Wikipedia:Featured article candidates 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations

Luc Bourdon

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk)


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

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

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

Everything should be all fixed up now. Also went through the references and cleaned them up, so that matter should be good. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Gerard K. O'Neill

Nominator(s): Wronkiew (talk)


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

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Wail al-Shehri

Nominator(s): --Aude (talk)


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

Thank you for the comment. You are correct. I took that detail out of the lead, since the term is undefined there. I also adjusted the wording in the article to define "muscle" hijackers as the non-pilot hijackers. --Aude (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I added a wikilink to Hijackers in the September 11 attacks#Muscle hijackers, though that article is only what I consider start-class. That will be the place to define the hijacker roles in further detail. --Aude (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the references. I have made some adjustments. --Aude (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Tragic Kingdom

Nominator(s): Tezkag72 and Escape Artist Swyer


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

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

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

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

As far as I can see, they're all there for the "cite web" sources. Tezkag72 00:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Refs 4, 5, 6, and 12 appear to be online sources without accessdates. Maralia (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I tried to edit it, and accessdates are indeed in all of them, they're just not showing up. Tezkag72 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not? It's the album cover. Tezkag72 00:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
See my response to the next question here—there is a fair use rationale on the image page, but it's not clearly designated as being for use in this specific article. Maralia (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
What does that mean? (sorry it's not your fault. I just don't understand those.) Tezkag72 00:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
See WP:FURG for an explanation of what a fair use rationale is. You might consider using a preexisting template such as Template:Album cover fur.
Yes she is, as far as I can see. Where should I be looking? Tezkag72 14:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. Tezkag72 00:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. Tezkag72 00:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Comments from Ealdgyth -

Done. Tezkag72 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments by indopug
  • "Since most of the songs on Tragic Kingdom were written by lead vocalist Gwen Stefani, and were about her experiences in life, and those from No Doubt's previous album were written mainly by Eric Stefani, who left the group before Tragic Kingdom was recorded, the style of music changed from what No Doubt had previously produced"—very long sentence.
  • "commercial sound" in Background is a rather ambiguous phrase.
Removed. Thanks. Tezkag72 22:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
How should I do that? The only way I can think of is breaking it between positive and negative reviews, but there aren't any mainly-negative reviews there. Tezkag72 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed those once, but PiracyFundsTerrorism said that WikiProject Albums's guidelines said that it's encouraged to have such a box. I checked, and it does say that. What should I do? Tezkag72 22:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Rheinmetall 120 mm gun

Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)


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

Comments -

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

A few points:

-- William Avery (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Those can all be fixed very quickly; most already have. I will work through the text to remove instances of the word "also". According to their website, it's actually not spelled either way; they spell it KraussMaffei. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, the word "also" has been removed or replaced throughout the text, leaving only a few instances of the word left where proper. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
All resolved. William Avery (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Speyer

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk)


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

Comments -

Will do tomorrow. They're always a bit short.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Correct and done. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
done. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately the search results are not persistent for any great length of time. The information here is the same as that used by Ancestry.com except that it is free and is complied from the original microfiche of the birth, marriages and death registers.
nothing particularly but, it's primarily provided as a link to pictures of his house.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems to have changed somewhat since I originally linked to it. A better link would be to this which states the full dedication and which I have used instead. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
They are the publishers in conjunction with Boosey & Hawkes of the score for Salome. Doing a bit more digging, I have found on the B&H site a direct link to the first page of the score showing the dedication, so I have linked directly to that instead. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Intrinsically nothing, but the fact that he was a trustee is covered by reference 1. Reference 24 is supplementary to that, in part to provide some background on the gallery itself. --DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing particularly. I have found a reference since this was added in the new york times to his subscription of £1,000 to the Scott fund which I will replace this with.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Data is from a list complied by the United States Geological Survey. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica and Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica/S6 for the same information on Wikipedia.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a comprehensive list of stringed instruments (over 10,000 listed by nearly 300 makers (see the home page for the numbers), so I think it's safe to assume it's reliable.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Publisher is Killick & Co. Reformed the ref to make this clear.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXIV

