his career Georgia only won one or two competitive matches a year. The exception was Euro 96 qualifying where Georgia were third; Kinkladze's most notable matches in this period are covered in Early career. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:21, 3 September 2012 [10].

---

Arsène Wenger

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

'Arsène who?' This article documents the rise of an ‘unheard-of’ Frenchman, who has arguably become one of the most influential managers in modern football. He made a domestic name for himself managing Monaco, fine-tuned his skills in Japan and became the first foreign manager appointed at Arsenal, where he will be entering his 16th year this October. Wenger does not hold an array of trophies like a Ferguson or Mourinho but his ability to produce stylish football and spend sensibly has earned him plaudits. I believe this article is ready for a crack at FA (my first nomination here), given it has passed a thorough GA, been through two PR’s and I have attempted to extract as much useful info as possible. Comments, critique, et al is welcome. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Why are 'single quotes' used sometimes but "double quotes" other times?

Think I've sorted that out now

• First sentence: I think you should give primacy to "manager of English Premier League side Arsenal."

Have done

• Lead: second para is huge.

I decided to split a chunk of it into two, his achievements at Arsenal probably merit a standalone paragraph.

• "net transfer record" - is that a commonly used term? I haven't heard as a fan, and I wonder if non-fans reading this article will be understand the term without a short explanation in the lead. (it's better in the article body)

Removed

• Early life and playing career: mention the Second World War + I think a few more war-related links can be made.
• "He made the first team at age 16" - looong sentence.

Split into two

• Eleven, twelve, but 16.

1 to 10 numbered, 11 onwards spelt

• Not sure why but I find his playing career very confusing. Will elaborate/copy-edit it soon.
• Double-check throughout for vagueness—"the club's sporting director" - which club? "Platini in later years" - Aldo? It's a bit unclear because his son is the famous one, and is linked too.

Addressed

• "losing the same number of matches" - losing six matches or losing the same number as Bordeaux? (and why is this worthy of mention either way?)
• Doesn't Coupe de France need to be clarified as France's domestic knockout cup tournament?

Have clarified in the main body

• "whom he had met during the 1993 match-fixing scandal" - how exactly do you meet someone during a scandal?

Rephrased

• "Several English players have started their careers at Arsenal under Wenger, including Cole, David Bentley, Steve Sidwell, Jermaine Pennant and Matthew Upson while young English talent such as Theo Walcott, Kieran Gibbs and Jack Wilshere are still building careers at the club." - source?

Added two sources, one for the players previously at Arsenal (and Walcott), another for the latter two.

• Don't see how Pardew's Swedish wife is relevant at all. I think you can end that exchange at "passports."

Have done

• Can the very-large "Arsenal: 1996–present" section be split in two?

Split from 1996–2003 and 2003–

• "The Arsenal defence, which set a new record" - which year?

2006, added now

• "Wenger's early Arsenal sides were criticised for their indiscipline, receiving 72 red cards between September 1996 and February 2008." - why justify criticism of "early Arsenal" with a stat that goes to 2008? And how does this stat compare to other clubs? Also, is The Daily Mail a reliable source for football criticism?

Have replaced Daily Mail with a Times match report in October 2010. Between then and Wenger's arrival at the club, Arsenal recieved 80 red cards. The red card tally is a staggering amount. Arsenal captain Vieira was sent off twice in two consecutive matches, Jens Lehmann and José Antonio Reyes dismissed in consecutive finals. In his defence, he joined a club notorious for disciplinary problems. Journalists would not compare his red card situation with other managers because the others haven't been in their jobs for so long (only Ferguson stands up against him in terms of longevity).

• Haven't any biographies of the man been written yet?—indopug (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There have been numerous: The Professor by Myles Palmer, another written by Xavier Rivoire, Jasper Rees' Wenger: The Making of a Legend. Each have been cited in the article in some form or another. While all narrate his life story very well, I relied on extracting the bulk of information from newspaper articles. Many quotes from Palmer's book on Wenger for instance were taken from Evening Standard/Daily Mirror interviews. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• The semi-colon before "though they have won awards for sporting fair play" should probably be a regular comma instead. Minor, but important not to have glitches like that in the lead.

Removed

• Early life and playing career: "and was appointed the coach of the RC Strasbourg's youth team." Don't think second "the" is helping anything here.

Removed

• Nancy and Monaco: Given that there's a Ligue 1 link in the next-to-last sentence of the prior section, I doubt we need another one here.

Removed link

• Same goes for an RC Strasbourg repeat link.

Done

• 1996–2003: Tell me if you can spot the error here: "including the controversial arrival of Tottenham Hotpsur defender and captain Sol Campbell on a free transfer...".

Fixed spelling error

• 2003–present: "A run of three consecutive draws in March ensured first Manchester United...". Feels like "for" should be in there.

Added

• As a general comment from the half or so of the article that I've read, the punctuation is rather odd in places. There are a few areas where stray punctuation appears, and many more that appear under-punctuated. I hate to give the generic advice to get a copy-edit, but I think that's the best course of action. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've had a crack copyediting the punctuation style myself, given I'm not sure who I could ask to give a quick copyedit at such short notice. I'm not using the serial comma format, so commas before 'and' are omitted, unless between adjectives. Did notice that conjunctions were underpunctuated. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Team indiscipline and fair play: "to allow Sheffield United's Lee Morris receive treatment for an injury." Is "to" missing before "receive"?
• Relations with others: "after he found guilty over communicating with Arsenal's bench". "was" is definitely missing from this bit.
• Plaudits and awards: Billy Beane is a general manager, not manager. He's never been the actual on-field manager. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Have corrected all points. Thanks once more. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment on sourcing: I have not read the article beyond a quick glance, but I am a little concerned by two related points: a heavy reliance on press sources, rather than longer-term considered views, and the above comment that there are "numerous" biographies that have not been consulted. I am not convinced that press coverage of the books is sufficient to claim that the books have been cited. For FA level work, consulting such print sources is crucial, and I would require some convincing that this article could meet criteria 1b and, in particular, 1c. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All three books have been cited, where appropriate in this article. Palmer's for his early life and education, Rivoire's for his stint at Monaco and Rees' for his Japanese book. I haven't placed a bibliography section, as all books are cited in a unison fashion on the advice of a GA review. What I meant in my earlier point is that with the autobiographies, I found not much information to construe out of them. Wenger is a very private individual and as with many autobiographies, they rely on first hand accounts with friends and family to learn about him. When researching about his family life in order to beef the section up, none of the books had anything new to share. So I consulted newspaper archives and found a David Bond interview with his parents in the Evening Standard, the only one they did for the British press. The Mirror did a series of interviews with Max Hild, his mentor, which later served the basis for Palmer's book. The Times ran an exclusive in August 2004, uncovering his father being conscripted into the German army. The books were written at a time when Wenger was successful, fast forward five years and he is at a crossroads. So you don't get a real overview, hence why comment pieces from sports journalists are used to cite his failings. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fine as far as I'm concerned and you obviously have consulted the sources, which was my main concern. No problem at all. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Comment From a quick read, the article is looking impressive, but I noticed one surprising omission: there's no mention that before Wenger, Arsenal had a dour reputation ("Boring Boring Arsenal") that went back many years, but Wenger completely transformed the style of play, and with it, the club's reputation. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Added a bit on it in the plaudits section, as I would think it would look lost anywhere else. Cheers, Lemonade51 (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of issues on sourcing before I support:
  • I don't think a self-contradictory article in The Sun is enough to support the statement that the Anelka transfer contributed to the funding of the training centre – the source implies that the £23.5m transfer funded £24.2m of purchases and contributed to the training centre.

Have added an Evening Standard article, which states "After all, the club already have a monument to remember Anelka by. It's called London Colney - the training ground built with the profits of his sale."

• • Should we be using an Amazon listing as a source for book publication data? Oldelpaso (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WorldCat could be an alternative, but Amazon is the only site I can find to state the date/year of publication. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Happy to support either way, but I'll leave this one open in case anyone else wishes to comment. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

More comments: I've read down to the end of Nagoya Grampus Eight so far, and it looks pretty good. I've made several copy-edits so far, but feel free to revert any or all if they don't work or you don't like them. Hopefully more to follow in the next few days. Here are some specific points/queries. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Wenger is credited for revolutionising football in England in the late 1990s…": Either credited with, or perhaps a little better, "is given credit for".

Used the latter suggestion

• "Wenger obtained his manager diploma in 1981": Either "manager's" or "managerial".

Corrected to "manager's"

• Given that he spent most of his career at Arsenal, I might expect a little more in the lead on his time at the club. The lead feels a little light in general.

Have added more as requested and up to the present day.

