Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page. Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is normally allowed to be the sole nominator of one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. An editor may ask the approval of the coordinators to add a second sole nomination after the first has gained significant support. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut WP:FACWP:FAC Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing Shortcut Wikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSEWikipedia:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Computer Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boston Red Sox Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brazil Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brooks-Baxter War Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/OpenOffice.org Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gene Clark

Rus' Khaganate

Self-nom as the creator of this article, though User:Ghirlandajo and User:Beit Or contributed as much or more than I did. I think this is a very comprehensive coverage of a little-known period in Russian history. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, a very interesting article.--Berig 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Beit Or 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comment: could use a infobox (if appropriate), the lead in is a little confusing regarding the subject of the article (if it is a historical geographic region, or a culture or as in this case a former state).--Oden 21:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have clarified the intro per your request. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended. --Oden 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Vald 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice.--Yannismarou 07:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Interesting subject. Article looks consolidated. - Darwinek 09:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - wonderful! Khoikhoi 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very good and interesting article. I am a little bit concerned about the note 26 "Новосельцев". There are two books of Novoseltsev in the references, so which one? Also shouldnot we use Latin script? Not all of the readers know Cyrillic. Alex Bakharev 11:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the necessity to use Latin and not Cyrillic (or Greek for instance) script in the references. Since this is an English encyclopedia, this is the only choice.--Yannismarou 20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin letters are preferable, but if the latinised name is a transliteration where there might be several ways to do so (Peking/Beijing) it can be appropriate to include the original name in (parentheses). Also see WP:MOS - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) for reference. --Oden 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In parenthesis, yes, but not only the original name.--Yannismarou 09:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I never even knew of the existence of this state, great job.--Eupator 20:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Oppose.
  • This very interesting article is written so well and convincingly that a casual reader may take it for a solid, well-established state. In fact this is nothing but a reconstruction from scarse historical references, and pretty much recent one. This must be said more prominently in the introduction. In particular, is this theory taught in Russian school? So the remarks kinda "I never even knew of the existence of this state" are pretty much normal reaction.
  • Second, The article is not about some obscure lost island in New Guinea, it is part of the history of big chunk of land:
    • What was written about these lands/times in other history books?
    • What is the genesis of this theory?

Concluding, in the current state the article is rather misleading IMO. `'mikkanarxi 00:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the sources speak for themselves, and all prominent scholars in the field agree that this polity existed. To the extent there are disagreements about temporal or geographic scope, or about the nature of its government, religion etc., these disagreements are extensively (even, thanks to Ghirla and Beit Or, painstakingly) set forth in the the article. The fact that this period is or is not taught in Russian schools is irrelevant. Very few (if any) American students learn about the Adena culture, either; that doesn't mean that they didn't exist or that they weren't a part of the history of North America. I have no idea why your second point militates against FA status; it would seem quite the opposite. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't have to tell me once again that american schools suck. anyway, I probably had to be more specific: Do they teach this in historical depts of Russian universities? Also about "all prominent scholars", I am not an expert, so I even did not raise this concern (namely, if there is any disagreement), alsthough I have my doubts as to total unanimousity with respect to these scarsely documented times. The second point subbranches into two items about an isolated stand of the text. `'mikkanarxi 23:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• By a sheer occasion, just now I stumbled upon the statement "there is no commonly accepted understanding of Rus khaganate", reaffirming my major objection: the article is misleading in presenting (possibly inadvertently) this theory as a well-established, consolidated piece of knowledge. `'mikkanarxi 23:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A case to demonstrate my claim: The authors so unconditionally assume their POV that unwittingly (I don't assume they intended to cheat) write false statements: "The earliest European reference to the khaganate comes from the Annals of St. Bertin." There is no mention of "khaganate" In Bertinian Annals. This style of writing is good for pop-science, but not for encyclopedia, despite multiple inline references. And once again, paradoxically, the problem is aggravated by the fact that the text is very well written, so that ony such hardened nasty people like me may stop and wonder whether all this is bullhit or not. `'mikkanarxi 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Mikka, if you feel that the article is a bunch of fantasies by Briangotts and me, you should apply to AfD. You may consider deleting its ru.wiki predecessor as well. To be sure, you won't find anything about the khaganate in Karamzin, Solovyov, or Klyuchevsky because, as the former has observed, в 1850 г., по высочайшему повелению Николая I запрещено было подвергать критике вопрос о годе основания русского государства, ибо-де 862-й год назначен преподобным Нестором. In the Soviet period, anti-Semitism was still rampant, so the "khagans" and Khazarian influences were seldom mentioned. I can't imagine any modern historian who can overlook evidence, however. Even Rybakov, the pundit of Soviet historiography, did not dare to deny these stubborn facts. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't overreact. What you've just wrote is a valid addition to the article, as an explanation of the obscurity of the topic. I am surprized you don't find this oblivion/obscurity to be a notable issue. `'mikkanarxi 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I indeed treated the obscure issue with scepticism and, when Brian started the article, went offline for evidence to debunk it as a fringe theory. I checked my books... and returned to expand the article. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's exactly my point. The theory is relatively novel, and this deserves explanation. Please notice I am not questioning its validity. I am questioning its presentation. `'mikkanarxi 23:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that the purpose of this reader is to derail this FAC nomination. It's his right to oppose, yet he makes several gross mistatements of fact that must not go unanswered:

Bertin does not use the word "Khaganate" but he does refer to a Rus' ruler whose title was "Khagan". a land ruled by a khagan is a "khaganate." To deny that Bertin refers to the Rus' Khaganate is an exercise in verbal trickery.

On the contrary, it is a verbal trickery to put your words into Bertin's mouth. He could have used the word "khagan" for countles reasons. the title of the ruler does not always correspond to the name of the polity, take Golden Horde for an example. `'mikkanarxi 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main question remain unanswered and obscure here. Is Khaganate mentioned in Bertin or not? Those supporting "yes" can they give a clear and undisputable argumentation, so that everybody is convinced here?--Yannismarou 20:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The polity is known as "Rus' Khaganate" to modern academics. It is a descriptive, not intended to be a recreation of what the people themselves called their polity (like calling someone "Byzantine Emperor" instead of "Baseleius ton Rhomahoi". We know that the ruler of the Rus' in this period was called khagan. Therefore his kingdom was khaganate.

If Bertin referred to a "King of x", we would say that that is a reference to the "x kingdom". This is no different. Mikka is nitpicking here, and not in any particularly relevant manner. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Yannismarou 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the denial that this is taught in Russian universities- what Russian universities do or do not teach is their own affair, and something over which I have no control (and little concrete knowledge). But I will point out that numerous Russian professors, who did teach at various universities, have acknowledged this period of history and written extensively about it: Svetlana Pletnyeva, Machinsky, and Novoseltsev to name just three off the top of my head. Numerous Western academics of Russian or Ukrainian origin (Omeljan Pritsak, Vernadsky, etc.) have also written copious works on this topic. This is to say nothing, of course, of the vast number of scholars who have discussed the Rus' Khaganate who were not Russian or Ukrainian. To ask that everyone ignore all of these sources based on Mikka's feeling that this is all "bullhit" doesn't seem to me to comport with what Wikipedia is all about. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking. You answered. Or not? Teaching in universities is an important criterion, meaning that a theory is widely accepted. Professors write millions of articles. Not all of them are mainstream. Are there any books that have a title or a chapter title with words "Rus Khaganate"? () `'mikkanarxi 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, to refer to this article as a "theory" is ridiculous. The Rus' Khaganate existed, the fact that we don't know much about the structure of its government etc. is immaterial to its place in this encyclopedia. The disagreements and multiple theories extant are all given and discussed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things that "exist". To see that you perceive the term "theory" as a slur or insult is very funny. The article itself says that facts are scarse, hence the rest is a theory derived from scarse literary mentionings and excavations. And the introduction to this article cannot sound in the same declarative, doubtless way as, say, for Ancient Rome. `'mikkanarxi 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer certain what you are objecting to. Your statements don't appear to be part of a coherent argument. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It smells like there are some strained interpretations in the article. However prostitution in the People's Republic of China isn't taught at schools either, but the article is featured, Mikka. :P --Brand спойт 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very interesting, well-written, well-sourced, nicely illustrated, good length. Happy to support. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This article has wonderful citations and references, and the quality of it is impressive. Another fine, fresh (and former DYK) Rus' article brought up beyond GA standard in under a month. Good work! --Grimhelm 14:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object—1a. Here are random examples of why the whole text needs copy-editing.
  • "poorly-documented"—NO hyphen after "-ly'. Why start with a negative?
  • "According to contemporary sources"—Does contemporary refer to the ninth century or now?

Oh, dear... "Contemporary" refers to the era of Rus' Khaganate; otherwise, it would be "modern". Beit Or 19:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You' re right on that one; the rest stands, though. Tony 07:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • "its successors would ultimately found Kievan Rus' and its successors, the states from which modern Russia would evolve."—why this back-slung conditional? What's wrong with the plain "its successors ultimately founded"? And "modern Russia evolved".

What's wrong with the use of the conditional? I can fix that anyway. --Grimhelm 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is true that these two conditionals in a row do not sound very nice, but again grammatically they are not wrong. In this case, the truth is somewhere between your opinion and Tony's!--Yannismarou 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • "he was aware only about the Avar khagans, but never heard about the khagans of the Khazars and Normanns"—aware about? Insert "had" before "never". There's a false contrast here: "but" should be "and".
  • We have "11th" and "12th", but "tenth".

That was also easily fixed. --Grimhelm 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why are some of the years linked? 889 tells me about Strathclyde, the Khmer empire, Bulgaria and Scotland. That's helpful.

You forgot to mention the Magyars, and both the Magyars and the Bulgars are mentioned in this article: just look at Template:Gardariki! --Grimhelm 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is way below the required "professional" standard. Tony 14:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native speaker of English, therefore I can't assess if there is any merit in what Tony says above. I urge native speakers to examine his arguments which appear like his personal preferences rather than a definitely fixed standard. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Had" before "never" is indeed a personal preference. My personal preference is tha same, but a preference it is. Beit Or 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through this and copyedited it. I made a number of smallish corrections, but I found the writing to be quite good on the whole. One sentence did stump me--see the article's talk page. Once that is resolved, however, I feel that the prose will be a very solid standard. --Robth^Talk 15:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Quite interesting, well written, well referenced, well illustrated, good length. Kudos to its creators! Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor object. This is a very interesting article, but there are several issues that need to be resolved first (I fully expect them to be, and thus it is a minor object which I expect to change to support shortly). 1) there are a few places where inline citations are needed, I added a few fact templates 2) government section has some inline comments raising important questions, they should be addressed, preferably at talk 3) there are some other inline comments throughout the article; discuss them at talk and remove them from article 4) lead could use a picture.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  <ad hominem removed into section "Freedom of expression"> `'mikkanarxi 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Conditional support if the last citation requested tag I added and is now removed would be replaced by a footnote explaining that the sources discussed in this sentence are discussed in more details in the following paras.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Without revoking my support, I would like to make a few additional remarks (after reading the article line by line), in order to underscore some minor problems IMO that should be settled, before the article acquires the FA status (I must say I was influenced by Grimhelm's remarks):

• Is there a reference of Rus' Khaganate in the the Annals of St. Bertin as the article claims or not as mikka asserts? Such things are of major importance, if we want to guarantee that the article is accurate, and we should clarify them.

The Annals of St. Bertin article has been created by Berig - I copied his citation from it into this article. --Grimhelm 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I meant mikka; not you! Sorry!--Yannismarou 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so I wasn't confused for no reason… No need to apologise though - the article got improved in the process. :-) --Grimhelm 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the Salerno Chronicle? There is no wikilink and no explanation. Will the editors of the article create a stub for this Chronicle? Shall they offer a brief explanation in the article we review (which according to my IMO would be necessary, even if a wiki-article existed)? This is not a major issue, but I think that some kind of explanation should be offered.