Nominator(s): iMatthew


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

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

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

I got everything except the reference for that paragraph. I'm not sure about it. iMatthew 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Assuming the reader doesn't know anything about the subject, like me, then the paragraph should be referenced. How else can I verify if the information is accurate? Gary King (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Matt, I recommend sourcing it with this. It's reliable, seeing how there is an article on Wiki about it.--SRX 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sourced with that link. iMatthew 00:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Not commenting on its reliability, but just because it has its own article doesn't mean it's reliable. Gary King (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess let Ealdgyth comment its reliability, but I think its reliable since its operated and published by Discovery Networks. In addition, the ref should go before the sentence that elaborates about the "brand extension." The brand extension sentence should be sourced with the WWE corporate citation released in 2002.--SRX 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
A few comments from WillC

Comments -

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

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

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

Done with a few comments. iMatthew 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed.--WillC 05:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Scout Moor Wind Farm

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum


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

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

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

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

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

--Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Boeing 777

Nominator: User:Chergles (talk)


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

Oops, fixing. The 2 most recent heavy contributors have been notified, me and Fnlayson. Will do the others. Chergles (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Top 4 editors and all editors over 65 edits notified. 3 ok'ed it, 1 has quit and said so on their talk pageChergles (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

Many of the references use the template and the template did not italicize the titles. This is a wikipedia style error, not our error. I'll manually add italics. Chergles (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this is from confusion with how the fields work in the {{cite news}} and other cite templates. Work is the field you use for the title of the magazine, publisher would be the company behind the magazine. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed, unneeded sentence removed. Chergles (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
These sources list plane deliveries. They are like a directory. News sources will never say "plane 00112 is United Airlines, plane 00113 is British Airways, etc." Nobody has ever claimed that these websites are so error prone as to be unreliable. If SandyGeorgia says we cannot use these list websites, then I am willing to remove lots of good information and just have a barebones generic 777 article. Otherwise, let's use these sources. They are not blogs. Chergles (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing that suggests these websites are not reliable. News articles are less reliable because they might say United Airlines has 53 planes but that number is not updated by the article so that we can't compare different articles. If SandyGeorgia determines that these websites have to go, then we'll just re-write the article and take out information. That will leave the article with a good basic description of the 777 but it may not have airline specific information, like number of planes a certain airline has. Chergles (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with zap16.com, but the rest are well-known airline field to be reputable sites. I'm not sure how much "proof" policy requires. Given that these sites are maintained by experts, I'd actually put their reliability much higher than mainstream media who have a bad reputation for getting aviation reporting wrong. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
In any event, most all of those have been removed or replaced. Working on the rest... -Fnlayson (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Added Chergles (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Removed ref as there is a better reference. Chergles (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Removed reference. Chergles (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed Chergles (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed Chergles (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: a significant contributor to the article removed the FAC tag with the edit summary "Let's try to get the article in better shape before starting FAC". Since the article is already listed at FAC, and the 'significant contributors' issue is fuzzy here (nominator has 63 edits, but the editor who removed the tag is the top contributor at 365), I have reinstated {{fac}} on the article talk page and requested further input here. Maralia (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We are fine. Both of us are not in dispute. I'm just fixing the article now. Chergles (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Proof...16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Fnlayson says alright with the FA. Yipee, we have a common goal! Chergles (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review

These issues should be relatively easy to clear up. Awadewit (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Request in progress. One author is French and contributes to French Wikipedia. Have tried to write in French even though I don't speak French. Chergles (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The lead is 3 paragraphs. It is possible to add fluff but 3 paragraphs is deemed sufficient according to Wikipedia. Suggestions always welcomed. Chergles (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:LEAD suggests that an article of this size should contain a lead of four paragraphs, but even so, they should be decently-sized paragraphs. Remember, the lead is a summary of the entire article, and should provide a general understanding of the entire subject to a reader. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