• "Wenger became the only manager in Premier League history to go through an entire season undefeated": Surely the team, not Wenger, were undefeated? Also, this is a little misleading. Was it not also achieved in the dim and distant past, long before the Premier League was the top flight?

Ah yes, corrected.

• "a run which ended at 49 matches": The rest of the sentence is about an undefeated season. How can this end? Maybe better to say "and the team were not defeated for 49 matches".

Fixed and split this to two sentences.

• Date in lead for the move to the Emirates?

Have added → 'August 2006'

• "along with his older sister and brother, Guy.": Who is older? One or both? Do we have a name for his sister? If not, I may be inclined to leave out the brother's name.

Removed brother's name, given his sister's has not been publicised.

• The kibbutz quote and "at about the age of six" both look like Wenger said them, but neither ref is by him. Could it be clarified in the text whose words these are?

The latter quote is from his father, and I have stated that now. As for the kibbutz one, it's from Wenger but I'm not sure how to clarify it. Help?! (Found the article for it)

• Note a: Is it correct to say he played in a variety of positions, or are the sources simply unclear?

I guess the sources are contradictory. Have added in the infobox that his position is 'Uncertain' but feel free to change.

• "Staying on as an amateur…" Staying on where? The previous sentence is about his university.

Removed

• "Primorac remained Wenger's 'right-hand man' for years to come": Why the quotes, and why single quotes? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed quote marks. Thanks for your review.

More comments: Read to the end of Managerial Career now, copy-edits continued as well.

• "but he did have direct input in the team's defeat to Borussia Mönchengladbach in the UEFA Cup, suggesting "one or two changes" to caretaker manager Pat Rice...": For this to make sense in context, a date for the match should be given to compare to his appointment.

Date added

• "Arsenal finished third in Wenger's first season, missing out on second place (occupied by Newcastle United), and hence Champions League qualification on goal difference": Goal difference needs to be linked or explained. Or ideally, both.

Wikilinked and explained

• "The success was built on the inherited defence": I think this may need explaining more clearly: i. e. he had not signed the defenders, and the defence was already pretty good.

Explained that it was assembled by former manager George Graham

• Is "flourished" (in discussion of his new signings) a touch POV?

Reworded to 'profited'

• "Wenger made no fewer than six signings in the summer, including the controversial arrival of Tottenham Hotspur defender and captain Sol Campbell on a free transfer[61] and midfielder Giovanni van Bronckhorst from Rangers, as a replacement for Petit.": A few things here. First, why "no fewer than"? This does not seem an especially large number. Why was Campbell's signing controversial? Many (but not all) English readers will know of the Spurs-Arsenal rivalry, but others may struggle and this should be made clearer. And "as a replacement for Petit": this is the first we hear of Petit leaving.

Have added that he moved from local rivals, wikilinking the North London derby. Bit on Petit and Overmars moving to Barca added now.

• "who threw away a two-goal lead": A bit tabloid-y?

Fixed

• "The team enjoyed another relatively strong league campaign...": Perhaps make it clear this is now referring to the season following their unbeaten one?

Added season now

• "In the summer of 2006, Arsenal relocated to the Emirates Stadium, which Wenger said was "vital" to the club's future, in order to compete at the top level.": Why was this? It may not be immediately obvious to everyone.

Clarified

• "ultimately came up short": Tabloidese.

Fixed

• "In spite of going 21 matches without defeat in all competitions, securing fourth position in the league and reaching the semi-finals of the Champions League and FA Cup, Wenger was subject to open criticism from Arsenal fans – something he alluded to as "like being a murderer".": A horribly long sentence! Needs splitting somewhere.

Split to two sentences now

• It is probable that this is mentioned in the sections I have not yet read, but it may be worth briefly mentioning the impact of some of his signings in the overview of Arsenal's seasons, and maybe a little more about the controversy and impact of selling the better players on the team.

More to follow, looking good. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Next comments: Read first four paragraphs of Approach and Philosophy. A few concerns over sourcing here. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wenger has been described as a coach who "has spent his career building teams that combine the accumulation of silverware with a desire to entertain and attack", and as "a purist, dedicated to individual and collective technical quality".: These quotes require in-text attribution.

Done

Not done: in-text attribution needs "described by X as..." Sarastro1 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, hopefully done now.

• "His style of play has been contrasted with the pragmatic approach of his rivals, but he has assembled teams to produce disciplined performances, markedly the 2005 FA Cup Final against Manchester United.": A few problems here: who has contrasted his approach? The link to the Syed column just goes to the Arsenal section of the Times website, and I'm not convinced that the latter part of the sentence is supported by the refs. The Syed ref makes the contrast in styles, but the other ref is a match report to the FA Cup final. Who is saying that he is capable of disciplined performances? This looks a little like synthesis here. We need a source which says something along the lines of his teams were attacking but could defend on occasion, such as the FA cup match. Not just link to the match.

After some digging, have found one from The Times in March 2010

• "Although Wenger for a number of years employed a 4–4–2 formation, since 2005, he has often relied on 4–5–1 with a lone striker and packed midfield": The ref does not support the 4-4-2 formation, and a match preview from 2006 cannot be used to say that he has used this formation since 2005.

Been specific and rephrased to Champions League matches in the 2005–06 season, which is now cited.

• "Beginning with the 2009–10 season, largely due to the development of Fàbregas, Wenger has instituted a fluid 4–3–3 formation at Arsenal, with the front five attackers changing positions freely during the match": Not reflected in the source. The source previews the 2009-10 season, and cannot possibly justify the sentence as given. And it does not really mention the development of Fabregas.

Have added a match report focusing on Cesc's role, removed the bit about 'changing positions freely' as it isn't accurate.

This now works better with the ref, but "Beginning with the 2009–10 season, largely due to the development of Fàbregas, Wenger has instituted a fluid 4–3–3 formation at Arsenal." is not quite reflected in the source, which suggests Fabregas benefited from the change rather than caused it. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Tweaked language

• "The team, as a result have been criticised for lacking a "killer touch", being one-dimensional and want[ing] to score a 'nice' goal as opposed to shooting.": Is this a quote or not? If not, why "want[ing]"?

"want[ing] to score a 'nice' goal" should have been quoted, corrected now

As above, requires in text attribution ("criticised by X") Sarastro1 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Done now hopefully

• The "losing his cool" paragraph has a slightly random appearance. Again, instead of choosing one-off incidents, I think it needs a source which says "in recent years, he has lost his cool, for example X, Y and Z."

Decided to remove one-off incidents and chose to summarise his touchline antics being likened to Basil Fawlty, cited of course.

This sort of works (I'm not sure how appropriate Basil is as a comparison, but never mind!), but I think you have the wrong source. The one cited does not mention Fawlty or Wenger's "antics". Did you mean this one?. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, used this one now.

• As a general comment here, it may be an idea to go over the article and make sure that the sources are saying what the article is saying, and that there is no synthesis going on. I am slightly concerned at finding 3 sourcing issues here and one or two instances of possible synthesis. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Will certainly do so. The majority of this section had been rewritten after the GA review, which meant certain sources became redundant and as I did not have much access to archives, it all became a bit messy. Thanks once more for taking the time to review. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

More: Apart from the new problems above, a few more sourcing issues. Most of the rest looks OK down to the end of "Approach and philosophy". Sarastro1 (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• "In England, Wenger is regarded for underlining the importance of diet and nutrition in football. He cited the culture of the country being at the root of the problem, adding "It's silly to work hard the whole week and then spoil it by not preparing properly before the game. As a coach you can influence the diet of your players. You can point out what is wrong."" This is cited to a 1996 newspaper article. How can this reference the idea that he is admired for his stance towards diet given that it comes from the start of his career?

Cited the first sentence. Rephrased the second to make it clear Wenger said that when he first joined the club.

• "The innovations had a desirable effect on the team as it prolonged the careers of players over the age of 30.": The source does not say this at all. It comments that Wenger believed players were finished at 30, and several players proved him wrong. It then goes on to list his innovations.

Answered

• "Regardless, Wenger has been able to sell his players at a higher cost": Not sure what this means here.

Removed, given it is a tad inaccurate. Young players at Arsenal are generally on good wages, so it has become difficult to shift them in recent seasons. If they do leave with and are sold for a profit, it's usually marginal. The better players leaving every summer has become a bigger concern.