I believe that would be the Chronicon Salernitanum, which has had an article for some time; I have provided a link to it. --Grimhelm 14:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• About the fate of Rus' Khaganate there is only a short uncited paragraph at the end of the article. And, although prominent scholars are mentioned throughout the article, there is nothing there! Just the assertion that "The fate of the Rus' Khaganate, and the process by which it either evolved into or was consumed by the Rurikid Kievan Rus', is uncleal." Yes, but, when we have this detailed analysis in all the previous sections, the level of analysis in this final issue of huge importance can be caracterized as lower and maybe inadequate. What are the conclusions of the recent scholarly research? Slavonic and other sources may not be helpful, but what are the most popular scholarly theories right now? My impression is that the article closes leaving a sense of "incompleteness" to the reader, who wants something more in this particular issue, when he is already so well-informed for the previous open questions.
• And, of course, before the article gets FA status, the ^{[citation needed]} added should be fixed. Otherwise, this is a reason for objections. A FA can't be in the category "Articles with unsourced statements".--Yannismarou 11:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have addressed the citation needed requests. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is positive, but question A is still open I'm afraid.--Yannismarou 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the points raised earlier seem to have been largely addressed. The word "behooves" should be replaced by an alternative construction, and I would be happier if the last paragraph contained a citation. Other than these, I am content with the development of the article this week. I believe it meets the FA requirements. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Second attempt It seems that the authors took this thing too personally and started bickering with me instead of anwering my major objection. I admit my guilt of not being very clear and probably too offensive. Let me restate it once more. The theory and the term Russian Khaganate are relatively novel in modern historiography (forgetting about ancient sources), and many of us of various levels of knowledge in rusian history admitted never heard before.
  • Therefore this article requires a full separate section about the genesis of this theory. At present the text is written in the matter-of-fact way (although with NPOV defense: "there was a state or not state", "it was located here or there", etc. (which is good)).
  • What missing is who of historians was first to use the term "Russky Kaganat" or synonym.
  • Were there any sporadic references during previous centuries?
  • Are there any notable opponents? (I dont believe there are none. I know quite a few guys who are sure that Russians are Finns or Huns. But I may be wrong; the latter guys may be simply ignorant of RusKha).
  • What are the reasons under the intro phrase: "Rus' Khaganate, sometimes called Volkhov Rus, Ilmen Rus, or Novgorod Rus"? Who identified them as the one?
    • Comment: Just noticed that I was not the first one who questioned this phrase, but was reverted under false edit summary "These are not statements that require citations. They are discussed extensively in the text": None of "Volkhov Rus", "Ilmen Rus", "Novgorod Rus" are mentioned anywhere in the article. `'mikkanarxi 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro should state clearly that Rus' Khaganate is a modern term and most probably was not used at these times.
  • Any hypotheses about absence of the mentioning in Primary Chronicle besides a vague phrase that slavs and finns first kicked varangian's ass and then invited them back.

`'mikkanarxi 00:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia articles are not supposed to answer every question one can conceivably invent. Beit Or 11:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me, I did not "conceivably invent" these question. This is plain common sense. A new theory out of the blue. If is does not raise suspicious, it means that our brains are ready for indoctrination by next best smooth-talking kook. I was not nitpicking, kinda "what was the name of at least one Rus Khagan?" (a good one by the way) or "you misssed a comma in line 37 from below" or something else. I posed one HUGE question (a bit itemized): what is the place of this theory within Russian historiography? `'mikkanarxi 16:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Mikkalai, but I don't think it is a valid criterion for opposing the nomination that the theory is new to you. The many references show clearly that it is not a new theory, and your concerns about indoctrination make me wonder if you are opposing the nomination because you simply don't like the idea of a Rus' Khaganate.--Berig 16:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "very good article, well written & sourced" E104421 09:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support. I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject matter to evaluate the validity of the commented-out objections in the "government" section, but those need to be resolved--either by clarification or by reevaluating the content of that section. Other than that, however, I found this to highly informative and a very good read. --Robth^Talk 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A revelation to me. And the problem I found was dealt with quickly, so I am convinced any surprises around the corner will be solved in the same way. --Pan Gerwazy 19:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Freedom of expression" (Personal bickering removed out of discussion of the article)

• Why was Ghirla's comment removed?! I may not agree with his opinion, but I think this removal does not serve the freedom of expression here. I actually intended to post an answer to his opinion ("No, it is not. This is an established practice in FAC, FAR and FARC. I have initiated it, but I have also suffered it").--Yannismarou 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no "freedom of expression" in wikipedia. See WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK. `'mikkanarxi 00:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to say I am very disappointed by such reply, not only my citations requests were removed (for a second time!), but my copyedit (adding ilinks) was reverted as well, together with some references Angus added (!). This is not constructive. PS. Thank you mikka for removing moderating this.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is no freedom of expression here, let's close the store and let's all go home!!! I've suffered similar attacks by Ghirla, but I never reverted his edits. I repeat again that I'm per Piotrus in this particular case, and I really feel disappointed his citations requests and copy-edit were removed. I agree that this is not constructive attitude by the editors of the article, and that such actions do not help at all their FA aspirations. But, at the same time, I do not accept the deletion of Ghirla's comments. He was wrong and unfair, but he was civil. He did not insult and he did not use "bad words". So, I still regard the removal of his comment as arbitrary. The best response towards such comments is a strong argumentation; not deletions!--Yannismarou 08:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The behaviour of Piotrus has indeed been less than graceful. He was previously warned to avoid citation template spamming. Not only does he disregard the arbitrator's advice, but he also today accused his opponents in vandalism and "hundreds much more incivil comments". All this against the background of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus, where the question of his desysopping is being discussed at the moment. There is enough stuff for arbitration, I think. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yannismarou - check this for an interesting twist...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  08:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you! And I say once again that I'm against any reverts of this kind. Your wording had obviously nothing to do with a personal attack. This is something I detest whoever initiates it!--Yannismarou 10:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh! And I also believe that this is definitely not a case (this particular case - I do not know the background of the desysopping request, but I will read the relevant page) for arbitration or for desysopping! Let's not exaggerate things here!! Instead of removing the ^{[citation needed]} (the addition of which I repeat is a common practice in FAC, FAR and FARC), Ghirla or any other editor could just add the requested citations. Piotrus, me and any other reviewers dedicate time reading and trying to improve the article. The reviewers are not enemies of the article. This is a wrong philosophy. And if the editors of the article had understood that from the first momment, this would have been an easy (almost boring!) FAC. Instead, we have unfortunate reverts, warning for arbitration and desysopping! I'm really overwhelmed with all this unnecessary fuss.--Yannismarou 10:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Astrology

Kitsune

Self-nomination. I've been working extensively on this article over the last two months. It's now thoroughly referenced, comprehensive, and, I hope, covers the topic in depth but not excessively so. I like to think it's also well-written. It's recently received a peer review and passed a Good Article nomination, and I've further improved it based on suggestions made by reviewers in both cases. Shimeru 08:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – 1. needs a thorough copyedit. 2. Kitsune is the Japanese word for fox – Am not sure about the scope of this article. It seems to be how foxes are perceived to be in Japanese culture. Could the scope be made clearer in the lead? It seems to be an article on a humble fox called a kitsune. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you be any more specific on either point? I'd be glad to try, but this does not give me anything to work with. Shimeru 10:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Ok here goes: 1. Kitsune is the Japanese word for fox. (the first statement is choppy. Is it a direct translation of the word fox? If so, why a translation into Japanese? What's special about it? The first sentence has to define the scope of the article. (eg Dürer's Rhinoceros is the name commonly given to a woodcut created by German painter and printmaker Albrecht Dürer in 1515). 2. In folklore, kitsune are a type of yōkai -- No I have no idea what yokai means, so I have to click the link. Instead giver the reader some context --> In folklore, kitsune are a type of yōkai or spirits. This should be done throughout the article where words not native to English have some context. The same applies to Lafcadio Hearn. Who is he? Add his occupation (author) 3. Are these foxes unique to Japan? 4. Kitsune are commonly portrayed as lovers. These love stories usually involve a young human male and a kitsune who takes the form of a woman. -- choppy text, could be merged. 4. ==Origins of fox myths== needs to come much higher in the article. 5. Eastern sense? 6. For more details on kitsune appearances in specific contemporary works, see Kitsune in popular culture. -- duplicate link in section. Hope that was enough to start you off. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ::I think so, thank you. I've made an attempt to address the lead and explain more context for the Japanese words and for individuals in general. Also moved the origins and etymology to immediately follow the lead, which I'd been considering in any case. I haven't yet dont a full pass over all sections; I want to see first whether the new lead is the sort of thing you had in mind, rather than risk making the entire thing much worse. Shimeru 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • :::Yeah, that's exactly what I was looking for. I'll link my vote to BrianSmithson's, and as soon as he changes it, mine will too. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the title needs changed or the opening needs changed as I was confused as to whether this article is to be about the Fox in Japanese Folklore (or Kitsune in Japanese Folklore), or a biological article on the Kitsune. Rlevse 15:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree with Rlverse. Either the article needs to be moved, or the first paragraph rewritten (or both) to make the topic of this article clear. Raul654 21:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I appreciate the feedback, "kitsune" is the most common specific term both in English and Japanese, and should be the title of the article, if I understand our guidelines correctly. ("Fox spirit" may be more common in English, but that has the problem of also being the translation used for similar creatures from Chinese and other non-Japanese folklore.) I did rewrite the lead. Thanks for the additional editing pass on it. Shimeru 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article looks much better now than it did 2 hours ago. I have a question though = For example, kitsune were thought to employ their foxfire to lead travelers astray - what exactly is a foxfire? Raul654 22:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's the fire produced by kitsune, as mentioned in the sections on their powers and "star balls." I've repeated the context there, since it is a little further down the article, and the topic is somewhat obscure to most non-Japanese audiences. Also want to say that I appreciate your work on the article. Shimeru 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I see. Ok, that answers my question. I support - this is a good article. Raul654 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about the title. The term kitsune is popular among anime and manga fans, but per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), this article should be at Foxes in Japanese folklore. — BrianSmithson 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I'm a huge supporter of the use english convention (I helped write it), in this particular case, now that the intro makes it clear that this is a mythology article, I think kitsune is the appropriate article title. Articles should be located at the most specific (preferably succinct) name possible, and in this case kitsune is both more specific and succinct than 'Foxes in Japanse mythology'. Raul654 23:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully disagree -- although I do see the argument, this would create consistency issues with numerous other Japanese folklore (and culture) articles. Would we end up moving Tanuki to Raccoon dogs in Japanese folklore, Yuki-onna to Snow woman (Japanese folklore), Yurei to Ghosts in Japanese folklore, Oni (folklore) to Ogres in Japanese folklore, Tengu to Birdlike demons in Japanese folklore, Ninja to Assassins in Japanese culture, and dozens more, based on transliteration? I'd much prefer leaving these articles at their Japanese names, since that name is usually the common term used when discussing them in English. I think these articles are examples of cases where common names and precision (per other naming conventions) are more important than use of English words. Shimeru 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I take your point, but I would still prefer Foxes in Japanese folklore (and Raccoon dogs in Japanese folklore, for that matter). Foxes and raccoon dogs exist in English-speaking countries and have English names; things like Yuki-onna and tengu do not (and ninja is a widely adopted term in English that would appear in virtually any standard dictionary). Wikipedia has a serious problem with Japan exclusivism, where editors try to create articles with non-English titles where those terms are not widely known in the English-speaking world and where the Use English guideline would seem to indicate against their use (the worst example I can think of is the horridly named Seiyū, which should be at voice acting in Japan). That said, I won't oppose the article based on the name. — BrianSmithson 08:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only read the opening so far, and I agree. I thought I was going to get an article on Japanese foxes. When the folklore started, I asumed this was just an aside. Then I realised this whole article was going to be about folklore. That needs to be made clear in the first sentence by removing the scientific names. What about a sentence along the lines of that which begins Reynard: "Reynard the fox, also known as Renard, Renart, Reinard, Reinecke, Reinhardus, Reynardt, and by many other spelling variations, is a trickster figure whose tale is told in a number of anthropomorphic fables from medieval Europe". qp10qp 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've come to:

In folklore, kitsune are a type of yōkai. In this context, the word kitsune is often translated as "fox spirit." However, this does not mean that a kitsune is not a living creature, nor that a kitsune is a creature different from a fox. Because the word spirit is used in its Eastern sense, reflecting a state of knowledge or enlightenment, any fox who lives for a sufficiently long time may gain the supernatural power of the kitsune.^[2]

The second sentence depends on the first, and so I don't understand. What context? Then it says that this doesn't mean that a kitsune is a creature different from a fox. But having been told that a kitsune may have up to nine tails, I'm afraid I already assumed that a kitsune in folklore is a different creature to a fox, even if the name is the same. The word "supernatural" here surely means that the kitsune of folklore is a different creature from the natural fox. It is normal in all cultures to make folkloric creatures out of animals.