**All software, whether produced internally to Boeing or externally, was to be written in Ada. The bulk of the work was undertaken by Honeywell who developed an Airplane Information Management System (AIMS). This handles the flight and navigation displays, systems monitoring and data acquisition (e.g. flight data acquisition). **The first 777-200 built was used by Boeing's non-destructive testing (NDT) campaign in 1994–1995, and provided valuable data for the -200ER and -300 programs. This A market (see below) aircraft was sold to Cathay Pacific Airways and delivered in December 2000.

All fixed Chergles (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Chergles (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

–

Fixed these but going beyond that and making similar changes suggested by the above. Chergles (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Fixed. Chergles (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the points raised have been fixed. However, a continuing effort to improve is and will always be worked on. Chergles (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wonder Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk)


This is an article about one of the earliest science fiction magazines. Amazing Stories was recently featured and would be a good comparison. Another point that may be of interest is that as result of some recent discussion at the FAC talk page and elsewhere about short articles, I decided to include a couple of other magazines in this article. The details are given in the article so I won't repeat them, but essentially the article covers between two and five magazines, depending on which bibliographer is counting. If I didn't include Science Wonder Quarterly, I'd end up with a very short article on that magazine that would need a good deal of material copied verbatim from this article. Anyway, I look forward to comments; thanks for all input. Mike Christie (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

I thought it might be related to the fanzine, but wasn't sure. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable for non-controversial information. It wouldn't be safe for a BLP, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

Ralph Bakshi

Nominator: User:Ibaranoff24 (talk)


The article has been greatly improved since its last FAC, and should be ready for promotion. Documents the history of an important figure in the history of American animation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC))

Comment

There is an undisambiguated link to Marvel, and Foofle is a redirect to an unrelated subject. William Avery (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am currently doing a requested copy edit of the articles, and came across the following quotation: "The conflict between Avatar and his evil brother Blackwolf is borh cliched and mostly..." near the end of the "Controversy and shift towards fantasy film" section. I don't want to change the "borh cliched" line because it's a quote, but someone might want to check the source and see if that was a typo in the original book or if it crept in when the quote was added to the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the same quote has "neccesarily" in it, which should probably also be checked. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct, both of these are typos, and have been corrected. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC))
Copy edit complete. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
What has been taken care of? And are you saying that you used citations for works you did not consult when you say that the "articles that are missing information are cited from Cohen's Forbidden Animation book"? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The information was listed in Cohen's book. In a few instances, I cited the sources that Cohen used, which were given in the back of the book. Some of them were missing information. Thus, the citations are presented as they were printed in the source list for Forbidden Animation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC))
You need to cite that information to Cohen's book then, if you did not actually utilize the other works yourself. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten articles on three films by Bakshi using the same kind of formatting and writing style, and I've never been asked to do so before, nor has this kind of formatting deterred the success of a FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC))
It's basic citation 101 that you cite to where you found the information, not where the source you're using got the information, unless you also accessed and verified that information with the source's source. I learned this with the very first term paper I ever wrote. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Also see WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (thanks David!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth asked me to read over this discussion and see what I thought. She is right; you must cite where you got the information, not where your source got it. If you have done this before and no one has complained it is likely because no one realized that was happening. It is always possible (and usually likely), that the intermediate source (the book you read) picked and chose information out of the original source, leaving out other info, and may have added their own interpretation of what was in the original source. If you want to do proper attribution in the text of the article, you may say that "According to Author Y, the magazine XXX on ZZ date said.....". But this must be cited to the book that you read, because it may not be a 100% accurate representation of what the magazine actualy said. Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I entirely agree with the above: cite to your source. The form which Karanacs suggests is correct procedure when you wish to refer to an original source that you don't have; I have often used it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I also agree 100 percent - the place where you fou