• Team indiscipline and fair play: A little too defensive here perhaps? An opinion is given and then shot down, but many would probably agree on the indiscipline. Also, has Wenger not also been criticised for always defending a player who was sent off, or claiming not to have seen it. On the other hand, most managers do this, so unless a source specifically singles him out, this may not be possible. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I see this is covered in the next section. Not a big deal, but possibly it would be better here than later, but feel free to disagree. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved it as suggested

Final comments: I've read to the end of the article now, and while there are still a few issues to be ironed out, it looks good. I'm a little confused over the structure at the end, though. Surely combining the praise and criticism into one section would make the article a little more balanced at the end? Not a huge issue overall, though. When the final issues are addressed, I'll have a last read through. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Tried to think of ways of how I could do this. Lazily merged the praise and critic sections in my sandbox, which looks a tad lengthy when you exclude the indiscipline and foreigner bits. Of course it could be shorten, but I do think how the article currently is, works well. Lemonade51 (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Support with copy-editing disclaimer: I've copy-edited this article fairly heavily, but I'm happy to support. There are parts of the prose which could still be smoothed (this was the main focus of my copy-editing) but I think it meets the criteria. The content and balance is very good, and while I wonder if parts of it are a little too friendly towards Wenger, I have no doubts that it is balanced and does not contain any POV. My only reservation is that further spot-checks may be needed: I found a few issues earlier (none since then, however) and it may be worth another editor taking a look at the sourcing. A good piece of work on a subject who I suspect is not easy to research or write about. Just one last point below. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The war left the community "mentally scarred," with those choosing to rebel being subjected to "threats about what they would do to your parents."[7]": Just wondering if this is needed at all? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Have removed the sentence. Thanks once more for your thorough review. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comments An image review and spotchecks for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Journalists give Wenger credit for revolutionising football in England in the late 1990s, primarily through the introduction of changes in the training and diet of players while implementing a philosophy of entertaining football on the pitch.

Nobody can "implement a philosophy of entertaining football on the pitch.

Do you mean that he sought to implement a philosophy that football, on the pitch, ought to be entertaining?

• Born in Strasbourg and subsequently raised in Duttlenheim, Wenger was introduced to football by his father.

Two problems here.

1. Don't presume that I (or anyone else) know where Strasbourg is. One of the interesting facts about this man is that he wasn't born in the UK. State the country, preferably in the first paragraph.
2. Born in Strasbourg and subsequently raised in Duttlenheim, Wenger was introduced to football by his father.

Stringing together unrelated ideas doesn't work, meaning-wise, and doesn't read well. Wenger's place of birth has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that his father introduced him to football. The two statements belong in different sentences. Actually, unless you mention the fact that his father had some connection, any connection, with the sport, then the fact that his father introduced him to it, Doesn't need to be in the intro. Does it mean that his dad watched a lot of footy on TV, or does it mean that he coached the Duttlenheim Warriors to glory against Barcelona?

Amandajm (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Believe I have addressed both parts now. Thanks for your comments. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:14, 3 September 2012 [11].

---

.hack (video game series)

Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been a year and a half since the previous FAC. In the intervening time, the article passed GA. I believe it is ready to become a featured article. This article is unique because it discusses a series of four games as if they were one, which is true in a sense. As such, it features the infobox for a single game (because the VG series infobox is missing some relevant parameters) but a review box for a game series (to show review trends across releases). The development section, a sticking point of the previous nomination, is more than double the size it was before the 2nd nom and I believe it represents everything that the internet has to offer about the subject. I merged a stub article on .hack//fragment to this article because I think it is properly part of this series: it features an identical game engine, graphics, story, and gameplay, but with some online components. If there are any other editorial decisions that seem confusing about the article, please feel free to ask. Regards, Axem Titanium (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - what makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I replaced theotaku and MusicBrainz. RPGFan is reliable, per linked discussions at WP:VG/S. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Image review from Crisco 1492

• File:Logo dotHack.svg is clear PD-simple in the US. However, it's not only the uploader's work (company should be credited)

File:Dothack gameplay.jpg could be downsized a bit (300px * w.e.) to be safe. Also, the FUR could use a bit more clarification. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I did what you asked wrt the PD logo? I also reduced the size of the second image. What exactly are you asking to be clarified in the FUR? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I clarified the logo a bit, although I'm concerned as the official website doesn't have "dot" in the dot (i.e. not like the vector version).

A bit more clarification of the purpose of the screenshot would be useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The "dot" appears on the cover art of the games (e.g. [12]) but I don't see it on the website at the moment. I expanded the description in the FUR to explain the different gameplay elements that the screenshot shows. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Great! Thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Tentative Support As someone who knows nothing about the series, I was able to follow what was written in the article fine. I didn't find any notable issues, though some parts seem like a game guide at times. I'll support this article for FA unless other editors are able to find issues with the article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. What part felt like a game guide to you? Axem Titanium (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support A good article, and am glad it's in good shape, as I played the games a bit. :) Obvious support. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Leaning support — Sorry for the delay. It's mostly good, here are my thoughts on remaining issues:
  • "However, this power also increases the level of infection of Kite's player character, randomly causing harmful side effects. The infection can be cured by defeating monsters normally." — source for this?
  • Meeting BlackRose at the Chaos Gate... -- What is the Chaos Gate? Is it really important to mention what it is?
  • The one section that needs restructuring to me is the reception section; it reads as a laundry list, rather than a summation of critical comments for the series. You could either treat them as a whole, or go through each game, but listing each reviewer's thoughts for each game, one after the other, has got to go.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • Working... Axem Titanium (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I've fixed all of the above except for the Reception section, which I'll need a little more time and brainpower to reorganize and draw in more sources. Working... Axem Titanium (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your patience, David. I had to take a break from Wikipedia due to work. I hope you find the new reception section more readable. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Prose comments from Crisco 1492

• Considering this isn't that big of an article, and we're neighbours, I'll take a look at prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• "without requiring the player to connect to the Internet." - if the MMORPG is not real, this is rather confusing. Perhaps "which does not require..."
• "as a result of The World" - your phrasing in the article body is better, "result of playing The World"
• "a fellow newbie" - You didn't say Kite is a newbie, just an average player
• "Their teamwork destroys Fidchell " - Which is? And Gorre?
• Fix the citation needed tags
• (such as Wavemaster, Twin Blade, etc.) - Do we need the "etc." there?

• Not many issues. I did a copyedit, be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the CE and review. I think I addressed all of these points. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support - Looks reasonably well written, fairly easy to follow, and interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comment: Spotchecks of sources for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I see there's been at least a couple of supports and I actually went to the article to do source-checks and thus help it along; but just giving it a once over I have to beg to differ:
• The reception section - which I think would be on the short side for a single, old game - is way too skimpy for a whole series of recent titles. And the gameplay and particularly plot sections are vast in comparison. As it stands, I don't believe this article fulfils the basic expectation that it focus on real world coverage and at the least is sorely lopsided towards in-game discussion.
• Looking at the other sections: The ".hack//frägment" starts promisingly but turns out to largely discus the mechanics. The music section is good in terms of introducing critical commentary to the article, but this isn't enough to redress the imbalance. On the contrary, one questions why the soundtrack album's reception is proportionately large compared to that of the games. Ditto that the section on the spin-off .hack//frägment appears to be about as long as the reception section.
• And I'm not sold on the style as being of a professional standard:
• Someone disliked the reception section's "laundry list" of one-liners format, and I'd probably concur at least regarding the latter part (it, that is the reception section, does start quite nicely in terms of prose at least). I think this format can work (I've managed it I think... ahem) if dealing with sources short on actual critical commentary (old console print magazines for example) but I'm sceptical that this would be the case here.
• Since I'm whining about the plot section... Take for example: "In the first dungeon they visit, they encounter a girl in white being chased by a monster with a red wand." Is it important that the girl is in white? That the monster has a wand? That the wand is red? Are these details necessary to understand the gist of the story?
  • Of course it's not important, but "they encounter a girl being chased by a monster" is literally the most generic sentence ever. I also specify "girl in white" to refer back to her in the next paragraph. These details aren't critical to understanding the story, but without them, the reader cannot generate an image of what's going on in his/her head because there's no imagery in the text. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• And sentences like: "He meets BlackRose and they go to a cathedral area where they are attacked by a powerful monster" I think are taking "simple, clear and readable" into children's storybook territory. It's subjective, but for my money the prose in the plot section is some way from a professional standard. Some redundant and/or possibly editorialising adjectives ("powerful monster", "mysterious encryption") and more prevalently and-then-and-then detail, in addition to the generally insipid style.
  • I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for here. Would you prefer "He meets BlackRose and they go to a special area called Δ Hidden Forbidden Holy Ground where they are attacked by a high-level Headhunter monster"? The monster must be powerful, or else it wouldn't be a thread. The encryption must be mysterious, or else they would just hack it. I'm only half-kidding since I genuinely don't know what you mean when you say "professional standard". Axem Titanium (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• That illustrates my point: "monster" already indicates something frightening and powerful, so "powerful monster" is redundant (one might feel the need to clarify if they were attacked by a tiny weakling monster). By "professional standard" I'm referring to point one of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, that the article's prose be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Forgetting about "brilliant", the prose is - IMHO - neither engaging nor of a professional standard. In the plot section it's too insipid (as I put it) or generic (as you put it) and just adding more descriptive detail makes it worse, not better. It's just too "They do this. And then they go here. And then they do this". The examples I gave were just examples, I'm pressed for time at the moment, but here's a couple of pointers (ultimately though, my advice has to be rewrite it so that it's both "engaging" and "professional"):
• In the first dungeon they visit, they encounter a girl in white being chased by a monster with a red wand. The girl attempts to entrust an item to Orca but the monster attacks him and The World's servers crash. Kite discovers that Orca has fallen into a coma following the attack and resolves to discover why.[18] He meets BlackRose and they go to a cathedral area where they are attacked by a powerful monster. monster, monster, monster (and 2 further times before the end of the paragraph). Why "cathedral area", and not "cathedral" or whatever is meant by that? Lack of clarity: Is "...and The World's servers crash" co-incidental or caused by the monster attack?
• Server instability aborts a planning meeting at the start of .hack//Quarantine. I don't think this makes sense. The instability must cause someone to abort the meeting.
• "even more powerful than before", again stretching detached and descriptive.
• Another big issue is that the the plot section is written almost entirely in-universe, which is doubly confusing because some of it takes place within a game, within the game (yo, we put an in-universe style in your in-universe style, so you can be confused while you're confused). Trying to figure out whether Harald Hoerwick and Emma Wielant are real people, whether stuff is happening to characters or characters' characters is confusing (examples again). bridies (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• A few minor style points I noticed which I may as well point out: "team up" (bit too informal), "which they escape from." (prefer "from which they escape." /pedant) and in the lead: "the lengths it goes to preserve suspension of disbelief", which I'm pretty sure should be ""the lengths it goes to, to preserve suspension of disbelief" (ungainly and would need changed in turn). bridies (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the gist of your oppose is that the reception section is too short in comparison to the rest of the article, a comment made by David Fuchs above. I wrote this article in 2010 and haven't really touched it since and I agree that the reception section was a little too trim. As such, I rewrote the section, bringing in almost 30 new sources. I hope that addresses some of the imbalance in the article. I've tried to address your other points about the plot section as well, and have responded to some comments directly, above. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:09, 3 September 2012 [13].