qp10qp 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote some of the text, including the above-quoted section, to try to make the intent clearer: within the context of folklore, there is no difference between an "ordinary" fox and a kitsune. All foxes have the potential for supernatural power. May need to revise further for the sake of clarity; will think about how that might best be done. Shimeru 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Needs better linking. For example, "Print by Kuniyoshi Ichiyusai." is not linked, nor is "Blacksmith Munechika (end of the 10th century), helped by Inari and her fox spirits, forging the blade ko-kitsune-maru ("Little fox"). This legend is the subject of a noh drama." (The blacksmith is not linked nor is the play itself). On a more general note, I'd like to see more quoting from source texts: the Hearn quote is good, but more would be better, particularly illustrative instances from folk tales or religious texts. --Gwern (contribs) 18:12 10 December 2006 (GMT)
  • Well, the reason for at least part of that was that some of those articles don't exist yet (Munechika, the play). I redlinked them, though, since that's preferred, and also linked a few other things (including Kuniyoshi). Added a couple more direct quotes, too; I was thinking about doing more, but I don't want to tilt the other way and duplicate too much from the sources. Is there anything in particular you'd like to see a folktale quote illustrating? Shimeru 21:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may be too demanding, but I see a FA as the centerpiece of an ecology or network of articles in the particular subject area, so it bothers me if articles that should be linked are not linked just because people are afraid of the red links or don't want to start stubs on them. As for quotes, I'd like to see more about the discovery of the fox ("And then he noticed a tail sticking out of the woman's robe...") and their powers.
    • In general, I'd like more pictures - for example, one of the most famous woodprints in Hiroshige's 100 Famous Views of Edo was an illustration of a legend that all the foxes in a particular province would rendezvous one night a year to receive their orders - and more contemporary mentions; Neil Gaiman's Sandman: The Dream Hunters is an interesting contemporary use of Kitsune, even if you don't want to use any of Yoshitaka Amano's artwork. --Gwern (contribs) 17:32 13 December 2006 (GMT)
      • I wouldn't call it "too demanding." The only problem I'm running into regarding it is that there's now a separate objection on the grounds of having too many wikilinks. I suppose it's a case of competing philosophies, but it does make it difficult to address. Anyway, the quotes should be quite easy; I'll get those into place by tomorrow. More images would be easy enough, though I want to stay away from anything copyrighted; I'll see whether I can find Hiroshige's print, since I think I know the one you mean. Contemporary mentions are in the daughter article, Kitsune in popular culture, although there are no images there yet and it's essentially an annotated list. Shimeru 23:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok then. If you can't find Hiroshige's print, tell me - I can interlibrary loan it (my copy of 100 Famous Places is currently inaccessible, so it'd take a while for me to get it and scan it). I didn't notice the Kitsune in popular culture article; but the description isn't totally accurate - it's not just fantasy authors who use them. Even excluding Jade Empire for example, I remember seeing examples in regular non-fantasy fiction. (Don't ask me which works specifically though!) Also, Nihon Ryakki is both important and in the introduction and should definitely have at least a stub. --Gwern (contribs) 03:30 14 December 2006 (GMT)
          • Found and incorporated an image of the print. Agree about Nihon Ryakki, but I know literally nothing about it aside from that it's one of the oldest Japanese books of records -- I'll need to find more sources on that. (There are none online, aside from a JSTOR article, which I can't access from home.) Could possibly take a while, but it shouldn't be hard, since I'm looking for sources for the various noh and kabuki plays' articles anyway. You've seen kitsune referenced outside of fantasy? That's surprising. Perhaps "Western authors of fiction," then. Shimeru 08:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've started a stub on the Nihon Ryakki - it's actually not that old. I managed to find one footnote in a JSTOR article which dated it to 1596, but I couldn't copy over the kanji. If you could...? --Gwern (contribs) 23:49 14 December 2006 (GMT)
              • Perhaps I misconstrued from my source (Nozaki, which does have poor translation in areas). The records in the Nihon Ryakki, though, go back far further than that date; Nozaki quotes entries from as early as 803. Possibly what was meant wasn't "one of the oldest books of records" (as written), but "one of the books of the oldest records"? Entirely speculation on my part, though; I'll continue searching for sources. Will see whether I can copy the kanji over.Fg2 already has. Shimeru 01:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The latter was my interpretation - I don't know what Ryakki translates to, but Nihon is apparently 'Records' or 'Chronicles', and those are not necessarily (in fact, you would expect them not to be) even relatively contemporary with the recorded events. Which is not to say that a Chronicle written or compiled 700 years after the putative event is likely to be accurate or very truthful... --Gwern (contribs) 03:52 15 December 2006 (GMT)

• Support: Now that the opening is clear and the premise framing the article is established, I see no reason why this shouldn't be a featured article. What more does one need to know about this subject? Encyclopedically, nothing, I suspect. Congratulations to Shimeru and the article's editors for a cleanly written, well-organised introduction to the subject. (A small point: I would like to see the fox photo removed or shifted down the page because the information that real foxes live in Japan isn't particularly arresting, to be replaced by a mythological depiction, for example the Prince Hanzoku one; the article could do with a couple more such, I think, if any are to be had.) qp10qp 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I've brought in a few more images from the Commons, and rearranged the ones that were already there. Fairly certain I could find another few if necessary, since creatures of folklore were a common subject of woodblock prints. Shimeru 00:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. My objections have been addressed. A couple of further comments: Perhaps move some of the images to the left for some visual variety. I think the lead could be beefed up a bit, but it's not too important. I still advocate a move to a different title. But good work. --- BrianSmithson 02:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Oppose for now. I think this is a good piece, and it will probably make it through to featured on this nomination if the author continues to respond to comments here. Still, here are my concerns:[reply]
  • The structure is a bit disorganized. For example, the ability to assume human form is covered under both "Yokai" and "Physical characteristics". Likewise, several sections are quite stubby and should probably be merged. I'd suggest the following restructure: "Origins and etymology" (merge two sections), "Characteristics" (to include "Yokai", "Physical characteristics", "Powers", "'Star Balls'", and "Kitsunetsuki"), and "Portrayal" (which should merge in the information from "In fiction").
    • I think this has mostly be cleared up, however there are still a few issues. First, the "Origins of fox myths" section is a bit all over the place. We're told about China, Japan, China, Korea, India, all three, China, Korea, all three again, Japan . . . . Some rewriting is necessary, I think, to present the conflicting opinions. It seems these are that kitsune ultimately derive from Indian sources but spread to Japan; that they are native to Japan; and that they are native to Japan, but that they were influenced by Chinese and Korean stories that ultimately derive from India. Is this right?
      • Somewhat. There are really only two sides: one says that the concept is entirely imported, though it may have later developed in separate directions; the other says that the concept existed within Japan, and the myths that were imported modified and were modified by the purported original Japanese tales. It's agreed that, to some extent, there was importation. I've done a quick rewrite on that section to try to make that more clear and avoid the interruption in flow. Shimeru 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the article needs a good copy edit; there's a lot of confusing and redundant language. I'll try to help out in this area, but I'd like to wait until the structure issues are addressed.
    • I've got the marked up printout. I'll try to do the revisions tonight.
  • Watch the scare quotes and be careful that when using words as words to use italics rather than quotation marks per WP:MOS.
  • The article currently mixes BC/AD and BCE/CE date terminology. This should be changed to consistently reflect the earliest style used on the article.
  • There's currently a mixture of past and present tense when describing kitsune beliefs, and this is quite confusing in places. For example, under "Kitsunetsuki", we're told that "Exorcism, often performed at an Inari shrine, induced a fox to leave its possessed host." However, we're later told that "Stories of fox possession are still known to appear . . . ." So do people no longer believe this or do they?
  • The "Other meanings" section seems to be simple trivia. The first two items should be merged into the body of the article, and the last four removed entirely (or placed at a disambiguation page if necessary). The fact that someone who looks like a fox is called kitsune or that there's a game called kitsune-ken in Japanese has nothing to do with fox spirits in Japanese folklore.
  • The "Etymology" section talks about fox-wives, but this is well before the concept of kitsune being able to assume human form has been introduced. Either clarify or move the example.
  • Watch the RPG/anime-speak. I have no idea if the author is an roleplayer or likes anime and manga, but words like "powers" read strangely to me in this context. Perhaps "magical abilities" or something would work better? This is mostly just a minor quibble though.
• Like I said, it's good work. It just needs some reorganization and copy editing and it will be good to go. — BrianSmithson 10:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shuffled the text and categories around a bit to try to produce something more organized. Most of those sections were originally subsections; I'm not quite sure how that changed. I've eliminated a few of them, and changed others back to subsections. I think some of these are helpful ("Characteristics" is a wall of text without at least "Kitsunetsuki" in there). Dates are straightened out, and I've basically eliminated the word "powers." I'm not sure where to merge the information from "other meanings" -- there doesn't seem to be a good place to digress to discuss udon and soba. I could probably work up a short section on the weddings, but I'm not sure how much more there is to say. Will think about that a bit more. Article should be ready for copyediting, though, if you like. Shimeru 21:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking good. I've struck through some objections and elaborated on others. I have a couple of new concerns, though, from my second read-through:
      • Should the Chinese picture be moved to the origins section, since it is not an actual Japanese example?
      • There's quite a bit of weasely language. "It is a matter of debate", "Some scholars have suggested", "some sources say", etc. Can these be replaced with names of specific people? "Scholars such as So-and-So have suggested . . . ."
      • The web references need information about when the URL was last accessed. I think this applies to the Gutenberg text, since those are still being checked for transciption errors in some cases.
      • Regarding the "Other uses", I think I can spot main-article homes for three of the items, and I will attempt to move them there when I do the copy edit. Recommend deletion of the band and record label though, or if they're notable, a disambiguation page. As for the facial type, is it thought that such people have kitsune blood or are more likely targets for kitsune possession? If so, the section can be merged in with "Kitsunetsuki". If no, I recommend deletion, as it's simple trivia.
    • Sorry for being long-winded. -- 210.239.12.84 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (User:BrianSmithson, who was involuntarily logged out somehow)[reply]
      • • Got the dates in there (rechecked most of them, but left the date on the Project Gutenberg text, since I don't see any way of being sure that it hasn't changed, and I used it fairly extensively). No idea whether the band and record label are notable; searching doesn't turn up much, so I removed them. The facial type... well, I know of at least one folktale offhand that states that a transformed fox had this facial structure; it's in either Hearn or Nozaki, I don't remember offhand. Doesn't seem terribly important, but it's an interesting side note. Finally, I moved the image as you suggested and added a few specifics about the scholars. Shimeru 06:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that "it is a matter of debate" is weasely language in this context; quite the contrary: it is an unequivocal statement of fact. By all means ask for examples from the debate, but it will still be a debate. It is good article-writing to note matters of debate, and, in my opinion, it is often better to reference secondary sources that say something is a matter of debate than to try to recreate the debate by quoting the various scholars, since Wikipedia is a tertiary medium.

It is perfectly good practice to use terms such as "it is a matter for debate" or "some scholars say" if you follow those points with references to books or articles which summarise or quote the debate and the scholars, as this section of the article impeccably does. In fact, one scholar's summary of the debate is used to end the section — rather elegantly, in my opinion: "Inari scholar Karen Smyers has noted that the idea of the fox as seductress and the connection of the fox myths to Buddhism were introduced into Japanese folklore through similar Chinese stories, but she also maintains that some fox stories contain elements unique to Japan." qp10qp 02:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean on the phrase "It is a matter of debate", but disagree with the eloquence. The whole section is confusing and needs to better identify and present the two or three conflicting schools of thought. -- BrianSmithson 04:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Okay, my remaining objections remain un-struck through above. In addition, some more weaselly language that should be cleaned up:
      • "another classifies kitsune according to their supernatural powers." Is it possible to elaborate on this? It's pretty vague.
      • "some sources say that a fox will only grow . . . . " Can we say which sources? Or provide an example? (If these sources are folk tales, I remove the objection.)
      • "In the late 19th century, one doctor noted . . . . " Do we have a name for him?
      • "There is speculation as to whether. . . . " Who speculates about this?
      • Currently, we have two cites in the lead that give information not repeated in the body. This information should be repeated in the body somewhere, and the cites should be migrated to these mentions.
    • I think we're getting very close now. — BrianSmithson 10:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (Added another item at 13:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think I've addressed all of the above. In most cases, it only took the addition of a word or two, or changing one word to another. (The sources of your second point, for instance, were folktales, and I changed the word accordingly.) Also added a brief explanation of the marriage in the etymology section; I don't believe moving the example would be a good solution, since it's there to illustrate the folk etymology. If it's still too confusing, though, it could fit beneath 'Wives and Lovers' -- in fact, that's where it used to be, before the restructuring. That layout, though, doesn't make as much sense with 'Etymology' at the top of the article instead of following 'Portrayal.' Shimeru 01:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object — Needs a copy-edit throughout. Here are examples of why.
  • Tell me, why are simple chronological items linked? For example, 4th century is really useful: it talks of Armenia, Constantine I, Saint Augustine of Hippo, in fact, a whole host of early Christian characters .... And why are dictionary terms linked, such as "skull", "magical", "shadow" and "dogs"?
  • "This etymology is acknowledged as false, but it remains widely known.7" — Odd.
  • "all foxes who live for a sufficiently long time may gain supernatural abilities" — "All" and "may"?
  • "Supernatural abilities commonly attributed to the kitsune include, in addition to shapeshifting, possession, the generation of fire or lightning from their tails or the ability to breathe fire (known as kitsune-bi, literally fox-fire), manifestation in dreams, flight, the ability to become invisible, and the creation illusions so elaborate as to be almost indistinguishable from reality." What's supernatural about appearing in dreams? "Flight" looks stubby in this list. Isn't it an ability too? "Creation illusions"?

Tony 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply Well, taking these in order:
    • Context for further reading. Go ahead and unlink them if you feel they shouldn't be linked, but considering a previous objection was that there weren't enough wikilinks, this seems like a no-win situation.

No thanks, you delink them. Wikilink only where the reader is led to focused, useful information. Avoid linking common words.

But you're the one saying some of these links are not focused or useful. Personally, I would consider "magic" relevant to a discussion of magical creatures. I've unlinked the ones I feel aren't relevant, as well as the dates.

• • • Odd? Maybe, but it's a perfectly true statement. It's a folk etymology: it's false, it's known to be false, and it's a widespread story anyway. I cited the source, so you can double-check it if you like.

No, I'm only concerned with the language. I think a stronger contrastive than "but" is requred here. Perhaps ", despite its being widely known"; but there's tension between "acknowledged" and "known". See if you can reword to avoid that.

Done.

