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; or 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. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents

Shortcut: WP:FAC Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured pictures Featured lists Featured portals Featured topics Featured sounds Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Today's featured article This month's queue Main page requests Featured article log Featured article statistics Former featured articles Toolbox Dead links (Updates daily)

Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the "initiate the nomination" link (for first nominations) or the "leave comments" link (for subsequent nominations). If there was a previous nomination, you will see a link to "previous FAC"; leave that link untouched. If you encounter an unarchived, older nomination at this page, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance in moving and archiving the previous nomination. 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}}, 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 Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. 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). 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 the 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 1 Nominations 1.1 Crown Fountain 1.2 Candide 1.3 Amateur radio in India 1.4 4X 1.5 Robert F. Kennedy assassination 1.6 Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon (1994) 1.7 Washington, D.C. 1.8 Burger King legal issues 1.9 Balch Creek 1.10 La Peau de chagrin 1.11 Robert Sterling Yard 1.12 Frank Zappa 1.13 M-28 (Michigan highway) 1.14 Connie Talbot 1.15 Depersonalization disorder 1.16 Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale 1.17 Conan (2007 video game) 1.18 Pendle witch trials 1.19 Domitian 1.20 Insane Clown Posse 1.21 Warwick Castle 1.22 Mangalore 1.23 Columbia, Missouri 1.24 Ozzie Smith 1.25 2007 Atlantic hurricane season 1.26 Michael Jackson 1.27 Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) 1.28 History of rugby union matches between All Blacks and France 1.29 Battle of Tory Island 1.30 Willie Wagtail 1.31 Cold Feet (series 1) 1.32 Planets beyond Neptune 1.33 Midtown Madness 1.34 History of evolutionary thought 1.35 New York State Route 22 1.36 Puerto Rican Amazon 1.37 Ayumi Hamasaki 1.38 Alleyway 1.39 Anekantavada 1.40 Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory

Nominations

Crown Fountain

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (talk), Torsodog (talk)

previous FAC (00:05, 31 March 2008)

I have nominated this twice before and submitted it to WP:PR. User:Torsodog has also submitted this to WP:PR, which is how we met. We have attempted to addresss all actionable concerns from the prior FACs and PRs. Given that this has twice been through FAC and PR, it is difficult determine where to get further editorial assistance. Thus, I return here for further consideration. This is part of the Millennium Park Chicago WikiProject Featured Topic Drive. It is one of the few articles that was a WP:GA before we got 10 promoted in June and July. I could put a WP:LOCE tag on it, but do not recall that getting editorial assistance with any other article I have tried that with.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Definitely a good start, but needs some work, namely a general copy-edit for basic grammar and conventions. As a side note, this is my first time reviewing an article in-depth, so if I'm wrong about policies or grammar and such, feel free to correct me.

In general the copy edit was good. My main concern is that community area is a key descriptor for locations in Chicago. For example read most of the descriptions on the Library of Congress images in their Chicago Daily News collection. I think following the descriptive patterns of the Library of Congress is probably a good encyclopedic method and I in general find these useful. Almost every community area has a very representative map at the top of its page, which really helps the reader understand where things are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• The infobox. I don't think there should be three borders. David (Michelangelo) is a good sculpture article, with a simple but good infobox.
  • If you don't want a caption on the image, we can do that. I am not sure that we want to remove the caption, but the image looks better.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The caption won't kill me. When I first saw the article, the three borders jumped out at me as one of the first things I saw. It doesn't look great, but it provides information, so it can stay. Calor (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• You linked to Cascade, which is a disambig. Fix the link to point where it should.

  I already removed this wikilink, which I felt was un-needed, in copy-editing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

  I am not sure about cascade because although we are not suppose to link to dab pages this is a badly formed combination of a stub and a dab page. The stub component clearly describes what one is. The other link I would contest would be skyscraper, but since this is not an article about a skyscraper, I won't.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The $17 million construction and design cost was largely funded by the Crown family, who donated $10 million and for whom the fountain is named." - Crown family probably shouldn't link to Lester Crown. Perhaps "Lester Crown and his family" or "The family of Lester Crown" (as I'm not sure how much of a role Lester played in all this).

  Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The Goodman family (Goodman Theatre) was also a large contributor.[3]". - It looks kinda... bad. Perhaps "The Goodman family, known for [insert connection with Goodman Theatre here], was also also a large contributor.".
  • Good catch.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• "There is brief period between the each five-minute video during which the sculpture is not lit. As a result, at most 12 faces appear per hour." - Remove "the". 12 should be twelve, because it is less than 100. That sentence is choppy. Try "As a result, no more than twelve faces appear per hour.", or something similar. There are a few other occasions where the numbers should probably be words (26 parking spaces comes to mind). Find and fix those.