---

Elizabeth of Bosnia

Nominator(s): Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I've been improving it step by step for three years now and, if nothing else, I'd like to be told what else should be done to improve it. Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Image licensing clear; I think that whether or not Croatia has freedom of panorama (and has a suitable definition of 3D or whatever), the plain text in File:Street of Elizabeth Kotromanic in Zadar.JPG would not attract copyright. Others certainly fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Check alphabetization of Bibliography
• Kellog or Kellogg?
• Missing bibliographic info for Jasienica
• Be consistent in whether you include all authors in shortened citations
• Use endashes for ranges
• Fine or Van Antwerp Fine?
• No citations to Klaić, Labuda et al, Mosher Stuard, Opfell, Tomašević et al
• Parsons: ISBN? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Done, I think. There were no citations to the mentioned authors because I had revamped the article using other sources, so I removed them from bibliography. Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "(see family tree)": I don't have a position, I just want to point this out. Normally, we avoid "see ..." at FAC; instead, a link is added to text that sounds natural in context, perhaps: "Both were descendants of Duke Casimir I of Kuyavia, related in the fourth degree ...". But I don't know of a prohibition on ever saying "see ..." at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 01:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• "with France and Hungary recognising different popes, Clement VII and Urban VI respectively": with France recognising Clement VII as pope and Hungary recognising Urban VI. (Avoid "respectively" if it's easy to do so.)
• "misestimated": not in several dictionaries I checked; try another word.
• "toward/towards": consistency. BritEng has a slight preference for "-wards".
• "but was neither talented nor qualified to prepare Mary and Hedwig for their roles as monarchs": I don't understand what "[not] talented ... to prepare" means.
• "Crown of St. Stephen": consistency on the full stop/period after "St" - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "Talented" means "politically talented", so I made that clear. I agree about the family tree link, actually, and that's how I intended to pipe it. However, I was not sure if it would be considered an Easter egg link. I'll gladly change it. I've corrected everything else. I hope it's better now. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take several days to show up on that page.) I enjoyed the article. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment (still reviewing) - interesting topic, looks comprehensive and well-sourced at first glance. Reading through the first three sections showed some issues with clarity and essay-ish phrases, which seem to continue throughout the article. Comments for first half up until Marriage:

• Lead - "... and was her father's most significant achievement." ==> Several problems: Elizabeth, not her father, is the article focus; it's a quite strong, judging statement (source?) and it is not repeated in main text (lead is a summary, so all its statements need to be expanded on in the main text, or atleast repeated similarly).
• "The royal couple [went on to have] two more children, Mary and Hedwig, while Catherine died in 1378..." ==> improve flow and clarity of timeline, maybe "The royal couple had two more children, Mary (b. 1371) and Hedwig (b. 1373 or 1374), but their eldest daughter, Catherine, died in 1378."
• "When Louis [himself] died in 1382, [the elder surviving daughter,] Mary, ascended to the throne of Hungary, ..." ==>"When Ludwig died in 1382, Mary ascended to the throne of Hungary,..." (order of succession is already established in last sentence and "himself" is redundant).
• Content of second lead para ==> you should add a few more details: who opposed? why? who were the "enemies" finally defeating her? Not the whole story is needed, but some more general background information to establish the context.
• Descent ==> why are 1350 (2nd para) and 1349 (3rd para) events in reverse order?
• "In 1350, Tsar Stephen Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia attacked Bosnia in order to regain [ ] Zachlumia." ==> not wrong, but adding "his former province" would add some clarity (maybe it's even worthwhile to mention, that the province was previously lost to Stephen II? Not sure about that.)
• Marriage - "Louis married Elizabeth in Buda on 20 June 1353, hoping to defeat Tsar Dušan with her father's help [or as his successor]." ==> "or as his successor" is non-parallel and "his" is ambiguous. Maybe "either with her father's help or as his eventual successor to the Bosnian throne." to clarify the structure a bit.
• "... [and became a new source of trouble.]" ==> too informal and adds nothing new (the reader already knows, that he beat Louis to the throne. If there was additional trouble (?), it should be specified in detail).
• "In 1357, Louis [summoned] the young ban ..." ==> "Summoned" implies some kind of authority - would "invited" be more fitting?
• "The new queen of Hungary subjected herself entirely to her controlling mother-in-law [and does not seem to have had her own court, as] her retinue included the same individuals who had served the queen mother. " ==> sounds speculative (and in editorial voice), the sentence would read better without the middle part.
• "However, things suddenly took a different course ..." ==> Avoid terms like "however" or "also", when they are not really needed. When the contrast is already clear in its context, "however" is just filler. Maybe "This provisional arrangement ended, when the queen ...".
• "Securing marriage to one of the princesses soon became a priority [of] European royal courts." ==> "in European royal courts".
• "It appeared probable that the crowns would pass to one of Elizabeth's underage daughters and, by 1374, it became certain." ==> probable to whom? certain to whom? how did it became certain? The situation should not be analyzed by the article on its own, so a reliable source for this assessment needs to be attributed (if ref 21 covers this analysis aswell, please duplicate the ref behind the related statements).