• • • Yes, that is correct. I assume you're objecting to the word "may." Its omission changes the meaning of the full sentence, but I'm reasonably certain, based on the folklore, that it would remain true, so I've made the change.

No, remove "all" and retain "may". Tony 07:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will sleep on it. I think that might make it less clear, since the point of the paragraph is that all foxes are believed to have this potential. They have only to live long enough. (This is a common theme in Japanese folklore.) Shimeru 08:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Was more worried about over-repetition of "the ability to," but I moved flight toward the front so it won't look so out of place. I honestly don't know what to say about "What's supernatural about appearing in dreams?" -- I've never gone visiting other people's dreams, have you? And I added the missing "of," thanks.
  • I understand BrianSmithson has a copyedit in progress. Hopefully that will help; I think I might be too close to the prose to see some of the issues that are being mentioned. Shimeru 23:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The lead starts confusing: 'kistune, or foxes' - so are they real foxes or is the same word used for both foxes and those spirtis? A read can easily be confused. The article also seem list heavy near the end, and there are tiny paragraps which is not a good style.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure it's the latter - Kitsune in one context can refer to real foxes, an in others it can refer to the mythological ones. Raul654 20:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. Had changed the opening statement because it was felt that stating "Kitsune is the Japanese word for fox" was misleading. Have made the definition a parenthetical instead of comma-offset in an attempt to address. In Japanese the word is used for both real and folkloric foxes; in English, it refers to the folklore. Will attempt to clarify further tomorrow, when I have more time. Shimeru 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, kitsune has both those meanings. The primary meaning of kitsune is simply "fox" (the mammals) and the other meanings discussed in the article are all secondary. This article does not include the primary meaning in its contents; it only contains secondary meanings. It should be retitled to match its contents. An article with the title "Kitsune" that's about foxes in Japanese culture is like an article with the title "moon" that's about a display of bare buttocks. Or an article named "Star" that's about the typographical symbol.
    • During Peer Review, I suggested the title "Foxes in Japanese folklore." I avoided the word kitsune because I advocate choosing English titles. In fact, that's the only suggestion I made during Peer Review, because I think it's a great article! With an appropriate title, it'll have my support. Fg2 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference between this article and your examples is that, in this case, the secondary meaning is not divorced from the primary meaning. (In fact, when the word is used in English, the "secondary" meaning is the primary meaning.) It's more akin to an article like Cygnus, which discusses the secondary meaning -- the constellation -- along with the primary. But in this case, there's no need to discuss the primary Japanese meaning, since we have Fox. If there's concensus for a move, I suppose that's fine, but I do think kitsune is both the more appropriate and the more consistent (relative to other Japan-related articles) title. Shimeru 08:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now I'm confused. In English, the only meaning of Cygnus listed in m-w.com is the constellation. It's not in OED. So of course the Wikipedia article with that title is on the constellation; there's no other meaning. By contrast, "kitsune" is not an English word, even though it has been used in some works translated into English. It's not in m-w.com or OED. The only citation in Britannica Online is Kitsune, with a capital K, used as a proper name (like Reynard). It doesn't have an article of its own; it's in a single article on a related topic. Maybe some day it will become English, and maybe even soon, but it isn't now. So I remain convinced that the article title "Kitsune" does not indicate the contents. Fg2 01:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course there's another meaning. The constellations (in Western tradition, at least) are derived from Greek mythology. I am also not convinced by the proposition that the title, simply by virtue of being non-English, does not indicate the contents. It's a particularly interesting case in that what you cite as the secondary definition was the primary definition of the word -- although the modern usage should take precedence over the archaic. In any case... as I said, I won't contest if there's consensus for a move, although I don't favor one. (And, I admit, I don't look forward to the prospect of moving all those other articles.) Shimeru 01:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now, much better.Rlevse 18:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've just staggered image formatting. Additionally should there be a See also section for this article.--ZayZayEM 03:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hastings, Ontario

1995 Pacific hurricane season

I finished redoing this article a few weeks, and I believe it adheres the FA criteria. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe that some sources are lacking. For instance in the season summary paragraph, no source is given for "Lastly, Ismael struck the state of Sinaloa as a minimal hurricane. Offshore, fishermen were caught off guard by the hurricane, and 57 drowned. On land, Ismael destroyed thousands of houses, leaving 30,000 homeless and killing 59. Both Hurricanes Flossie and Ismael also produced moisture and localized damage in southwestern United States." TSO1D 01:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are in the main part of the article. The WPTC has it as an unofficial policy to not have sources for the lede unless it has a fact that is not anywhere else sourced on the page. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not in the lede, though, so a ref there couldn't hurt. I'll add a footnote to Ismael's Preliminary Report, and probably the same with Flossie. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Season summary section is a bit bare. Since I can't think of an image that would fit within the section, would it be ok to have a short table (similar to the ACE table in size) listing the number of deaths each storm caused? Titoxd^(?!?) 03:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a satellite image of two storms. Does that work? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Some of the problems asked have been addressed, and the article is filled with details along with good imagery. Hello32020 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per Hello32020. --SonicChao ^talk 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetoscope

Self-nomination. Stable article on the world's first commercial motion picture exhibition system. Judged A-class by WikiProject Filmmaking. The advice and encouragement of project leadership has been crucial in getting the article to this stage.—DCGeist 17:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - read it yesterday. Excellent article. (Minor aside: I still think the use of "Kinetoscope project" to refer to the people working on it rather than the project itself makes for confusing phrasing, especially as it isn't referred to earlier) Yomangani^talk 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good point. Sentence edited so both clearer and shorter.—DCGeist 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - it's been nothing but a pleasure seeing this article develop. Girolamo Savonarola 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were all of those "Sources" used as References for the article, or should they be divided into References and Further reading? Sandy (Talk) 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the Sources are cited in the Notes.—DCGeist 05:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sandy (Talk) 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.--Yannismarou 09:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --Dwaipayan (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Persian literature

Hoysala Empire

This article has been through a peer review. It has been reviewed for balance in content, facts, citations and has been copy edited by multiple reviewers. Please provide further recommendations if any and I shall gladly comply.Dineshkannambadi 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment you don't wikilink solo years, ie, 1320. Rlevse 03:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Per WP:DATE, "There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text."

So, a copyedit has been done per WP:CONTEXT, and most of the solo years have been de-wikilinked. However, some important years, like the start year or end year of the empire, start date of family record of the empire etc. and reigning years of Kings in Template:Hoysala Kings Infobox have been kept as wikilinked. Please see and comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 2 citation needed tags added. Please address.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply--> I have provided the requested citations in "Women" section.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 13:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support : The article probably needs a couple of rounds of cpedit to tighten prose. That apart, a very useful, important and informative article. I wholeheartedly 'support'. Sarvagnya 22:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object—(1) I'm not agreeing to a promotion until the trivial chronological links are delinked. Why on earth do we need the page to be scattered with blue? And why do you want your high-value links (there are a lot) to be diluted in this way with irrelevant links? Aside from the obvious disadvantages, this aspect is inconsistent. (2) Needs a copy-edit. Here are examples:
  • "Literature in Kannada language, in the Vaishnava, Shaiva and Jain traditions flourished." THE Kannada language.
  • "Sanskrit works spanning Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita philosophy were written". Awkward expression.
  • "Poetesses"—please use "poets". "Such as" is more elegant in formal prose than "like". "Gained fame"—bit of a jingle. ay ay. And the grammar suggests that poetesses were an age for emancipation.
  • "Administrative responsibilities were no longer the monopoly of men. Performances in music and dance by women became popular." Stubby sentences that continue similar grammatical constructions to those we've just read. Needs to be varied. But more seriously, these sweeping statements seem to be a little dangerous. I hope that they'll be referenced copiously and authoritatively further down. Do they belong in the lead? Can you have a performance "in" dance, or a performance "in" music?

Don't just correct these examples. The whole text is at issue in this respect. Tony 01:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->Thank you for your candid critisism. I am starting with removing all Chronological links (years and centuries) and repeat linking in many places. I am also simplyfying the LEAD.

I shall then look closely at the rest of the article for sweeping statements and replace them with more sobre statements.Thank you.Dineshkannambadi 03:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edits--> I have taken out many repeat links, date links and sobered adjectives through out the articles. The LEAD has been trimmed. I have replaced "like" with "such as" and "poetess" with "poet". Please take a look and give me your opinion.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object -- choppy prose. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Please reply on this page, not user talk pages.

  1. Kannada and Sanskrit literature were prolific during the Hoysala rule. The 12th century saw the Champu style of works go out of vogue, while new metres like Sangatya in compositions (meant to be sung to the accompaniment of a musical instrument), Shatpadi and Tripadi in verses (seven and three line) and Ragale (lyrical poems with refrain) rose in popularity The first is too short, and second sentence is long and windy. 2. Cattle farming was attractive in the highlands (malnad regions) from where diary products, fruits and spices came -- awkard sentence 3. They came to be treated with deference. Their accomplishments gave them more freedom in that they could distance themselves from social conventions to a greater degree.
  2. The sections need a rework. The sections need an overhaul with many of them combined under a single heading. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Only Hinduism is mentioned. What about other religions such as Jainism and Buddhism?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply--> As far as I have read, Buddhism had made its exit from India, becoming more rooted in SriLanka and the Southeast Asia. There may have been a few monasteries though. Jainism itself was on the wane. I shall write briefly about these topics also. Please give me a day. I shall also correct the sentenses you mention above as choppy, lengthy etc.thanksDineshkannambadi 16:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following sectioning:

• History (no subsections) - summarise
• Economy (no subsections) - summarise
• Governance
• Culture
  • Religion
  • Society
  • Literature
  • Architecture
  • Language

The map should be added to the infobox =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->DoneDineshkannambadi 12:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply--> I have no problem with reorganization of the article. Do other reviewers have their own suggestions?thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a few lines about the decline of Jainsim and exit of Buddhism in the 11th century-14th century time.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought Since the major developments of this time were art, architecture and Religion, should'nt these topics be ahead of economy and governance.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reorg--> I have reorganised the sections per Nichalp's proposal. I will embark on the summarising aspect tommorow. Just two questions, 1) Do I keep the "impact" section as seperate from Religion or merge it and 2) Do I keep the subsections under "Society" or merge it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to reorg IMO, Religion and its impact must be merged. subsections of society should also be merged. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply DoneDineshkannambadi 03:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on REORG->Thanks. That gives me the direction I needed. This job can be done within a couple of days.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administration-->I will summarise tonight.thanksDineshkannambadi 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some more changes to the structure. This leads to a slightly larger section which should be summarised.

Some additional points:

1. Use the Template:Infobox Former Country, the closest infobox we have for such kind of articles.-->Done by Dwaipayan/Dinesh
2. More problems with the grammar: The Hoysala society was comparatively liberal. Woman enjoyed administrative powers. Queen Umadevi administered Halebidu in the absence of Veera Ballala II.[40] Women made progress in the realms of music, dance, literature, poetry, politics and administration. Queen Shantaladevi was a noted dancer. -- very choppy, appear to be just statements instead of flowing text.

Reply modifiedDineshkannambadi 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Hoysalas followed the Western Chalukya and Western Ganga Dynasty (Gangas) method of governance -- not very useful bit of information for those reading it for the first time.

Relpy modifiedDineshkannambadi 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. See alsos should be placed at the end of the section.

Reply doneDineshkannambadi 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The images should be reduced, as far as possible, keep only images relevent to the section placed in.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Will do this once the text editrs are complete.Dineshkannambadi 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOCIETY--> I have created a subarticle for this also and will compress the content on the main page.Dineshkannambadi 12:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compressed SOCIETY secton.