  I fixed the obvious typo; I believe that 12 (rather than twelve) is per the Manual of Style. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

  Works for me. I really need to take a good, hard look at the MoS one of these days. Calor (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

  That way madness lies... Heh. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

  Reread Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words. Twelve is acceptable not required, as is twenty-six.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• "..between Madison and Monroe Streets." - May just be me, but "between Madison Street and Monroe Street" looks and sounds better.

  I am indifferent and unsure whether either is stylistically superior. I will make the change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• "It sits with a northward backdrop that not only includes some of the tallest buildings in Chicago, but also includes some of the tallest buildings in the world." - Reword to something like "Looking north, viewers see some of the tallest buildings both in Chicago and in the world, such as the Aon Center, One Prudential Plaza, Two Prudential Plaza, and the Smurfit-Stone Building". The sentence as it is sounds overwordy and like a two sentences tossed together (not to mention the overabundance of blue links).

  I fixed the words. Obviously, a list of notable buildings will be all blue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Skyward viewers also see the eastern backdrop of Lake Michigan." - "Skyward" implies you're looking up at the sky toward Lake Michigan (I'm assuming you don't). Perhaps "When viewed from the sky, Lake Michigan can be seen to the east of Crown Fountain".

  I already removed this in copy-editing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

  I have clarified this statement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• "to bear the gravity load of the 50 feet (15.2 m) walls" - 50 foot high walls. And remove gravity. "To bear the load..." sounds great.
• "the illusion of flowing from mouth's of displayed subjects." - "the illusion of flowing from the mouths of displayed subjects".
• Make sure blocks of references are in numerical order. I saw at least one out of order.
• Make sure it's "Crown Fountain" and "the fountain". Not "Crown fountain" or "the Fountain".
• "Crown Fountain is reputed for its exemplary non-discriminatory barrier-free accessibility." - Commas would be good between the adjectives, although it sounds relatively alright as it is (not grammatically correct, however, I don't think).
• You got a bit off-topic with how LEDs work. "LEDs differ from standard light bulbs because they fit into an electrical circuit so that illumination results from the movement of electrons in the semiconductor material. A filament is unnecessary, so the bulbs never burn out and do not get too hot" can all be removed.
• What is ColorBlast 12? Link (if there's an article), rephrase, or briefly elaborate.
• "Concern over the spouting water potentially knocking people down made the design a legal, as well as physical, challenge.[16]". Interesting. Would be smoother as "...made the design both a legal and a physical challenge".\
• "optimizing legibility of the display." - "Legibility" generally implies text, and as I understand, it is all pictures. Find a different word if possible. "Resolution", maybe? (Legibility occurs twice).
• "The challenge was solved by combining a T-bar grid to absorb weight, with about 150 "outriggers" or "tiebacks" inserted..." - Most people don't know what a T-bar grid is. Provide appropriate links if possible. Remove the comma after weight, and add commas after "outriggers" and "tiebacks", as tiebacks (I think) is an appositive, so it should be set off.
• "Electronic Theatre Controls (ETC) Emphasis control system" - Unless Emphasis is some sort of model name, it should be lower-case.
• "In both 2005 and 2006, almost the entire Millennium Park" - "...Almost all of..." sounds better.
• "On September 8, 2005, Toyota Motor Sales USA paid $800,000 to rent all venues in the park except Wrigley Square, Lurie Garden, McDonald's Cycle Center and Crown Fountain..." Dates don't need to be linked anymore. Remove link if you want (unless I'm incorrect regarding policy). Crown Fountain should be normal text, not italicized. Another date link in the following sentence. Do the same (or not, if you wish, or if I'm wrong).
• "However, Crown Fountain was one of the features that remained open to the public on this occasion too.[27]" - Comma before "too".