I can do a check of the remaining sections during the next weekend and copy edit some minor points. GermanJoe (talk) 10:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, GermanJoe. The first issue had already been pointed out by another user so I guess it is a genuine problem. I'm removing the contentious claim altogether. The word "summoned" correctly implies authority, as Tvrtko and Stephen were vassals of Louis. As for her relationship with her mother-in-law, the latter part of the sentence ("her retinue included...") doesn't make sense if the lack of her own court isn't mentioned. Since presiding over a court was a privilege of queens consort that marked them as first ladies of the realm, I reworded it. I hope the impression of speculation is gone now. Ref 21 does cover the analysis as well, so I've duplicated it. It does not specify who found it probable or certain, most likely because it was the general feeling at the time - it was becoming less and less likely that the couple would have a son and Louis was paving the way for the accession of his daughters. Is it alright to leave it as it is or should it be reworded? I've fixed other issues. Surtsicna (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All of my above points Done, thank you. I am not completely happy with the last point, but on the other hand i have no good idea to improve the description without going into too much detail. Dropping that minor point, unless someone else has a great idea. GermanJoe (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments (Poland-themed article, reviewing for WP:POLAND):
• I would like to see her Hungarian and Polish names in lead.
• I don't believe the article links to Poland. I think this should be remedied, presumably through the more correct link to Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385)
• "until 1370, when Louis succeeded his maternal uncle, Casimir III the Great, as king of Poland". Polish Wikipedia lists a concrete date, 17 November, and names a specific treaty, red-linked "układ budziński". I think we should do the same, provided of course a proper reference, and an English name for the treaty (Treaty of Buda?).
  • Will continue shortly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Links to Poland and Hungary added. The problem with the names is that it wouldn't be only Hungarian and Polish names in the lead; the Bosnian name would have to be there as well. Since Bosnian language uses both Latin and Cyrilic script, that would mean four non-English versions of her name before explaining who she actually was, which is rather silly. Adding a footnote with her names would be much more convenient. As for the Treaty of Buda, I think "when Louis succeeded his maternal uncle" would be best - if there are sources that confirm the existence of such a treaty, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • A footnote would be fine. Regarding the treaty of Buda, it is from 1355, also known as privilege of Buda. I see numerous sources for "Treaty of Buda" 1355 on GBooks so you should not have much trouble verifying this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Why is the pipe " Vladislaus the Short" used instead of the article's name at Władysław I the Elbow-high? (also, Vladislaus is used later, so ensure consistency)
• I think king of Poland is no ilinked on first use.
• "the Polish nobles" should probably link to Polish nobility. Further, I think this is a bit too general of a term. Which nobles? I expect the sources should name them (the leaders of the faction).
• "Palatine Nicholas I Garay led the movement". What movement? Did it have a name? Is it notable enough to warrant a link?
• I am uneasy as upon closer reading I see the article often relies on end of the para references (ex. first para of Widowhood and regency).
  • There are three paragraphs that have a single source at the end; I assume that means that everything in the paragraph came from the source cited ... Am I right, Surtsicna? - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • [Moved from below] Yes, Dank, that is correct. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • If so, remedying this should be simple. Please copy the cites in question to the relevant sentences. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Discussing at WT:FAC#End-of-paragraph citations. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• "her regency in Poland was discontinued". In addition to this sentence being unreferenced, I am not very clear on this meaning, please explain (what does it mean discontinued, and by whom?).
• "Grand Duke Jogaila of Lithuania". Grand Duke of Lithuania should be linked.
• "Modern historians tend to describe...". Is this how the Parsons put it? Does he talk of other historians?
  • There doesn't seem to be a fixed consensus here; I can say that, when you get an objection which is more or less per WP:WEASEL, simply giving the name of the historian or historians generally makes everyone happy. - Dank (push to talk) 17:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• There are two see also links. They should be incorporated into the text, I don't see why they couldn't be.
• A final comment I have here is that the article may be suffering from avoidance of red links. For example, I see the mention of the Polish-Hungarian personal union, but it is not linked. Sure, it has no article on en wiki yet, but it has one on pl wiki: pl:Unia polsko-węgierska. For now, this and the Treaty of Buda seem to be the only red links that I can think off, but you may want to see if anything comes to mind. Red is good. (Stubbing, of course, is even better...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. "Vladislaus" is used because the source called him Vladislaus, and also for consistency with other Polish kings (Casimir and Louis) and his Bosnian namesake. The source does not name the nobles; in fact, I've just checked several others and all refer to either "Polish nobles" or "Polish lords". I can only assumes it refers to the szlachta as a political body. The movement is described earlier in the paragraph - "change in the personnel of the government". Thank you for pointing out the sentence about the regency in Poland; it was the only sentence that survived my revamping of the article ([14]). I've removed it. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I struck issues that have been addressed. Waiting for the name note, and for replies on other issues. I believe that in the Polish context Vladislaus is wrong; please use the name that the article has. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wait, I'm not sure this is right. We're talking about Vladislaus of Bosnia, right? If there's a different name or spelling in Polish articles, why not list both names at first occurrence, and if there is a second occurrence, go with whatever name is most appropriate for these sources and this article? - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Nope, I have no objection to the spelling of VoB name. I mean Władysław I the Elbow-high and Władysław Jagiełło. I guess it would be ok to use those names only on the first instance; I'll leave it to the prose experts to figure out what's best - but I do think we need to use the correct name(s) at least once. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments (second half), section "marriage" and following:

• Marriage - "Elizabeth is known to have written a book for the education of her daughters, a copy of which was sent to France in 1374." ==> Just curious, why a copy to France? Any known detail?
• Widowhood - "John asked Tvrtko for help, but was ultimately defeated by Elizabeth's army and forced to flee to Bosnia." ==> Did Tvrtko agree to help or not? If he agreed and allied with John, what happened with Tvrtko after the defeat?
• "The marriage would be celebrated in 1386." ==> more straightforward: "The marriage of Hedwig and Jogeila was celebrated in 1386." Also, the linked Hedwig article notes "March 1385" as her wedding date - which one is correct? (1386 sounds more likely, the marriage took place after the Union of Krevo).
• ''Death and aftermath - "Charles's widow Margaret insisted that Elizabeth [be murdered]." ==> "be killed" (without trial) or "be executed" (after trial). "be murdered" would imply an unlawful killing. As there was some kind of back and forth rebellion going on, it's probably best not to take a side (unless reliable, neutral sources say otherwise of course) (NPOV).
• Sigismund's rescue actions appear confusing, atleast for me: First he "intents to reach Novigrad and rescue the queens, [but his attempt failed]", then "news of Sigismund's approach reached Novigrad", then the text adds "At the moment of her death, Sigismund was on his way to rescue his wife and mother-in-law" ==> "but his attempt failed" should be stated near the end of this narrative to provide a chronological timeline (assuming all 3 statements relate to the same attempt).
• image caption of assault: "Garay was slaughtered by the rebels ..." - do neutral sources speak of an especially brutal assault? Otherwise the caption should use "killed" (NPOV)
• image caption part 2 "...and his head was sent to the queen of Naples." - out of curiosity, why? (probably shows, that i didn't get the whole picture yet).
• Legacy - "Modern historians tend to describe Elizabeth as a formidable woman, ..." - "formidable" is ok as a summary judgement, but could be specified with more details of her character (if reliable sources provide such detail).
• Family Tree ==> a brief footnote, why Mary and Hedwig are considered "kings" would be helpful for the layman. GermanJoe (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. As for the book, I am not sure why; it was sent the same year Elizabeth's eldest daughter was betrothed to the younger son of the King of France, so I suppose the engagement had something to do with it. I hope the outcome of John's rebellion is more clear now. 1386 is correct; I've corrected the other article. As for the heads, Grierson says that "their severed heads [were] sent to console Margaret". Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Updated some points, please comment on the remaining minor ones, when you got some time. GermanJoe (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 12:00, 3 September 2012 [15].

---

Independence Day (India)

Nominator(s): Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this article on behalf of the WikiProject India as a featured article candidate. The article has passed a detailed good article nomination. The article follows summary style, and uses title case for the references. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Images: the historical images lack a US copyright tag. I'm afraid I can't tell you which. In terms of the rest of the article, I'm a bit unclear on whether the article is on on the day of Independence in 1947, or the commemoration of that day every year, and whether this matters. One perhaps other commenters here can think about. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I am not well informed on the technical details and requirement of the copyright status of the images. If the images lack US copyright tag, can not they be used in the article?

The article is on Independence Day, comprising both of history of the day (how independence came on this day in 1947), and also how it is celebrated afterwards. Is the text in the article confusing on its scope? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

On the former, yes, they do. They should be deleted if not, the guys at WP:MCQ should be able to help. On the second point I'm not sure, I haven't had the time to consider the options. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

At least Template:PD-US will not be applicable here, I think! --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked the question there. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The question has been answered there. The historical images are not in the public domain in the US and have been nominated in Commons for deletion. I have removed the images from the article. Thanks for guiding us. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

comment as an outside editor, there is no way this is yet ready for FA (dont een know how it got GA). There is plenty of vague commetns (csome i just edited). It is also not comprehensive as it deals primarily with Delhi's even s (with brief mention of northeast in passing). Lots more work to be dne to compete itLihaas (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Lihaas for the comments and the edits. Due to your edits, several of the vague comments got more concrete; we will address the tags soon. Please continue to edit the article and add tags as you think appropriate.

Regarding describing events elsewhere other than Delhi, the article says, " Similar events take place in state capitals where the Chief Ministers of individual states unfurl the national flag, and parades and pageants follow." And then, the whole third paragraph of "celebration" section describes the way the day is celebrated in the whole country, not just Delhi. Do you think that the third paragraph of the "celebration" section seems to describe only Delhi, and not whole India? If you think so, can you please suggest a way so that it can be more explicit in saying that the events described are pan-India phenomena and not just in Delhi?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to see the tags are answered, thats hte point of tags.