TBD-->1) compress RELIGION section without loosing context-->Done by DwaipayanDineshkannambadi 17:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) Learn to use the Template:Infobox Former Country

3) Get the IPA for the article

Please tell me if there are other things to be done.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy with the current structure and content per section
• The text still choppy, so request you get a third person to copyedit it.
• Phrases not common to standard English should be modified with context. eg. He relied more on the Puranas -- most people outside India would not know what the Puranas are. How about ...literary works of the Puranas?--->Done.Dineshkannambadi 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Use British English spellings (eg favorable --> favourable)
• Remove the script from the infobox. For those without the correct fonts, it would be badly rendered at large sizes.-->DoneDineshkannambadi 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• change 1/4 to 'a fourth'-->Done

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the script from the infobox. For those without the correct fonts, it would be badly rendered at large sizes.--> The Hoysala Empire box or Hoysala Kings box?ThanksDineshkannambadi 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Template:Infobox Former Country. Is there an example of this in use somewhere?. That would make it easier for me to correctly use it.thanksDineshkannambadi 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting in the box. The big ? is where the emblem goes right?thanksDineshkannambadi 15:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will add symbols for previous and sucessor kingdoms today.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I dont have pictures of the emblem of the preceding kingdom. So that portion will have to wait for a future trip of mine. I may have the "Varaha" emblem of Vijayanagar Empire.Dineshkannambadi 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: can the items from see also be incorporated into main article?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->All the items in "See also" are included as wikilinks and appear at various points on the main article.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS, if a link is in the article, it should not be in see also - removal of the section seems to be in order.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I removed the See Also section. It is funny because I was thinking of same thing and then I came here and saw your comment and went ahead with the removal. --Blacksun 10:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Minor contributor to the article (copyedits etc). The article now has a size that is not intimidating! It's well-referenced. Has appropriate links to daughter articles. WP:MOS has been followed. Just one issue: images and the Hoysala kings infobox may not appear properly placed in all browsers/resolutions. Please attend. Assuming this actionable point would be taken care of, I support this artcle to be given featured article status. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->Done. I have anchored all images and kings infobox to the right so they wont appear misplaced in other browsers.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 13:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this Hoysala kings infobox is still creating problem. I am using 1200 by 800 pixels, usiig Mozilla firefox, in a wide screen laptop. The infobox is not exactly fitting. The infobox appears to hover around in the right-ish middle zone of the section "History", with a lot of white space to its right. Probably there is a problem of space between the former country infobox and this infobox. I tried to left allign the infobox, with unsatisfactory result (sentences almost crammed into the infobox). Is anyone else facing such problem?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem on my screen.The kings infobox is snuggly aligned to the right side, just as the country infobox.ThanksDineshkannambadi 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements, =Nichalp are there any other requirements for this article. Dwaipayan and myself have done one more copyedit for choppy sentences per your advice.Thanks.129.42.208.182 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC).Sorry, last edit was mine.Forgot to log in.Dineshkannambadi 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still not up to the mark I'm afraid. A cursory glance: 1. It must be noted -- Essay type phrase. 2. Inscriptions were of three kinds — Kannada, Sanskrit and bilingual -- redundant words present: --> Inscriptions were in Kannada, Sanskrit, or bilingual. 3.Queen Umadevi governed Halebidu in the absence of Veera Ballala II and is known to have fought wars against antagonistic feudatories.[35] Women participated in music, dance, literature and poetry as well. Queen Shantala Devi was well versed in dance and music and performed publicly -- choppy =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyTook care of these choppy sentences.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit-->Another user, Mattisse is helping me with copy edits.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when done =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Strong Support - I read through just a bit over half of the article and have added few inotes and citation tags. I will read through rest of the article later and add additional inotes if neccessary. Mark me as support once these are addressed. Pretty good article so far and should be easy to make it FA.--Blacksun 10:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have addressed the concerns. Please take a look.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoysala map I have (ref:A Concise History of Karnataka, Dr. Kamath, page 328) covers the entire northern Tamil Nadu connecting Kanchi down to Srirangam excluding a narrow strip of Coastal Tamil Nadu. The territory also covers Karnataka coast parallel to Shimoga going down to Kerela's northern tip. More than one reviewer has come up with his question. Can this be corrected.?ThanksDineshkannambadi 18:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I suggest that the core empire be in dark color while the rest of south India south of Krishna river be in a lighter colour indicating Hoysala dominaton there. This way we make sure no questons are raised about Hoysala control over southern deccan.Dineshkannambadi 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you cannot find a better map then the present one will do. Atleast you have a date now to give it context. I added couple of more inotes in the second half of the article. Please respond to that and then mark me as support. I am very pleased with the attention to details in the article. --Blacksun 10:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Quite interesting and informative. I have two minor issues though: the See Also section needs to be more stratified. Also redlinked cats are not a nice sight.Bakaman 02:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to questions raised by User:Blacksun

all citations requested have been provided.

Innotes on Hoysala page

1. The legend may have gained popularity after King Vishnuvardhana's victory over the Cholas at Talakad as the Hoysala emblem depicts the fight between Sala and a tiger, the emblem of the Cholas.

Reply-->Historians are not sure who Sala was though they have tried to associate the early kings Nripa Kama I or II, but this has not gained popular support. The legend of Sala bacame more popular from around 1117 CE after Vishnuvardhanas victroy over the Cholas after which sculptural and inscriptional depictions started to appear. The emblem rather than focussing on Sala focusses on Salas (Hoysalas) victory over the Cholas, the tiger being the Chola emblem.Dineshkannambadi 16:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your reply. However, my question was did this incident make the legend more popular (as stated) or is it arguably the source of the legend? In case of latter then the sentence can be phrased in a better way. Otherwise, it is fine in its present form. --Blacksun 10:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2.Reply-->added dates for inscriptions implying Yadava lineage.

3.QuestionBy the 13th century, they governed most of present-day Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and western Andhra Pradesh in Deccan India.

Reply-->The map shows the core Hoysala areas and excludes loyal feudatories from coastal Karnataka. The Pandyas who payed tribute for some time from Southern Tamil Nadu. I have a map here that is more precise and will request user Nichalp to correct it. The map shows the entire northern Tamil Nadu under Hoysala occupation (the Cholas had been reduced to their feudatories at this time, though their control over Pandyas was periodic 1220-1250, 1290-1313 when the muslim invasion started)Dineshkannambadi 16:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4.The kingdom was divided into four provinces named Nadu, Vishaya, Kampana and Desha, possibly in decending order of geographical size.

Reply-->The kingdom was divided into these four categories and there may have been several Nadus (and Vishayas) under which were several Kampans and under that, several Deshas etc, Just like we have a state under which there are several districts and under them Taluks in present day India (just a crude comparison).Dineshkannambadi 16:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5.Question Under them were the local officials called Heggaddes and Gavundas who dealt with local farmers and labourers hired to till the land.

Reply I will clean this up. They took care of hiring/paying farmers and labourers.Dineshkannambadi 16:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6.Question There were other coins called Bele and Kani as well.

Reply No more info on these units are available. However from the way it is just mentioned by the author suggests very low denominations.Dineshkannambadi 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Question of Sala Legend by user:Blacksun

Hello, thanks for your reply. However, my question was did this incident make the legend more popular (as stated) or is it arguably the source of the legend? In case of latter then the sentence can be phrased in a better way. Otherwise, it is fine in its present form.

• • Reply

If the incident you mention is " Vishnuvardhana's victory over Cholas" then from what I read (source-->Dr. S.U.Kamath) the legend appeared for the first time in the Belur inscription of 1117 after his victory, but he also says it may be a symbolic represention the wars between the Cholas and early hoysala chieftains (no clarity what early means). However a twist to this is the presence of the emblem in a 1060 Chalukya-Hoysala transitional style temple in Balligavi (which I have visited and photographed), which researcher U.B. Githa claims was added by Vinayaditya, Vishnuvardhana's grandfather. So one can specualte when the legend came into existance. The victroy at Talakad may be the source of the legends "popularity", but Prof. Settar says it is Vishnuvardhanas creation. At present, the earliest inscription with the mention of Sala is 1117, but that does not mean the legend did not exist earlier. So there is no consensus. hope this helps. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Further to my object, I have problems with 1a. Here are random examples.
  • "He wrested Gangavadi from the Cholas in 1116 and shifted the capital from Belur to Halebidu." No, "moved" in this register. "Shifted" is too loose/informal.
  • "four way struggle"—Hyphen required. Please audit similar constructions. I see "high ranking positions".

But the more serious problem concerns the referencing.

• • The list of references at the bottom (under "Notes") is very sloppy. I'd like not to have to sift back to the earliest mention of Kamath's Concise History to find the publication details, including the year; these should appear in every note. lease remove the copyright character from the reference list. In Note 1, "1998-00" will not do for "1998–2000". "OurKarnataka.Com, Inc." is unclear—is it some hybrid web address/company name? Why is there a book title AND a web address/retrieval date? "pp" means "pages" (plural), and should not be applied to a single page. Remove "Dr." from authors' names, and professional words such as "Historian". Is "Joshi surmise that ..." your speculation, or the title of a book chapter, or what? Fix spacing/lack of spacing throughout. Total consistency in formatting is required. Why just two texts referred to so much; it makes me suspicious of the veracity of the article. How reliable are these texts? Without a great spread of sources, there's a huge risk. And the site http://www.ourkarnataka.com is not itself referenced. Is it just opinion?

Unacceptable, I'm afraid. Tony 13:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Tony's questions

I will certianly clean up some of the things you pointed out. Regarding your more serious concerns, (I hope I have understood your questions correctly) 1."OurKarnataka.Com, Inc." is unclear—is it some hybrid web address/company name?

Ans. OurKarnataka.com is on line website (not a blog site) that comprahensively covers many topics about Karnataka state and Kannada language. Under this web page are listed various topics including history.

2.Why is there a book title AND a web address/retrieval date?

Ans Here is an example-->Historian C. Hayavadhana Rao, J. D. M. Derrett, B. R Joshi surmise that Sala was a mythical founder of the empire, A Concise history of Karnataka pp 123, Dr. S.U. Kamath, Arthikaje, Mangalore. History of Karnataka-Hoysalas and their contributions. © 1998-00 OurKarnataka.Com, Inc. Retrieved on November 17, 2006.

In a citation like the one shown above, I have referenced multiple sources, one is a book and another the web page. Both of them give the same information, one of them may have had the name of an additional scholar which I though should be accounted for. So there are two citations clubbed as one.

4. Is "Joshi surmise that ..." your speculation

Ans-->Not my speculation. The reference book/web may say "In the opinion of Joshi" or "Joshi feels that". Surmise is just used as another word meaning the same thing. If there are specific wordings you dont like, I can refer back and change the word.

5.Why just two texts referred to so much

Ans I have refered to 7 books all of which are listed. One book focuses entirely on Architecture and another on literature. Four of the books referred to provide the same consistant infomation on the birth/growth/decline of the empire, though two are more detailed (Dr Kamath, Prof. Sastri, the less detailed ones being John Keay and Dr. Thapar) I could refer any number of books but the infomation at some point becomes repetitive. For instance in citation #48 thru 54, I may have as well cited R. Narasimhacharya, History of Kannada Literature, 1988 as he also provides the same information. Prof. K.A.N. Sastri dwells slghtly more in detail, so I used his book as reference and used the former book as additional reference in places. If you want both cited, I have no problems with it. The history of the Hoysalas is one of the most understood because it was not too far back in history (speaking relatively) and the empire has left behind a large number of inscriptions, next only to the Vijayanagar empire. In addition, literary sources from that time abound.

Number of references--> Dr. S.U.Kamath (32), Prof. K.A.N. Sastri (11), Dr. Thapar (12) John keay (2), Web based (19). Please remember that in many a case, I have cited both Dr. Kamath and Dr. Sastri OR Dr. Kamath and Dr. Thapar OR web reference and one of the books mentioned, and so on, indicating the scholars and sources concur. Sometimes I have clubbed citations to cover some extra info in one reference not found in the other for completeness.

6.It makes me suspicious of the veracity of the article. How reliable are these texts?

AnsThe authors of all seven books are renouned scholars and historians. This can be verified online. There is a wiki page also for Dr. Romila Thapar, Prof. Sastri is Prof. of history at Univ of Madras[8][9], South India, Dr. Suryanath Kamat is winner of the prestigious Sahitya Academy award 1973, from Government of Karnataka. He is the Director of Karnataka State Gazetteer and Director of Raja Ram Mohan Roy Historical Library in Calcutta. R. Narasimhacharya is a renouned authority on Kannada language and I can quote you other books he has authored as well. His books and historical lectures are available from Vedams books in New Delhi ([10] akin to Amazon.com except they deal mostly with India related books). John Keay, John M. Fritz and George Michell dont need an introducton. The authority of these scholars is beyond doubt. Some of there books are avaliable even in book stores in the USA, others have to be ordered for from publishers.

7.And the site http://www.ourkarnataka.com is not itself referenced. Is it just opinion?

AnsThe info to this page comes for historians themselves or info collected from historians. The fact that it is copyrigthed and deals with so many subjects makes it a valuable site to source from or verify from. So far I have not seen any inconsistancy between the contents of this web page and the books written by the scholars I have referenced. When I find something interesting worth mentioning from the web page, I reference it.

The copyright is irrelevant, and should be removed (there are so many of them in the list). My problem is that the web site is not itself explicitly referenced. That's all that counts. Our readers shouldn't have to wonder. I don't mind a few references to web sites that are themselves unreferenced, but not a lot, as here. I can only discount the info on the web site in terms of research veracity, because of this shortcoming. The information about the author(s) that you provide here is, I regret, irrelevant. Point 4: my point was that it's unclear what the function of that clause is.