Things look good so far. Some stuff may have been fixed while I was writing this. Again, I may be wrong with some things. Correct me if I am. Good luck with this FAC. Calor (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. As with the article on the BP Pedestrian bridge, I urge you to rethink the structure here. For instance, you have a section on "Artistry," and yet the first two paragraphs read, almost in their entirety:

  Crown Fountain, designed by Spanish artist Jaume Plensa, was unveiled during the July 16-18, 2004 grand opening celebrations for Millennium Park.[11] Plensa won the commission to design the fountains in a competitive process against Robert Venturi and Maya Lin.[6] The park was conceived in 1998 as the capstone of Grant Park, to celebrate the new millennium and to feature world-renowned architects, artists, designers, landscape architects, and urban planners.[10] Within Millennium Park, the fountain is located on the east side of Michigan Avenue across from the Chicago Landmark Historic Michigan Boulevard District, north of the Art Institute of Chicago and south of the McCormick Tribune Plaza and Ice Rink between Madison and Monroe Streets. It sits with a northward backdrop that not only includes some of the tallest buildings in Chicago, but also includes some of the tallest buildings in the world, especially the skyscrapers along Randolph Street: Aon Center, One Prudential Plaza, Two Prudential Plaza, and Smurfit-Stone Building. Viewers also see the eastern backdrop of Lake Michigan.

The $17 million construction and design cost was largely funded by the Crown family, who donated $10 million and for whom the fountain is named.[2][12] The Goodman family (Goodman Theatre) was also a large contributor.[3] The fountain's black granite reflecting pool measures 48 feet by 232 feet (15 m × 71 m) and has an approximate water depth of 0.25 inches (0.6 cm).[1] It includes two LED screens encapsulated in a glass brick superstructure, one at each end, measuring 50 feet by 23 feet by 16 feet (15.2 m × 7.0 m × 4.9 m).[1]

What does this have to do with "artistry"? (In fact, what does any of this section really have to do with "artistry"?) While we're at it, what does the following section have to do with "Architecture"? What, if any, is the thought behind the structure in this article? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I recognize that at least one source describes this as an "interactive" fountain... But what's meant by this? It seems to me that it's no more (or less) interactive than any other fountain. Specifically it doesn't change its behaviour in line with what those looking at it or playing in it do, which would make it truly interactive. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It is interactive in the sense that it is not a fountain you just look at or maybe throw coins in. You should bring your bathing suit and have some fun. The fact that the viewers are drawn into playful activity in the fountain makes it interactive despite the fact that their interaction does not change the fountain display.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Why is throwing coins into a fountain not an instance of "interactivity" in this sense? The Trevi Fountain in Rome is just as interactive as this one is. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. In the so-called "Controversy" section, you just reinserted a long section that is not a controversy, and specifically not about the fountain. Why? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply I added a sentence to explain the controversy (and note the article is sourced). The controversy is about the fact that toursist were limited to the fountain and a few other attractions in the park when the park (as the city's second largest tourist attraction) draws travelers from around the world to come see it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
    • In no way is this a controversy about the fountain. For some reason, you seem to be committed to including a "Controversy" section in your articles, and scrape the bottom of the barrel to fill it. Please rethink the way in which you approach article structure. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Candide

Nominator(s): Rmrfstar (talk)

I've been working on this article for a long time, and I'm quite sure that it is ready. It has gone through some very extensive GACs. In any case, I will do my best to respond to objections and criticisms as honestly and quickly as is possible. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I should note that though a recent WP:NOVELS peer review technically occurred, and is mentioned on Talk:Candide, no comments were made. I couldn't wait any longer. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Double check that all the sources listed in the bibliography are actually used in the article. I noticed that "Cates, David Allan "Comparing Candide and X Out of Wonderland" isn't used as a footnote. Same for the Adorno ref, Asbury ref, Betts ref, etc. I didnt' check them all, you can use your search function in your browser for that. Refs that aren't used as sources can go in a "Further reading" section.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A number of the sources that were listed under the heading "Bibliography" were not mentioned by the in-line references. This was intentional. I don't see why they should be separated from those that are; but I expect I'm in the minority. In any case, I've created the "Further reading" section with all of the extra citations transferred there. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:LAYOUT, if you want to double check. But I'm done here! Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Through the allegory of Candide" - why not just "Through allegory"?

Done.

• "...; most conspicuously, he rails against Leibniz and his Optimism." - reads awkwardly. How about "..., and, most conspicuously, he rails against Leibniz and his Optimism."

Then there would be way too many "and"s.

Too many "and"s? Erm... I don't really have much to say to that, but that doesn't seem much of a reason not to change it to me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Candide, Voltaire's magnum opus," - why is it phrased like that? It would seem that such a phrasing would be more fit for the first sentence of an article, introducing the subject. Something like "Candide is Voltaire's magnum opus" would be more appropriate. Two independent clauses would be too much, I expect.

Why are appositives only to be used in the first sentence? I use it here because I want to connect the ideas that Candide is Voltaire's magnum opus, and it has been often mimicked and adapted.