I see some mention of other parts but its too general with UNDUE emphasis on delhi (granted national capital will have more, but dont think it should have that much more emphasis). Also mention the celebrations in other countries. For example, i went to an event at the indian embassy in tel aviv once, i imagine similar stuff happens in other embassies. Possibly historical negatives in pakistan? (dont know for sure, just throwing things out there). Do the embassies have local dignataries attending? the indian one in went to didnt but the usa one did on july 4 in tel avivLihaas (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• —Dominion of India (later Republic of India) and Dominion of Pakistan (later Islamic Republic of Pakistan); the partition was stricken with violent communal riots. - I cannot get a flow that is a must. Both sentence do not go well with each other in a way it is. Either make a new sentence or remove it. + Is the last part focused? (tells more about the consequences of partition and nothing about the day)

First of all, thanks for the comments. We've been waiting for comments :)

The body of the article says about partition as this coincided with, and was an offshoot of, the independence, and officially happened on 15 August 1947. The lead merely summarizes the article. So, this is not off-topic.

Regarding semicolon, please read the "Additive relationships: how close are the ideas?" part in User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing#Sentences. A link with a semicolon is used for linking "reasonably close ideas". In this case, the full sentence reads, "The independence coincided with the partition of India wherein the British Indian Empire was divided along religious lines into two new states—Dominion of India (later Republic of India) and Dominion of Pakistan (later Islamic Republic of Pakistan); the partition was stricken with violent communal riots". The first part of the sentence describes the partition, and after the semicolon it says the partition was full of violence. These are very much related ideas. Well, I am far from being an expert in semicolons; so, this may be discussed with an expert. In any case, using a full stop also won't stop the flow radically.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Whenever "Independence Day of India" is used, the I and D are capitalized but they are also made at other places so is it appropriate?

We could not find any specific guidelines on whether to use capital letters or small letters in such cases. However, what we have made sure is we use one style consistently. If you see any inconsistencies, please change it or notify here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• In the infobox; "speech by the Prime Minister" - I believe that our President also delivers a speech.

Added President's speech in the infobox.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is it possible to add something about "pre-celebration" such as vendors start selling accessories, shows start telecasting relevant shows etc before I-Day.

Of course it is possible, we just need some reliable sources to support it. We'll search for this.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• The features in the act go strongly off topic. What does it have to do with the day? There is one line but it is merely useless as it is covered in the other way. The features tell more about the partition rather then the day. Please remove them.

The listy features of the Act has been removed. Only the most salient points have been incorporated in the text.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also add DD and ohter channels' tricolour logo changeLihaas (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable reference for this? If yes, we can easily add this information, with reference. (Unfortunately it has been extremely difficult to find references for such common things. We may even add this without reference, since this is witnessed by the whole country; but, will that be ok for the Wikipedia community?)--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• "...the President of India delivers the "Address to the Nation", which is televised nationally." ... Only televised? I am sure they play it on radio also.

Agree. Changed telivised to broadcasted. BPositive (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• "..the Prime Minister highlights the achievements of his government during the past year,.." ... Of his government or of the country?

Certainly of the country. Done. BPositive (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Image's description reads "A child with a replica of the national flag"... What's replica? Is there only one original?

I've changed the caption. Please have a look at it. BPositive (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The Indian national anthem, Jana Gana Mana is sung." ... Jana Gana Mana should not be italicized but be inserted in inverted commas.

Done. BPositive (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Newspapers have reported a trend that the celebration pattern... " .... This line is suddenly out of place.

I've reconstructed the sentence and placed it at the end in a separate paragraph. Please have a look at this and let us know if it's fine. BPositive (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Short, one-sentence paragraphs are considerd "choppy", and are generally discouraged. So, that sentence should be included within a larger paragraph. I did include the sentence as the last sentence of the paragraph. I made the celebration by diaspora a separate paragraph. This also is a short paragraph; but, we are going to slightly expand that as suggested by another reviewer Lihaas.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• For Google doodle one sentence is sufficient. Two is too much.

Even I felt the same. I have removed the additional sentence. Just keeping the fact that Google commemorates I-Day with its doodle. BPositive (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• "See Also" section should be removed. See WP:LAYOUT. Insert those links somewhere in the article.
• Is kite flying really a celebratory event throughout the country worth mentioning in the Infobox? Kite flying is associated with Makar Sankranti.

However, sources do indicate that it also takes place on I-day. Hence, we have kept it. BPositive (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In the article it is okay. But not in the infobox. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I got your point. Done. BPositive (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Times of India has also cites commercialisation.."... "has also cited".

Done.BPositive (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Might come back with more. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:
In the lead section —

• "Citizens rejoice the day..." ..... I don't think this is a correct usage of rejoice. Rejoice can't be used as a synonym of celebrate, observe, commemorate etc.
• "..displaying the national flag on their attire, household accessories..." ..... Not household accessories, please clarify this or remove it.
• "vehicles; varied activities..." ..... More issues here. Since this is the third problem in the sentence, let me try a rewrite. "Indian citizens celebrate the day by displaying the national flag on their attire and vehicles, flying kites, listening to patriotic songs and watching patriotic movies." .... any better sentence formation that results in a better flow than the current one will do.
• "Security concerns over militant attacks and sporadic calls for boycotting the celebration by separatist outfits occasionally limit the celebration in some places." ..... This is a vague duplication of a much better phrased sentence "Some organisations have carried, out ....", which comes right after this one. The former is redundant and should be deleted.

Reply. Thanks for the suggestions. The citizens sentence has been structured now in the way you suggested. The security concerns sentence was really redundant, thanks for catching that. We have removed that sentence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In the history section —

• "The present-day India was a part of the British Indian Empire. Although the British..." ..... This paragraph has an unencyclopedic once upon a time kind of a start. A possible alternative to this could be to start with facts... "European traders had established outposts in Indian subcontinent by the 17th century. British East Indian company emerged as the dominant...." ..... anything like this will do.

Reply. Fantastic suggestion, made change in the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Although the British East India Company started trading in India in the seventeenth century, Company rule in India started from 1757 after the Company's victory in the Battle of Plassey." ..... If you are going to use although, it should be clear what is it exactly that you are contrasting. Besides, "Company rule" is vague. Do you mean through their overwhelming military strength, East India company had managed to subdue local kingdoms and establish themselves as the dominant colonial force in India?

Reply Once again, wonderful prose improvement suggestion. Incorporated this to the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• "led to the British Crown assuming" ..... this looks like plusing to me. (learnt this from Dwaipayan recently)

Reply I was not sure if this sounds like plusing. Anyway, changed the sentence, and now it uses "to". Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The period after World War I was marked by British reforms but also repressive legislation, by more strident Indian calls for self-rule, and by the beginnings of a non-violent movement of non-cooperation and civil disobedience, of which Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi would become the leader and enduring symbol." ..... This sentence is phrased in such a manner that it makes repressive legislation, Indian calls for self-rule and the beginning of a non-violent movement look like completely independent events. Moreover, chronology of the three events isn't absolutely clear. Don't use ", by" to connect the phrases.

In the process This change suggested is a problematic one. This sentence summarizes a massive part of the history. However, it does not necessarily do it in chronological order (is chronology needed in this case? These are occurring nearly simultaneously and over a decade or two). And I am not sure how to establish the inter-dependency of these events in the sentence. Will try to think; any suggestions are more than welcome. For now, have kept the sentence unchanged.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Option 1 The period after World War I was marked by British reforms but also repressive legislation, simultaneous strident Indian calls for self-rule eventually leading to the beginning of a non-violent movement of non-cooperation and civil disobedience, of which Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi would become the leader and enduring symbol." -- How does it sound?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply You have to clarify what the reforms and the repressive laws were. It could confuse the readers otherwise. How about "The period after World War I was marked by British reforms such as the release of political prisoners, but it also witnessed the enactment of the repressive Rowlatt Act and strident calls for self-rule by Indian freedom fighters. The widespread discontent of this period crystallized into nationwide non-violent movements of non-cooperation and civil disobedience under the leadership of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who became the enduring symbol of the India's non-violent struggle for independence." Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 00:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll be back with more suggestions, if you take my comments positively. :) Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to CorrectKnowledge Thanks a ton for the excellent suggestions. We need more of such prose improvement tips. Please continue to provide feedback. Replies to individual concerns are written above. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Some more suggestions. In the history section —

• "During the 1930s, slow legislative reform was..." ..... Do you mean legislative reform was slowly/gradually enacted by the British?

done reforms gradually enacted by...