1c is a serious issue for this nomination. Tony 03:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I would help but I do not really follow what Tony is talking about. Anyways their are only nine citations that include the website in question out of sixty-seven? I do not think their is a reason to not use available information just because it is from a website and the article has a lot of good references besides the website too. Maybe the issue is the way it is formatted? Also, I do not agree that simply using three-four books is not enough. It matters on the quality of those books and the subject matter. I cannot imagine finding dozens of books or needing to find dozens of books or someone actually having the time to read dozens of books for this article. --Blacksun 09:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I see some formatting issues. For instance, I do not think that you need to cite the ebook store where you retrieved the book from. You should just cite the book as citing the site is akin to citing the library where you borrowed the book - bit silly. I can see the reason to cite it if the book is accessible for everyone on a website but needless to cite a place where you have to purchase it. --Blacksun 09:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->are you saying I have too many web references from www.ourkarnataka.com (8 of them actually) and that should be removed?thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand this comment."1c is a serious issue for this nomination". What is 1c? thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It basically implies that you require citations or that your citations are not good enough. I strongly disagree with the assessment. --Blacksun 09:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was typing this in when you replied. I counted the number of citations just in case you wanted the info. Number of references--> Dr. S.U.Kamath (32), Prof. K.A.N. Sastri (11), Dr. Thapar (12) John keay (2), Web based (19, of which 8 are from www.karnataka.com). Please remember that in many a case, I have cited both Dr. Kamath and Dr. Sastri OR Dr. Kamath and Dr. Thapar OR web reference and one of the books mentioned, and so on, indicating the scholars and sources concur. Sometimes I have clubbed citations to cover some extra info in one reference not found in the other for completeness.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh, do not club sources. Simply make another citation and put two cites next to each other in the text. "For example, this could be a sentence with two difference sources saying the same thing [14][15]".--Blacksun 09:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, make separate notes for different sources. And "1c" means WP:WIAFA criterion 1c. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to candidature of this article

* Object - I object to this article's nomination for FA. This article is not neutral, nor is it well-sourced. It's sources are mainly pro-Kannada and it quite easily hides the Telugu and Tamil connection of Hoysalas. It seems to me like an advertisement of Kannada and Karnataka state. The user who has authored this article, User:Dineshkannambadi is well-known for his POV-pushing as I read from some talkpages of other articles. See Vijayanagara article's talkpage, or see Talk:Rashtrakuta or further see it's archives and see talkpages of Seuna as well. He has been regularly accused of pushing pro-Kannada POV in his articles. He has sone the same here. The article is full of Kannada-POV and I wonder how the administrators and other regular editors are missing the advertisement-style tone of the article. I vehemently oppose this nomination. We cannot let political propaganda run its course in Wikipedia. S Shri Venkata 11:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC))— Possible single purpose account: S Shri Venkata (S Shri Venkata • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

Comment - I have blocked the above user as a disruptive sockpuppet of a blocked user. Please ignore his comments as the user has been known to have disrupted articles edited by Dineshkannambadi- Aksi_great (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, can you be more specific? I have read the article thoroughly and have not noticed anything that seemed like PoV pushing. But I am not well-versed in South Indian history so can't be sure if I missed anything subtle. Can you provide sources and examples? Also, lets try to stick to the article instead of getting into personal conflicts. --Blacksun 12:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above account S Shri Venkata was created on 11:25, December 22, 2006 I believe with the sole purpose of rising an objection.If the user has any real objections he should bring verifyable sources to prove the Telugu/Tamil origin of the Hoysalas and I will be happy to include it. The sources should be accompanied with author, publication year, page number etc to validate the POV claim. If the conflicting source is in another language it has to be accompanied with preferably third party translation.Dineshkannambadi 12:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection is invalid without providing a citation for your claims to POV. Secondly comment on the article not a user's history in FAC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Language can always be improved, but it is easily among Wikipedia's best as it is now. Nice work. The references look solid and it seems comprehensive. I'd like to know a little more about daily life during the empire's rule, such as food, lifestyle, etc, but that may be more appropriate for other articles. - Taxman ^Talk 16:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

update (12/22/06)

1.Removed city of publication from citations based on advice by User:Blacksun
2.Split combined citations into individual citations per User:Blacksun and User:Dwaipayan

If the 8 citations from www.OurKarnataka.com (pointed out by User:Tony1) is a concern, I can quite easily replace some of it with citations from other "referenced" web sites from well known Karnatakan scholar Dr. K.L. Kamat (not to be confused with Dr. Suryanath Kamath whose book I have used as reference) or may be from my own books. Please tell if that is required.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have reduced this web site usage anyway by giving a few citations from other sources.

Also, As far as some of the citations, especially in the literature and architecture sections, I can provide more from R.Narasimhacharya and Gerard Foekema whose books I own and use as additional sources (Foekema ofcourse has been used extensivly on the Hoysala architecture page). I just did not want to overwhelm the article with repeatitive citations.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have used History of Kannada Literature - R. Narasimhacharya and A Complete Guide to Hoysala Temples - Gerard Foekema

These above changes were made without altering the content of the article itself. As I had mentioned earlier, after reading a few books, much of the infomation becomes repeatitive and hence easy to find similar sentences and content while providing citations.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object I too object this article as given the 'background' of Mr.Kannambadi,he is an 'dubious' editor, extremely ill-mannered and indecent who manipulates the history to suit his own 'loyalties'. Historical articles need neutral and 'detached' editors. IMO, Hoysalas were not an 'empire' it was a kingdom. Peace. Mrtag 03:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->There are small empires, there are large empires (please look at article Empire). One has to focus on the contributions also, not just size. One of the main requirements for any rule to become an Empire is imperialism, meaning one culture occupying the land of another culture and influencing the occupied territories by way of culture, architecture etc. This is what the Hoysalas did when they occupied neighbouring Tamil Nadu and parts of Andhra Pradesh. Also if you do a google search for "Hoysala Empire", you will see many more listings (twice as many) than for Hoysala Kingdom.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 05:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MrTag, please comment on the article not the editor in question. If you feel it to be a POV, please cite sources to suppliment your claim. Else this vote is invalid. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have little knowledge of Hoysalas hence cant comment on it. Probably this article is fine. My allegations about Mr.Kannambadi are justified, but seems it is not a place to say this. I take back my vote. Mrtag 06:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Mrtag for taking back his vote. Would he be kind enough to "scratch" it out because it spoils the otherwise positive mood on this page. Can I do this myself?.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 12:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm I did it. *shrugs* --Blacksun 14:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:Mrtag has now been indef-blocked as a disruptive troll run by User:Sarvabhaum. - Aksi_great (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC),[reply]

Scouting

Overview of the worldwide Scout movement. Rlevse 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Too many places have no sources, at a quick glance. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added 5 refs (making 50 different ones, some used more than once). Will keep working on it. Let me know if there's a specifc ref you feel is needed. Rlevse 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)...added 3 more, total 53. Rlevse 11:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)...added 6 more, total 59 now. Rlevse 14:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)....3 more, 62 different refs now.Rlevse 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)...See "Announcement" below. Rlevse 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it really possible to judge the quality of an article by the sheer quantity of its references? --jergen 09:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every section has at least one-two, often several. They are not a judging of the text, but an indicator of the level of referencing.Rlevse 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do refs 47-52 use other WP articles as sources? -- Kicking222 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are notes, which refer to Wikipedia articles as a "see also". Although you should seperate these into a different section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelas10 is correct, those are explanatory notes made when questions arose in the past; I've seen this done in other FACs/FAs. If the consensus is to separate them, we can, but I've generally seen these left in the regular notes section. Rlevse 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it is technically impossible to separate proper references from "see also" references if you use the <ref> scheme.--GunnarRene 16:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may clarify my comment: I knew that they were notes as opposed to references, and I knew that they can't be separated. My comment was really that the "includes ###" notes made me think that this information was simply taken from other articles, and it was not sourced in those articles (as I checked a few of them). -- Kicking222 16:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these numbers were just taken from the mentioned articles. I think I could source most of the numbers, but this would take some days. And it is (nearly) impossible to get complete informations for the countries with fragmented Scout movements because nobody has a complete list of the existing associations. But this concerns mostly small local organizations with only a few members. --jergen 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've fixed Germany and France, are working on the others.Rlevse 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)...fixed Italy now tooRlevse 03:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See El Greco as an example of how to separate notes and refs. Gzkn 06:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Announcement a separate Notes section has been created for those five items, the standard footnotes are now in Citations. There are 5 notes and 55 footnotes now. Rlevse 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please convert these to Roman numerals? Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I'd just followed the article that showed me how to do it. Rlevse 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think it's well written and well sourced. --evrik ^(talk) 14:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Evrik. It has 59 refs now, plenty enough and every section has at least 1-2, if not several. I think the notes are okay where they are. Sumoeagle179 16:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the "In film and the arts" section is awfully short, especially considering that what's there says that Scouting is "prevalent", and used by "numerous films and artwork". Also, though it may be most prevalent in American popular culture, there should be some mention of elsewhere, if possible. Tuf-Kat 16:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made what was a regular wikilink a "main" link, there's a whole article on this. I'll work on this more later. Rlevse 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)...Added a Scottish bit too.Rlevse 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object—1a. Let's look at the opening para.

Scouting, or the Scout movement, is a worldwide youth movement of multiple organizations for both boys and girls whose aim is to develop young people physically, spiritually and mentally so that youth may take a constructive place in society. The movement employs a program of non-formal education with emphasis on practical activities in the outdoors, using the Scout method with programs targeted for up to five age groups, as defined by the founders of Scouting in the early 20th century. Most countries have Scouting programs for children and young adults from ages 6 to their early 20s.

• • "Scouting is subtely different from "the Scout movement", so shouldn't be cast with the "or" equivalent. My Phrase Checker shows that M should start Movement.
    • uppercased, changed wording slightlyRlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Multiple"?
    • yes, several organizations are part of the movement, but I'd rm'd 'multiple'.Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both" is a marker; do we need to make some point that it's unexpected to have both genders in the organisation?
    • rm'd 'both'Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it the aim of the "boys and girls" or of the "organizations"? It shouldn't be ambiguous grammatically.
    • rm'd 'boys and girls', slight reword. Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear, the supernatural is introduced in the first sentence. I don't know whether this word "spiritually" is in the written mission statement, but I'd avoid using the term at the top, where it's fuzzy without further detail. Is it a quasi supernatural religious movement? I didn't think so.
    • rm'd, oh my gosh.Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • put back in - spirituality does not equal religion, and it is a core part of Scouting... Horus Kol 09:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have "young people" and "youth" in the same sentence. Are they the same or different?
    • made the same.Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with emphasis on practical activities in the outdoors"¸—No, "with an emphasis on practical outdoor activities".
    • changedRlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from ages 6 to their early 20s". Clumsy; treat the two items equally.
    • rm'dRlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very bad start, and indicates that the whole text needs major surgery. Tony 02:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll do what I can on the rest, but since I, like most of us, aren't as good at it as you and we're not mind readers, it'd help if you could be specific on the rest. Rlevse 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to find someone who's distant from the topic. Fresh eyes. Tony 03:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be you.Rlevse 04:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object 1a not met, per Tony. Some examples culled from Origins section:
  • The seeds of the idea of Scouting began during the Siege of Mafeking, South Africa, during the Second Boer War of 1899 to 1902, where Baden-Powell served as commanding officer. Seeds began? Idea began? Unclear, but "The seeds of the idea of Scouting began" is just awkward in general. Also, repetition of "during the".
    • reworded to "Baden-Powell began to formulate ideas of what became Scouting during a battle of the Second Boer War, the Siege of Mafeking, South Africa, where he served as commanding officer." Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a result of his status as a national hero, acquired as a result of his determined and successful defense of the town of Mafeking, Baden-Powell's military training manual, Aids to Scouting (written in 1899) became a relative best-seller and was used by teachers and youth organizations. Rep. of "a result of his". What's a relative best-seller?
    • fixed. Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • subsequently met Baden-Powell, and they shared ideas about youth training programs. When?
    • added year and month
  • subsequently published in book form. Again, when?
    • added year and ref. Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time Baden-Powell intended... and As the movement grew Sea Scout, Air Scout... these could use commas for clarity.
    • addedRlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1919 Gilwell Park near London was purchased as adult training site and scouting campsite. Purchased by whom? Also, "an adult training site".
    • added bothRlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baden-Powell also wrote a book for the assistance of Leaders entitled Aids to Scoutmastership, and others for the use of new sections that were formed, such as Rovering to Success for Rover Scouts in 1922. Huh? Gzkn 05:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • added 'other handbooks'Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for these precise suggestions, would appreciate more if you're so inclined. Rlevse 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since it's been copy-edited, striking out my object until I find time to read the article again. Gzkn 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support I liked the article, but the issues Gzkn were essentially my concerns as well. I think you can get them fixed without too much problem, but I thought it was a solid article.Balloonman 09:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I like the article also. It may not have the most sources on Wikipedia, but the information is well presented and sourced well enough. I don't have any problem with it being a featured article.Ganfon 23:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've watched this a couple of days before voting. I think the additional references have been a big help, and I don't really see any problems with the prose after a read-through. --JohnDBuell 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This article has come a long way in the past few days, well done to the editors. Sorry I couldn't have been more help with finals and all. I don't see any problems with the prose, but I'll look over it again and see if I pick anything out. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Wood Badge course is covered in two different places; could this be resolved? The sentence "Other popular youth movements have also adopted similar attributes successfully" doesn't make much sense. I've attempted to make the use of the serial comma consistent (sorry if it was intended that it not be used). --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 14:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both issues. Thanks for the help.Rlevse 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hoary has given the article a good copyedit. Sumoeagle179 12:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Outriggr has done some copyediting.Sumoeagle179 14:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: only one paragraph! Intend to do more. –Outriggr § 22:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Gosh, I'm just finding time to read this. A lot of respected editors have copyedited here, but I found a sentence fragment in the second sentence of the body of the article ... disappointed :-(
  • Robert Baden-Powell founded the Scouting movement in England in 1907 based on his experience, in and outside the army. First only for boys as Boy Scouts, but in 1910, with help from his sister Agnes Baden-Powell, for girls too as Girl Guides or Girl Scouts. Later it spread all over the world to young people of all ages.
• Sandy (Talk) 21:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment that para was cut and merged earlier today, but someone else modified it and stuck it back in. I've rm'd it again.Sumoeagle179 22:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto. It's a danger of the wiki method, Sandy. :) –Outriggr § 22:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment After a brief copyedit, does this sentence read awkwardly to anyone else "Program specifics are targeted to Scouts appropriate to their age"? Shouldn't it be "Program specifics are targeted at Scouts appropriate to their age" or something along those lines? Darthgriz⁹⁸ 05:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of a difference to me.Sumoeagle179 13:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I objected above, and have returned to check progress. Take this bit of the lead:
  • "By 1909, girls wanted to join the Scout Movement and they are called either Girl Guides or Girl Scouts. In 2006, Scouting and Guiding have over 38 million members in 216 countries and territories represented through different Scouting associations at the international level. The works of Ernest Thompson Seton and Daniel Carter Beard influenced the early development of Scouting. Internationally, Scouting has become a significant part of popular culture." Sentence 1 has tension between past and present tenses. Two statements are uncomfortably jammed together with "and", which should be used to join very close ideas. Sentence 2: Are the last four words necessary? Sentence 3: we zig-zag back to the early days, followed by the international theme again in Sentence 4. This is very poorly organised.
  • The third para in the lead is: "The movement has experienced controversy. International Scouting associations have formed outside of the mainstream. Policies on membership regarding sexual orientation, religion and co-education differ between Scouting associations." Sentence 1: stubby and unexplained. Sentence 2: "outside OF"? Remove the second word, and explain what, exactly, the sentence means. Then this bit about sex and religion ... needs to be smoothly summarised, not poked at for the sake of it.