Hm, I'm not sure why it just reads... wrong. Maybe it's just me. This is minor, anyways, so feel free to ignore it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sometimes you use the serial comma, sometimes not.

Sometimes it is necessary to remove ambiguities, and sometimes it is not, such as in my above response. To quote the MOS, "Both styles are acceptable in Wikipedia, but in a case where including or omitting the comma clarifies the meaning of the sentence, that solution should be adopted." I don't think it says that one style should be maintained for the whole of an article (as should be done with regard to issues of British vs. American spelling).

Really? Huh, that's funny, but I can't see why the serial comma would clarify one sentence better than another or vice versa. I'd still really prefer consistency. Plus, there's also the small chance that the difference would confuse a reader. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Redundancy: "Candide underwent one major revision after its initial publication, in addition to some minor ones."

Some is not necessary here; but it does make more precise how many minor changes were made (i.e. not a lot, but a few). This precision is nice because the article doesn't mention any more about the minor changes; the reader should not think that many, many minor changes were made. Also, the word balances the sentence, IMHO.

To be honest, I've never felt that some implied *any* kind of impression of size or value, but it's your call if you want to keep it in. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly more to come. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Amateur radio in India

Nominator(s): =Nichalp «Talk»=

Self nomination – Returning to FAC after two years. Am into amateur radio, so naturally I decided to write on the subject. This is one of my faster production articles, where I wrote this by myself in four days flat, a bulk of the content written in the first two. I could have finished it in less, but for a fork where I thought it was featured list material and is now on FLC. Well cited, covers all the topics, has free images, and decent prose. I've also requested several Indian amateur radio operators (non wiki) to peer review it. Let me know if I have missed anything. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

4X

Nominator(s): Randomran (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because there has been no other video game genre article that has reached featured article status. I am occasionally disappointed that most of the featured video games-related topics are about specific games. I think it's about time that we started focusing on topics that define video gaming in general, and that can help readers understand broad game concepts. This article is well-sourced, thorough, accurate, and neutral. I have attempted to get some advice to improve the writing style, and recently took a lot of great advice from a peer review. I believe this article may still need some work, but with your patience and guidance I hope to address every last criticism. Thanks in advance! Randomran (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "HTML" format does not need to be specified every time
  • Question: How often should I use it? Once? Not at all? Randomran (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I suggest to not use it at all for web references. After all, they are web references; it is assumed that they will be in HTML. If they link to PDF pages then specify PDF, though. Gary King (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Done Randomran (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• There are seven fair use images on the page; it could be too much, but I'll let others decide on that.
  • Clarification: Two of those seven images are now free images from open source games. Randomran (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, thank you OSS :) Gary King (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Update: I've now reduced the number of copyrighted/fair-use images to 3. The others are free / open source. Randomran (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Civilization II, a prototypical example of a 4X strategy game." – remove the period from the non-sentence
  • Fixed: I made this into a simple sentence. Randomran (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://palgn.com.au/?sid=c6f47fddf0bce6e5e6de7d6d7106e73f a reliable source?
  • According to their editorial review standards, "We do our best to make sure all the information we present on our main site is accurate - all information posted must be reviewed and validated by at least one other member of the staff... If you believe any information posted on PALGN is inaccurate, please contact feedback@palgn.com.au and we will review the information as soon as possible." Randomran (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• What makes http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/01/joystiq-interview-ironclad-talks-4x-strategy-with-sins-of-a-sol/ a reliable source?
  • Listed as a reliable source on video games. Also, the article interviews the developers of Sins of a Solar Empire, who are experts on these kinds of games. Randomran (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The author's reliability needs to be asserted in these situations. I've asked the VG project to see if anyone can do so. —Giggy 01:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Likewise http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/02/20/making-of-soren-johnson-on-civ-4/?
  • Listed as a reliable source on video games. Also, the article interviews the developer Civilization 3 and Civilization 4, who can vouch for its development process. Randomran (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The piece in question is written by Kieron Gillen; I think the article asserts his notability (specifically, having written for at least 10 reliable well known publications (8 with articles)). —Giggy 01:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• And http://moo3.quicksilver.com/diary/1200 deadlinked for me (but not with the tool.. oddly enough).
  • I double checked it. It didn't deadlink just now. Perhaps the internet was just behaving badly. Randomran (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Works fine for me. —Giggy 01:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! Randomran (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• In ref one the magazine title needs italics. Check all.
• First image caption really could have a lot more said in it. I mean, the scene being... um... screenshotted is a perfect example of most of the aspects of 4X.
• http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3157333 doesn't mention StarCraft or AoE at all ("Many strategy games arguably contain a similar "explore, expand, exploit, exterminate" cycle, including non-4X real-time strategy games such as Age of Empires or StarCraft.")
• Ref 7 is one of few with a wlinked publisher. Be consistent.
• "The 4X genre saw an increase in published games in the mid-1990s, but were outsold by the real-time strategy genre in the late 1990s." - I think the "were" should be a "was".
• For ref 10, can you just say "All retrived on <DATE>"?
• Earth should be capitalised (noticed at "setting such as earth..." - check throughout).