• "...slow legislative reform was enacted by the British; the Indian National Congress won victories in the resulting elections." ..... The relationship between the two sentence fragments is missing. For instance, did the legislative reform call for an election which the INC won?

Reply The second part of the sentence ends with "resulting election". That is supposed to mean that the elections resulting from the reforms. If the meaning is not clear, we will change the structure.

• "The next decade was beset with crises: Indian participation in World War II, the Congress's final push for non-cooperation, and an upsurge of" ..... Can "Congress's final push for non-cooperation" be called a crisis? Maybe political turmoil would be a better word.

done Used political turmoil.

• "All were capped by..." ..... All what were capped? Besides, capped and tempered don't go together. The first fragment should show that events of Independence were that of jubilation, exuberance, joy etc. for them to be tempered.

done Restructured. Please have a look.

• "In 1946, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, and conscious that it had neither..." ..... ", and conscious" does not appear to be correct, dropping the and might help. This sentence has too many commas. It needs to be broken into more sentences.

Done. Restructured, got rid of the last clause which is redundant (the next sentence says the same thing in a more concrete way).--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• "With the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence..." ..... a)There are two fors in one phrase. b)Why is there a scope of increased violence? Is it because of partition? Then add a sentence on it before this one. c)Why did Mountbatten advance the date instead of delaying it? Did he fear for British lives? d)Don't start with "With the...". After adding all the missing information the sentence might have to be broken into two.

In the process I will first try to consult the books to see if we find any exact cause of Mountbatten's advancing the date, then will address teh sentence structure issue. I checked the Metcalf and Metcalf book, and that mentions nose-diving economy of UK as the reason for transferring power quickly. I will check some other books (such as Wolpert), and then address this. OK?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply I have the book by Read, Anthony; Fisher, David (1999). The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 459–60. ISBN 978-0-393-31898-2. offline. According to this book, Mountbatten advanced the date of handing over power to 15th August because a)Indian leaders demanded independence within two months when they met him at the beginning of June 47 (there is no written record of this but it coincides with Patel's demand for independence in two months) b)with fresh squabbles arising between the Congress and the League virtually everyday, Mountbatten opined that the collapse of the interim government was a serious possibility. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 01:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "the principle of partition of India" ..... Do you mean the plan for partition or the idea of dividing British India into two states? Please clarify this.

done please have a look.

• "Viceroy Mountbatten chose 15 August as the date of power transfer; he chose this date as this was the second anniversary of Japan's surrender in the World War II." -> Viceroy Mountbatten chose the second anniversary of Japan's surrender in WWII, 15th August, as the date....

done

• "The Indian Independence Act 1947 (10 & 11 Geo 6 c. 30) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom..." ..... No need for "was an". The Indian Independence Act 1947 of the parliament of United....

done.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll be back for more. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Dwaipayan, the article looks better for your effort. However, I'll be able to comment on the changes only after I've gone through the whole article once. In the Celebration section —

• "The Congress called people..." ..... should be "...called on people...".

Done --BPositive (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "...to take pledge on that day until India attained complete independence" ..... to pledge what? Their support to the Indian Independence movement?

Done. Used parts of the pledge within quotes in the sentence, also provided the last paragraph of the pledge announcement as a quotation in the reference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Between 1930 and 1947, 26 January was observed as the Independence Day of India, and carried symbolic value to the Congress." ..... Do you mean to say "... was observed as the Independence Day of India as it carried symbolic value to the Congress." Even if this is not what you meant, still try to rephrase the sentence without and.

Done

• "Independence Day is one of the three national holidays in India (...) and is observed in all Indian states and union territories." ..... again use of and feels inappropriate, I could be wrong. How about "Independence Day, one of the three national holidays in India (...), is observed in...".

Done

• "The speech is followed by march past by divisions of..." ..... two bys here. How about "... followed by a march past of the..".

Done

• "paramilitary forces, and parades and pageants showcasing events from the struggle" ..... and needs to be removed and "parades..." sentence fragment should be made into a new sentence. "Parades and pageants showcase, scenes from the freedom struggle and the various cultural traditions of India."

Done --BPositive (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "...Chief Ministers of individual states unfurl the national flag, and parades and pageants follow." -> "...of individual states unfurl the national flag, which is followed by parades and pageants." Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 02:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Done --BPositive (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks for your suggestions, CorrectKnowledge. I've made some changes to the ones I could agree with or was sure. I've left out ones where I was confused/ could not reframe the sentence. I'll leave that to other editors. Cheers! BPositive (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the Security Threats section —

• "Islamic fundamentalist militants" ..... drop fundamentalist, it's redundant. There are no liberal Islamic militants.

Done --BPositive (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Security measures in the country are intensified before the Independence Day celebration, especially in major cities such as Delhi, Mumbai and in troubled states such as Jammu and Kashmir. The celebratory events are anticipated to be the target of terrorist attacks, particularly by the Islamic fundamentalist militants" ..... These two sentences can be combined into one sentence. "In anticipation of terrorist attacks, particularly from Islamic militants, security measures are intensified before the...".

Done --BPositive (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• " United Liberation Front of Assam and National Democratic Front of Bodoland in Northeast India have, on more than one occassion, boycotted the celebrations and have carried out attacks on and around 15 August." ..... "boycotted the celebration" is not necessary. The fact that these outfits have carried out attacks on Independence day already suggests that they don't participate in celebrations.

Done --BPositive (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "looming tension" ..... this is probably an incorrect usage of loom. Actually, the two sentences on NE can be combined into one. "Celebrations in the Northeastern states of India are often marred by calls of boycott and terrorist attacks by separatist insurgent organisations like the United Liberation Front of Assam and National Democratic Front of Bodoland." This isn't perfect yet, it has two consecutive bys, but it avoids few of the problems in the earlier formulation. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 16:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How about "Calls of boycott and terrorist attacks by separatist insurgent organisations like the United Liberation Front of Assam and National Democratic Front of Bodoland often mar the Independence Day celebrations in Northeast India." Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This one seems better and I've made the changes in the article. Thanks for it. Done --BPositive (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I am almost done. In the popular culture section —

• "Over the decades, according to The Times of India, the number of such film(→ films) broadcast has decreased as channels report that too many patriotic films would overwhelm the audience(→ viewers) who want popular entertaining films instead, to enjoy the holiday."

Done --BPositive (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The population cohort belonging to the Generation Next..." ..... belonging to -> that belong to

Done --BPositive (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Outfits displaying the three colours of the national flag—saffron, green and white; use of food colours to make savouries and delicacies resembling the tri-colour; cloth-designs reflecting ideas gleaned from the cultural traditions of India are example of such mixtures." ..... an alternative way to write this could be, "The mixture of popular culture with nationalism is exemplified by outfits and savouries dyed with the tricolour and designer garments that represent the various cultural traditions of India." Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Done --BPositive (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Probably the first one here. I see no problems in the prose anymore. I get a flow while reading and it is what I look for in a brilliant article. The article is certainly improved from what it was before GAN. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support Support - A very few major prose corrections still need to be done. Otherwise, the prose looks up to par. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Issues raised by the reviewers have been taken care of. I am happy to support this. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 03:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Although some very good work has been done on the article, I feel it isn't ready yet. I feel the GA review was inadequate, and didn't ask many basic questions about the article:

• Existential question: is this article about the historical event that happened on 15 August 1947 or the annual holiday? It seems to be about the latter, but why are most of the artistic inspirations (Train to Pakistan, Midnight's Children) about events arising from the former? I don't think both these things should be clubbed in the same article, as they deal with completely different things.
• Article name: why not "Independence Day of India", in line with infobox and lead sentence?

Reply This I do not know. The naming is in line with wikipedia articles on the independence day of many other countries such as US,Pakistan, Finland, and so on. The nae has existed in this style perhaps since the article was created.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thought about this, and the article-name is fine. We celebrate Independence Day, not Independence Day of India. Hence, the (India) is a disambiguator. I've rewritten the lead sentence to reflect this.—indopug (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sources: have all major sources been consulted? I'm no historian, but even I know famous works such as Bipin Chandra's India's Struggle for Independence and Ram Guha's India after Gandhi, neither of which have been consulted. I also notice a greater number of books by Western authors, who may be propounding a imperialistic historiography of the Raj. More scholarly sources need to be used throughout: why is a American web-only entertainment/celebrity news and review publication used to source what happens on Independence Day?

Reply Books that were consulted include "A Concise History of Modern India" (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-68225-1 (by Metcalf and Metcalf); "India". University of California Press. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-520-22172-7 by Wolpert; Sarkar, Sumit (1983). Modern India, 1885–1947. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-90425-1. These are well-known general history books on India. Ramchandra Guha's "India after Gandhi" is agreat suggestion, will try to consult that. Undoubtedly, availability of books is a factor limiting the use of varied books. Do you have in mind any specific area/sentence that is doubtful?