I'm sorry, I can't change my object, yet I wanted to. Tony 09:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I've worked all the above. Since you left no specific points for the rest of the article, we can only assume you support the rest of it.Sumoeagle179 21:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment one reason of my reticence in supporting this nomination has among others been that the lead text was not in line with the fairly well organized body of the article. There even was information in the lead text, that was not mentioned in the body. I have given the lead text a major edit now, and kindly invite native English speaking editors to give it a further copy-edit for its English. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Brabham

Self nomination Current Good Article on a former Formula One team and racing car manufacturer with an interesting history. I've been working this one up over the last 6 months or so, on and off. It is comprehensive - more so that most webpages on the topic, which tend only to cover the team's F1 involvement. It's also pretty thoroughly referenced mainly from hardcopy sources (although no doubt someone will immediately spot something I've missed :)). It was peer reviewed here - all the issues raised were dealt with to the satisfaction of the peer reviewers. Finally, I think I've pegged all the relevant bits from WP:MoS. I believe it is now up to FA standard, but await your views. Thanks in advance. <ducks and hides under desk> 4u1e 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Don't be like that 4u1e, Brabham is a great article and it's rating as a GA, in my opinion, is an understatement. Great job!. --Skully Collins ^Edits 07:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, I'm not that worried! In fact, since my concern for the article is that I'm too close to it, I'll be quite happy if/when someone points out a problem with it. Thanks for the support :D 4u1e 08:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Very close, just one thing that concerns me, the image used in the infobox is also used later on in the article (with the caption "The Brabham BT52 was the first turbocharged car to win the F1 drivers' championship"). Also the copyright notice of the image seems a bit dodgy to me, and I couldn't find anything on the source website to confirm it. Suggest that a logo be used in the infobox and if possible proof of the the BT52's copyright status be found (or the image replaced). I will support when this is done. Alexj2002 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check out the BT52 picture copyright notice, it's not one of the ones I loaded (there's a pic of a BT49 around somewhere if this one's not OK). Regarding logos, I agree, but have a small concern. I originally had the BRO logo at the top of the page. Because BRO only represents a small part of the team's history, I was going to go with the team's most recent logo (the scorpion/snake thing). I have a gif of this one, but didn't record the site I got it from and cannot now find it on the web anywhere. This means I can't fulfil the requirement to give the source of the image. Any advice? 4u1e 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Very dodgy licensing, and the pic has gone from that website as far as I can see. I've replaced it with a cc-by licensed image of a BT49 from flickr.com in the text and the BRO logo at the top of the page. 4u1e 10:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try [11] for the snake/scorpion logo. Alexj2002 10:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one. Apparently it's referred to as Hissing Sid. Don't know why it didn't come up on search. I'll fix that one tonight. Cheers. 4u1e 10:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for finding that. I'd be grateful if you could check I've gotten the fair use rationale right. 4u1e 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Objections resolved. Alexj2002 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments.
  • Please remove Amazon.com links from references.
    • First of all - many thanks for such a comprehensive assessment of the structure. Happy to remove the Amazon links, although I find them more useful than the ISBN ones for the kind of sources we're talking about here. Out of curiosity, is there a specific policy on this, or is it a preference?
      • It's a commercial site - and raises the argument of why Amazon, and not B&N. We aren't a bookseller :-) Sandy (Talk) 18:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. 4u1e 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed one of your references to include the webpage title: in the event links go dead, future readers need to know the exact bibliographic info in order to attempt to re-locate the info. Please doublecheck all your web links, and make sure last access dates are provided. When a page links to static results, consider linking to the internet archive for a stable version.
    • What I really wanted was a link to a general 'results archive' page. Unfortunately the F1 site isn't structured like that, you have to link to a specific year. I didn't want the reference to look like it was just to a single year's results, so left that part of the title out. However, you're probably right, it's misleading to do so. Excellent point re archived versions of the page. I will investigate.
      • Sadly, I don't think the internet archive will work here. The way the f1 site is structured, each year's results have a different page. Each year has 16 or so races, again each with a separate page, and the results can be viewed by driver, team or season summary. If I understand correctly, the links from each archived page go to the current version of the linked page, not the archived version. Without giving individual links to archived versions of each of the relevant pages (perhaps 30 x 16 = 318 pages!) I can't see how this can be made to work.4u1e 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an ISBN for Pinder?
    • No, and I think I may drop him as a source. I hadn't noticed at first, but the coincidence of his name and the publisher's indicate that it is probably a vanity book. While I think it remains a useful and reliable source on Repco, and there is nothing in the book which contradicts other sources, it's probably cleaner just to use Henry instead.
      • Pinder removed, substituted Lawrence, which gives more info than Henry on Brabham's technical involvement in the project, if anyone ever actually reads the reference text! 4u1e 19:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki is a dynamic environment, and future editors could insert new text - I can't support an article carrying this statement: "Facts which are not otherwise footnoted have been taken from the following sources:" Facts which need to be footnoted, should be footnoted.
    • Again, your point is fair. I suggest that the article's readability will suffer if I footnote all race results, so how about I remove the general reference to Alan Henry's 1999 Motorsport article and leave the race results under the heading 'All race and championship results taken from'?
      • Use your best judgment: you know the territory better than I do. Sandy (Talk) 18:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done (to my best judgement ;-)) 4u1e 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you include page numbers in References? The point of References is to list sources, with specific page numbers provided in the Footnotes.
    • The ones with page numbers are articles in newspapers or magazines, so the referenced source is a particular article, not to the magazine in general. In newspapers, which are not generally indexed, the articles will be harder to find without a page number. The page number is given in the footnote, though, so I can live with losing them from the references.
      • Sorry, I see that now. Sandy (Talk) 18:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did consider seperating out the books and the newspaper/magazine references, but decided that would be overly complicated! 4u1e 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some bluelinks in some footnotes need to be expanded to include full bibliographic info - if the sources go dead, future readers need to be able to find the article, example, www.sfo.gov.uk is not sufficient info.
    • Good point. Will fix.
      • I've made some tentative changes, but haven't finalised an approach yet. Can I confirm that www.sfo.gov.uk wasn't actually a problem? It has the website, the name of the document the info came from and the title of the case study within that document. I've added the 'click path' to the title as well, but don't see what else can be done with this one. I assume www.f3history.co.uk, www.grandprix.com and www.indy500.com/stats are the issue? I've tried something with the first two (see references section). Better? 4u1e 07:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have added more detail on each ref, and re-written some of the article to use hardcopy references instead of on-line (Online now in 'External links' section). 4u1e 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are these bolded ? devised a hydropneumatic suspension system, Murray started using lightweight carbon fibre composite panels, The Brabham BT46B of 1978, also known as the Fan car, to introduce full width rear wings for downforce and increased grip, etc ?
  • Why is this italicized? downforce created by aerodynamic ground effect.
    • It wasn't me that did it, but I believe the intent was to highlight technical terms, an approach I've seen recommended somewhere in one of the style guides (I'll check that out in more detail). I'm happy for it to go if it's distracting.
      • OK. The guidance I was thinking of is Technical terms and definitions. Having read that again, I've settled for italics for technical terms which I believe many people won't have encountered before. Thus I have italicised monocoque, but not wind tunnel because I think most people will have a vague idea of what it is. I've italicised at the first appearance, and at the first appearance in the 'Technical innovation' section, since this is where most of the description is done. Better? 4u1e 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-arranging images in Racing history - other formulae will help avoid chunks of white space - images don't *have* to be right next to the text they refer to, when doing so results in chunky white space.
    • Will give that a go, on a variety of screen settings. It looks OK on the three different set ups that I normally use, but I guess that's not really representative of the world at large.
      • I've tried a couple of different screen resolutions, a load of different window sizes and IE as well as Firefox (Netscape now uses the IE and Mozilla rendering engines, so I haven't bothered with that). I can't see any 'chunky white space' on any window or screen sizes, other than right at the top of the article on my maximum resolution settings. I have re-arranged the pictures anyway to make the page less uniform. Any better? If not, could you be more specific about what the problem looks like, perhaps with screen resolution settings and browser details? A screen cap would be good, if you can do it. 4u1e 18:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the text yet; I'll do that after structural things are addressed. Sandy (Talk) 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comment: I think I have addressed all of the points raised above. Do you agree? 4u1e 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on talk. Sandy (Talk) 01:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent article.--Diniz 13:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Power: A New Social Analysis Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avatar: The Last Airbender

Tiridates I of Armenia

Self-nomination. This is the article's first nomination and the article is very stable. It achieved a GA status in April. It is illustrated and has a good number of notes and references with page numbers etc. A peer review request didn't bring up anything other than automated suggestions (which have been taken care of). There are only two red links which can be removed as they are not that important anyway. Also, there is hardly any other information available that can be included in the article. I researched the topic quite thoroughly.--Eupator 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. First off, it looks very well-written and well-cited, so good job on that. Just a few issues: —Cuiviénen 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems a bit short, though somewhat understandably so given the brevity of the article. Maybe just a couple more sentences would be a good addition.
  • This sentence: Tiridates was one of the principle characters in George Frideric Handel's Radamisto and Reinhard Keiser's Octavia operas seems tacked on to the end. Are there any other mentions of him in culture? You could create a separate section for that.
  • A map of Armenia and its geographical relation to Rome and Parthia during his reign would add greatly to the article.

Thank you. I know the lead is short, that was one of the suggestions the automatic peer review brought up. I will try to extend it. Added a map. The borders of Armenia were essentially the same from the end of the 1st century BC until the early 4th century when Armenia was partitioned between Rome and Sassanid Persia. Regarding cultural references, those are the only two I know of. There is a statue of Tiridates at the palace of Versailles made by André. I'll try to find some more. Thanks again.--Eupator 21:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify the copyright status of Image:ArshakuniArmenia150.gif, which you uploaded? (Provide a source and a reason the copyright was released, in this case.) Thanks. —Cuiviénen 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the applicable license is Template:PD-AM-exempt since it's a work of the Foreign Ministry of Armenia [12] but the image was taken to Commons and that template doesn't exist there. Should I reupload it to Wikipedia with a different name?--Eupator 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the best solution, I think. —Cuiviénen 00:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Eupator 04:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I suggest to put the monarch infobox and the full transcription for his ordinal from Armenian. --Brand спойт 23:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice but he has two potential successors, there is no article on his predecessor and his dates of birth and death are unknown. I'll try and add it, see what it looks like with some missing info.--Eupator 23:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't understand the footnotes - they don't use a consistent style, some refs need to be expanded, and it's not clear if all are reliable sources:
  • Iranica needs to be expanded to include full info, including author and last access date. What is this site? Is it a reliable source?
  • Mithraism by Roger Beck needs full info including last access date and webhost, is this a reliable source?
  • The Jewish Roman World of Jesus by Dr. James D. Tabor needs expansion.
  • Champlin, Edward (2003). Nero. Belknap Press. ISBN 0674011929. Here the footnote style switches to a conventional last name, first name, while other entries don't follow that style.
  • There are a number of References listed that are never cited - were those sources used in the article? Sandy (Talk) 23:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello done, except the last two. Tacitus, Cassius, Pliny are not cited with templates because there just isn't any publisher, isbn etc. As for your last point, I assume you're talking about material taken from Vahan Kurkjian history of Armenia. That's at various places in the article. Under references it says:This article incorporates text from History of Armenia by Vahan M. Kurkjian, a publication in the public ___domain. With a link.--Eupator 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs a thorough copyedit. I mainly noticed comma issues. Everyking 11:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help in eliminating run-ons and other grammatical problems. I'm afraid i'm not proficient in that department. Also, all red links have now been eliminated.--Eupator 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why the marked additive? "an event of far-reaching importance not only for Armenia, but for most of the lands in the Roman East". Better as "an event of far-reaching importance for Armenia and for most of the lands in the Roman East." Tony 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed.--Eupator 19:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does this article fit FA guidelines in terms of length?--MarshallBagramyan 02:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. On a cursory glance, I found two direct quotes with no citations, and a punctuation error in the first paragraph of the body of the article (Vologases considered the throne of Armenia to have been: "once the property of his ancestors, now usurped by a foreign monarch in virtue of a crime,".[9]), suggesting a thorough runthrough is needed. Sandy (Talk)

Done.--Eupator 01:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm afraid the article has certain prose deficiencies. Let's pick a phrase in random:

In the summer, Corbulo began moving towards Tigranocerta, through rough terrain, passing through the Taronitida (Taron), where several of his commanders died in an ambush by the Armenian resistance

• Two "through" almost one after the other.
• I count 4 commas. I'm not the best in syntax, but they seem too many to me. And, in general, I think that in the article there is a confusion about the use of , and ;.

I think that this article needs a slight copy-editing by a native Engish speaker. And I think this is its only problem, because it is well-structured and well-researched.--Yannismarou 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Did his reign begin in 53 AD (main text) or 63 AD (Infobox)? Also, there's only one good depiction of him in the article - the photograph, as opposed to the sketch of the statue - but since it has so much empty space around it, details can't be made out. I'd suggest cropping and enlarging. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a footnote next to 63 AD in the infobox that states Beginning of reign without interruption. In the article, it states that he became a king in 53 AD, but his reign was interrupted a couple of times.--Crzycheetah 00:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In my opinion, the references should be written more explicitly. It seems like a well-written compilation from Tacitus - Annals and Dio Cassius. In addition, i find it very concise. Better to enlarge and provide more material. E104421 19:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: IMO there is a two heavy reliance on primary sources, while secondary sources are far too sparsely used.--Aldux 12:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bunch new secondary sources.--Eupator 22:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Update The article now exceeds 30kb. I expanded it quite significantly today using various secondary sources that were absent from the article before.--Eupator 22:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just a few notes. I've noted that some paragraphs conclude without inline citations; at least some of these are probably from Tacitus or Dio Cassius, but it's always better to make it clear:

• • "In 53 the Roman governor of Cappadocia, Julius Paelignus, invaded Armenia and ravaged the country, then under an Iberian usurper King Rhadamistus."

• • "Rhadamistus himself returned to Iberia and was soon put to death by his father Parasmanes I of Iberia for having plotted against the royal power."

• • "Tiridates then mounted the steps of the platform and knelt, while Nero placed the royal diadem on his head. As the young king was about to kneel a second time, Nero lifted him by his right hand and after kissing him, made him sit at his side on a chair a little lower than his own. Meanwhile, the populace gave tumultuous ovations to both rulers. A Praetor, speaking to the audience, interpreted and explained the words of Tiridates, who spoke in Greek." Is also this covered by the inline citation by Pliny?

• • "In memory of these events, the Senate honored Nero with the laurel wreath and the title of Imperator, or commander-in-chief of the armies. No reception comparable to this in magnitude and splendor is recorded in the history of Rome. Besides the enormous sum spent in festivities, the Roman Government bore the entire cost of the journey of Tiridates and his retinue, both from and to their homeland. Nero also made a gift to Tiridates of fifty million sesterces."

A different question that may be posed is if the quote from Champlin isn't a bit too long - but regarding this I may be wrong, only I find it a bit too big for the section in which it is.--Aldux 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add inline citations for the lines you mentioned using secondary sources, since primary ones seem to be disliked by some. I'll replace the Champlin quote with an explanation of Tiridates' speech, citing both Champlin and a few others.--Eupator 01:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finished adding the references. I'm not sure what exactly to do regarding the Champlin quote now though. I would like more feedback.--Eupator 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the quote has now been moved.--Eupator 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the main contributor has awnsered to all the problems posed by me and other editors, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't support. Good luck,Aldux 00:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -looks quite excellent, and seems to meet all criteria. Great job! Tuf-Kat 01:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Eupator has solved all the issues and the article looks fine. Nareklm 07:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Aldux, great effort by Eupator. Fedayee 08:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sei Whale

(self-nom) This article has undergone an overhaul and peer review. It is currently a Good Article and I believe that after implementing the suggestions brought up in the peer review, the article meets the standards expected of Featured Articles.

For comparison, other featured articles about whales include Fin Whale (most recent, link to FAC discussion), Blue Whale (link to FAC discussion), Humpback Whale (link to FAC discussion), Right whale (link to FAC discussion), Sperm Whale (can't find FAC discussion), and Orca (can't find FAC discussion). Neil916 (Talk) 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but with a few nits — A very good article that appears reasonably comprehensive, well-referenced, and an interesting read. I just had a few nits that I thought needed addressing:
  • In the early part of the introduction, the sentence that begins, "Other related whales...," is a bit diverting from the main topic. Since it is covered in the taxonomy section, I wonder if you would consider removing it (or moving it further down)?
  • The second rather than the first occurance of kilograms (and lb) is wiki-linked. Also I believe a period is appropriate following an abbreviated ft., lb., mi., mm., in. and hr.
  • mi/hr is not wiki-linked, &c.
  • The taxonomy section doesn't cover the meaning of the name "borealis".
  • Please use a &mdash; in: "...identified - the..."
  • The single paragraphs in the "North Atlantic", "North Pacific", "International protection" and "Current whaling" sections are quite long. I believe that splitting them up appropriately will make for an easier and more enjoyable read.

Finally, is there any information on this whale's vocalizations? Do they vocalize at all? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Response: Addressing your points in order:
    • I agree, and I have removed that sentence
    • Fixed the wikilink problem. As for the period after the abbreviations, I was under the impression that it should be there as well, but WP:MOSNUM#Units_of_measurement clearly shows dropping the period after all of its examples, even though it is not explicitly stated that the period should be dropped. Any suggestions?
      • According to the abbreviations page, SI does not require a period within or after a unit. So km and mm are correct. Heh, learn something new every day. I'm not sure about the old English units, however: I've always included a period. — RJH (talk)
    • Fixed the wikilink of mi/hr.
    • Added the meaning of the latin word borealis, meaning northern.
    • Added the &mdash; in the appropriate section.
    • Revised and reorganized the paragraphs to make them flow better.
    • Not much is known about the Sei Whale's vocalizations, but I added a section describing what little is known.
  • Thanks for the feedback. Neil916 (Talk) 18:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, and good luck with your FAC. — RJH (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild Oppose for now. I think it still needs a lot of little detail work. However, as it now stands, with attention to a lot of details, and clearing up some prose it has what it takes to be a FA. The biggest thing I don't like about it is the redundancy of text, when you repeat something, make the sentence more detailed the second time, as with the lead sentences for sections taken from the lead paragraph. I added comments to the talk page and will post more soon. KP Botany 23:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I've cleaned up the redundancies between the lead section of the article and the main body. I've been trying to balance requests to expand the lead section with the need to not repeat the entire article in the lead section. See if you like that better. I have addressed the other concerns over on the article's talk page. Feel free to review the article again and raise additional issues as you discover them. Neil916 (Talk) 16:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't think the lead section should be expanded at all, sorry for the confusion. I think that when you repeat a sentence from the lead section as an introductory point to another section in the article, the lead sentence from the lead section should be expanded a bit. The lead section for this article is superb, content wise--please don't change it!!! Sorry to mess you up on this. KP Botany 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it wasn't you who suggested expanding the lead section, it was one of the issues that had come up in the peer review, and the result was the version that you saw. I interpreted your comment to mean that you felt that the lead section had become too repetetive, where there was a sentence in the lead section that was just an exact replica of the sentence in the main body (which was the case, in fact, because in some cases I just cut-and-pasted it when I was expanding the lead). So what I've done in response to your concern is to verify that in every case where a fact is mentioned in the lead, the fact is mentioned in more detail in the actual body of the article. The only minor exception to this that I can see is the comment about the whale's swimming speed, because I don't know how much that statement can be elaborated upon, but I did move the article around and made that statement part of a larger paragraph on the whale's swimming habits in general, including diving, which wasn't mentioned in the lead. So when I mentioned the balancing act, I was basically referring to work that I'd done in the past expanding the lead, not plans to expand it further in response to your concern. Neil916 (Talk) 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the article is comprehensive, good pictures (I like the whale diagram picture), well-written and it is easy to follow, well-referenced but only one reference to an external wiki page. As soon as the external wiki reference is replaced, I will change my vote into full support. — Indon (reply) — 09:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unreliable citation to a wiki page has been removed. So I give my full support for this article. Great job! — Indon (reply) — 09:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very nice comprehensive work. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree the prose is very good and very comprehensive. Good job to all who have worked hard on it.--Seadog ^♪ 12:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. The prose needs cleaning up, and the lead is poor (1a and 2a). Here are random examples that indicate that the whole text needs considerable work.
  • "The whale reaches lengths of 20 metres"—Plural "lengths" and "weights" are unidiomatic. In any case, the largest ever recorded specimen was this long, but much heavier. Conflicting information with the details below.
  • "an average of about 900 kilograms"—Remove "about" (see MoS).
  • "Its name comes from the Norwegian word for pollock, a fish that appears off the coast of Norway at the same time as the Sei Whale.[3]"—Why highlight this in the lead when the info is repeated just below? Big picture first, please. Tony 12:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Response: Addressing your points in order:
    • Fixed the wording and corrected information; I had copied the wrong stats when writing the lead, thanks for pointing that out.
    • Fixed that.
    • I disagree with this point. Per the Manual of Style (Lead Section), "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies, if there are any". By that definition, the lead section is going to repeat information contained in the rest of the article. The lead section is organized from the standpoint that it should address questions that a reader would have if the intro is the only thing they read (or can read, It has been suggested that the CD version of WP only contain the lead sections of articles). It is my opinion that a typical reader would have questions about why the whale has a common name "Sei" and that the question is important enough to raise in the lead section. The fact that it is addressed in the following section shouldn't be a reason to not include it in the lead, and additional information is provided in that section. If your objection is due to the fact that the wording is similar, suggest an alternative for the wording.
  • Please let me know if there are additional issues that you spot. Neil916 (Talk) 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Can you add something about this species and the whale watching industry? Many of our cetacean articles could use some discussion of the economic significance of the species, apart from whaling. Kla'quot 07:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good and obvious catch, plus current science outside of Japan. KP Botany 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rejoinder—My point about allowing etymological niceties intrude into the second sentence of the lead is that it's just too detailed compared with the rest of the info in the lead, which should summarise the topic. It's a nice point to make, but do it just once, after you've provided the big picture in the lead. Like, tell us where the species lives/migrates instead. Lower down, you mention the migration without giving an idea as to whether it roams the whole of the North Atlantic or specific areas off Norway, Siberia, Greenland, etc. THAT is the summary stuff we need in the lead, not etymology that's repeated below.
  • Ok, now I understand your point, and I agree with it. I've rearranged the lead section to put most relevant information first. Neil916 (Talk) 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, more problems:

• • "The whale reaches a length of up to 20 metres (66 ft) long and reaches a weight of up to 45 tonnes (50 tons).[4]" Try: "The whales reach lengths of up to 20 metres (66 ft) and weigh up to 45 tonnes (50 tons).[4]" Ah, much better ....
  • "although it continues to be hunted to a limited extent"—awkward passive construction and inefficient wording: "although limited hunting still occurs ..."
  • "approximately one-fifth"—a plea for plain English: "about a fifth". It's what our wide range of native and non-native readers want. We're vying for their reading time, too. People are busy, and using short, simple language adds up to a satisfying reading experience.
  • "(up to 180 tonnes, 200 tons) and the Fin Whale (up to 70 tonnes, 70 tons)". Um ... get that calculator out.
  • Can you make the expression of ranges consistent? We have "4–5 metres (13–16 ft)", which I like, but more elaborate wording elsewhere—e.g., between 12.2 and 15.2 metres (40–50 ft)".
  • Love your en dashes, but use them consistently (32-60 looks so squidgy), and then "to" below.
  • It's turning into a wiktionary with the linking of common words such as "scar" and "skin". Please delink these throughout.
  • "Very little is known about their actual social structure." As opposed to their fanciful social structure?
  • "The Sei Whale is notable for its speed, being among the fastest of all cetaceans." Why not remove the bloat: "The Sei Whale is among the fastest of all cetaceans."?

I won't read on. Someone with strategic distance is required, to copy-edit it throughout. Tony 03:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have addressed these points, but I don't know what "32-60 looks so squidgy" means. KP Botany has been providing copyediting assistance on the talk page of the article, addressing his objections raised on this FAC page. Your participation in that discussion would be welcome. Neil916 (Talk) 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because a hyphen is used. Try the trusted en dash for ranges: 32–60, not 32-60; it's standard usage. Tony 07:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Excellent well written article. -- Scorpion0422 00:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Featured article! E104421 13:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nuland 1988, p. 4 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNuland1988 (help)
2. Smyers, Karen Ann. The Fox and the Jewel: Shared and Private Meanings in Contemporary Japanese Inari Worship. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999. 127-128