The Monster and Critic page that has been used displays a news supplied by the agency IANS, the Indo-Asian News Service. This news briefly tells bout the ceremonies in multiple states. We could not find any other sources which described the ceremonies in so many states together. Of course there is news on celebration in different states. Since the sentence discusses celebration in many states, we used this as a reference. Otherwise, multiple references for different states would be needed. I understand Monster and Critic does not have as much acceptability as, say, Yahoo. But sourcing of the news item to IANS is acceptable. Can you suggest ny other alternative? I have not found any non-trivial books describing the ceremonies in various states. Will search more.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Update Found an article in Outlook magazine describing the ceremonies in different state capitals. Have added that reference after this sentence, alongside Monsters and Critics. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comprehensiveness:

• the brief history of colonial rule jumps from 1858 to the First World War.

Reply. Now we have added the emergence of public life in the decades following rebellion. I did not add more specifics as the article is written in summary style. What is your opinion now?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• The Purna Swaraj declaration look strange in the Celebrations section; I think it should be in Background, along with the other historical stuff.

Reply Agreed. I moved the part on Purna Swaraj declaration in History. However, that 26 January was celebrated as I-Day between 1930 and 1947 is kept in "Celebration" section. I will add some info on how that celebration was (Ramchandra Guha's book actually has some example of that).--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Why mention the first Governor-General of Pakistan but the first Prime Minister of India?

Reply India is prime focus here, so both PM and Governor-General have been mentioned. Pakistan, while very important, is not the main focus; so only the most prominent political figure's (Jinnah) post is mentioned. If you insist, we can add the name of Pakistan's first PM (Liaquat Ali Khan) as well.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Security threats: IMO there needs to be more specifics here. Have there been any major incidents on I-Day? When? Did anything like this happen in the 60s and 70s? Since when (and how) have ULFA or Islamic militants been causing trouble? Also, note that you mention Islamic militants as the main threat, but elaborate with examples of Assam/J&K separatists and Maoists.

Reply What do you mean by "major incident"? Nothing like 2001 Indian Parliament attack or 2008 Mumbai attacks has happened. However, bomb blasts taking away tens of lives have occurred on many years, including 2012. We did not add all such years, as that would be too many years. However, going through your suggestions, I think adding the decade when it all started (the attacks) would be a great idea. I will try to find a good reference, and then add this information.

Why we need 1960s and 1970s? The news, books that have been consulted do not say anything specifically about those decades. However, since 1980s, ULFA threats were there.

The opening sentence says, " In anticipation of terrorist attacks, particularly from Islamic militants, security measures ...". SO it is the anticipation of Islamic militant attacks, and not actual militant attacks on 15 August that prompts security increase. This sentence is well-supported by references. We did not add any example of Islamic militant attacks as we did not find such example (of course we may have missed the news; will add if we see such news).--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Will start working on this section soon; will try to gather more specifics.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Trivia: the second paragraph of In popular culture is basically a list of every artwork to be set in 1947. It is unnecessary to mention them all, and many of these are only tangentially about the event; Train to Pakistan for instance is about the horrors of the Partition. Instead you should look at why Independence Day (specifically, not Partition or the freedom struggle) is such a fascinating topic for writers and artists.

Reply Removed such indiscriminate list of names. Please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.—indopug (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Accuracy: "birth as a sovereign nation" - is this really accurate? India, nominally at least, was still just a Dominion, and the Queen its head of state.

Fixed this myself in the lead.—indopug (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Prose: not the best, but definitely improvable. But this can be looked at once the article is there structurally and comprehensiveness-wise.—indopug (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Initial Reply Thanks a lot Indopug for your comments. As I am busy this weekend, I will work on your suggestions and reply in detail from Monday/Tuesday. Thanks again. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your effort with this important article. Replied to a few of your points above for now; will try to give a thorough section-by-section review starting tomorrow. In the meantime, I suggest trying to get more reviewers (also, alert Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics about this FAC).—indopug (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, 1a. It's got legs, but needs a thorough, careful run-through by a word-nerd. Just had a look at the lead:

• Optional comma after "disobedience" ... up to you.

Did not add the comma.

• Please: wherein, hereafter, abovementioned, hitherto, hereupon ... these do not belong in modern English. Here, use "in which".

Removed the archaic use of wherein.

• Deictics required: the Dominion of India; the Republic of India), et al.

Have added. Will comb through the article in case we have done the same mistake elsewhere.

• "the partition was stricken with violent communal riots"—stricken is too strong in the wrong way, so we wonder for a moment whether the partition survived the riots and went ahead: it did. So "was accompanied by" would be better.

Done.

• Remove "then" ... the sequence is obvious.

Done.

• This list is problematic in a number of ways: "Indian citizens celebrate the day by displaying the national flag on their attire, accessories, homes and vehicles, flying kites, listening to patriotic songs, watching patriotic movies, and bonding with family and friends." Do we need "the day", which clangs a bit with "disPLAYing", and isn't really necessary in the context you've set up. Now, the first four items are about displaying the flag on things, yes? Then we get to quite different constructs ... so "... vehicles; and by flying ...". It's really two big items, each of several sub-items. Do you need "citizens"? Unsure ... but if you want, "Indians celebrate ...", since it's already a long sentence. Up to you.

This list has been problematic since the beginning! Thank you for guiding us. Please have a look at the list now, "Indians celebrate the day by displaying the national flag on their attire, accessories, homes and vehicles; by listening to patriotic songs, watching patriotic movies; and bonding with family and friends.". How does it sound? Do we need to change anything in "by listening to patriotic songs, watching patriotic movies" segment?

• Not happy having to link to the article on bandh to learn what it means. Do link it, but is it possible to explain it in just a few words in the main sentence? "... declared bandh, a strategy of civil disobedience, and ..."?

Replaced bandh with strikes.

• "Several books and films feature the independence and partition in their narrative."—I'd be gobsmacked if they weren't featured in books and films. This seems too obvious to put in the lead, as though you're mentioning it here to summarise the article. A lead isn't a summary like that, but functions as an overview and introduction for readers.

I am so happy you brought this! We had to add this sentence for the sake of summary. There are reviewers who ask for summary in the anatomical sense, that the lead should have summary of major sections. I'd be very glad to remove this sentence from the lead, if nobody disagrees.

Spot-checks, further down:

• "In February 1947, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Clement Attlee announced that the British government would grant full self-governance to British India by June 1948 at the latest." (and please no secondary link for PM ... that's in the Atlee article. (But "viceroy" is unfamiliar, and might be reasonable as a direct link from this article.)

Done.

• the royal assent.

Done.

• where the new border lines divided -> where the borders divided

Done.

• Gandhi decided to stay in Calcutta and help mitigate the communal carnage -> Gandhi stayed in Calcutta in an attempt to stem the communal carnage

Done.

• Again, the Dominion of India.

Done (sorry for these silly mistakes)

• first prime minister ... lower case, please. Generic, not a specific title here.

Done. Done the same in other instances.

• "Between 1930 and 1947, 26 January was observed as the Independence Day of India as it carried symbolic value to the Congress.[15][16] The celebration of 26 January as the Independence Day was marked by meetings where the attendants took the "pledge of independence"." Not quite sure I comprehend the "as it carried symbolic value" ... why? Is it in the second sentence? If so, it's unclear. And let's rejig the word order to avoid 1947, 26. "As" is dangerous in English; does it mean "because/since", or "at the same time as"?

The day carried symbolic value because in 1930, 26 January was declared as the Independence Day after the Purna Swaraj declaration. This was discussed in the History section. I have now changed the sentence to remind the reader about that: "Following the Purna Swaraj (Declaration of the Independence of India) promulgation in 1929, the Congress observed 26 January as the Independence Day between 1930 and 1947". Is it more explanatory now?

• Space after the ellipsis points. And then before them in the next one. Actually, you can probably remove both: does the reader need to know here? And a point is required after the closing quotes.

Added non-breaking space after the ellipsis. Removed the second one.

• "in the country" ... sounds like country vs urban areas. Safer "throughout the country".

Done

• Two subset items? "In some cities, such as Delhi". Better "In cities such as Delhi", or "In Delhi and other cities,"

Done.

Tony (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply Thanks a lot for the review. If you have time and have interest, can you be that word-nerd you mentioned ? One plus-point is the article is not too large, it won't take much time for you! Thank you for using one sentence from this article in your ambiguity spotting exercise.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

All lovely changes you've made. The ambiguity exercises are hardly started, and are supposed to be a secret. Please wait. Tony (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.