Got about halfway through, I'll look at the rest later. —Giggy 01:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination

Nominator(s): Fritzpoll (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been extensively rewritten since it was listed as being in urgent need of cleanup. Since then, I've taken it through to GA, and the article has been peer-reviewed and copyedited by several other editors. I believe that this article represents the fullest possible account of the topic without going into irrelevant information, and that it is well-written, per the copyediting performed by independent editors. I look forward to any constructive feedback that arises out of this process. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy," – remove the link or the bold; linked text can't also be bold, per WP:BOLDTITLE
• Some of the web references are missing access dates, such as ""Sirhan Sirhan Kept Behind Bars". CBS (March 6, 2003)." and "Warren Kozak (March 17, 2006). "One Common Link". NY Sun."

Gary King (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out - corrected these and one or two other citation formatting errors Fritzpoll (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Comment: Very good work here. I would take out both the conspiracy theory para in the lead, and the "see also" section (you already have categories). I've only read about half yet, so a more substantial review to follow... ( Ceoil ^sláinte 00:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Going off what Ceoil said, I think you should mention Bobby (2006 film) somewhere in the article (there's a legacy section...). I think you could remove the see also section after that. I also think some stuff from the legacy/aftermath section should be mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, as opposed to removing it. —Giggy 00:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll look into it in the morning (later today, actually) - would a one-liner acknowledging the existence and content of the film be sufficient? I'm wary about removing the last paragraph of the lead because I believed the lead was to summarise each major section of the article. Some of the legacy/aftermath section is already covered by the penultimate paragraph of the lead. Fritzpoll (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon (1994)

Nominator(s): Plasticup ^T/C

I have worked on this article for a hundred edits or so, and I think it is as complete as it will ever be. The prose is polished, the MOS exhaustively consulted, and as far as I know it meets the FAC criteria. Plasticup ^T/C 17:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

*Comment: Some of the refs need to be consolidated as per WP:CITE. See "Using the same citation again", which explains how to use the <ref name=""> command. María (habla conmigo) 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Comment withdrawn. The refs are only deceivingly similar. María (habla conmigo) 17:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, phew. You had me scraching my head there. Plasticup ^T/C 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So sorry! Damn my eyes... María (habla conmigo) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This is yet another comprehensive meteorogical article. Great job, amd keep it up. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support I would never think that anything would go as deep as "Meteorological history of", and yet... Great article, meets all the FAC criteria. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{citation needed} 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • One thing However: "The shortwave trough that had been steering Gordon across Florida moved ahead of the storm and its influence was replaced by a mid-tropospheric ridge over the eastern United States." I have no idea what this means. Please reduce the jargon in this sentance, or add links. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{citation needed} 23:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added two wikilinks that ought to answer your questions. Plasticup ^T/C 11:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 31 Jose Fernandez Partagas "Gordon a Complex Weather System" is lacking a last access date.
• http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/092/mwr-092-03-0128.pdf is lacking a publisher, which would be NOAA, I believe.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ref 31 had an accesscate instead of an accessdate. That is fixed. The pdf that you linked took me a while to find because it is transcluded from Template:Wettest_tropical_cyclones_in_Haiti. I am fixing that now. I also noticed that none of the pdf references have format=pdf in the citations, so I'll be fixing that too. Plasticup ^T/C 13:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The template citations are fixed and the pdfs are marked. Plasticup ^T/C 13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose 1a -

• Opening sentence is unnecessarily awkward - the whole title of the article need not be written out and bolded. Just "Hurricane Gordon, which lasted thirteen days, was erratic, etc. etc." would be fine. —This is part of a comment by Nousernamesleft (of 23:12, 25 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

I really don't think that the opening is awkward, and neither did the FAC reviewers of Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean, Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina, Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, nor Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan, all of which achieved FA status with similar openings. Plasticup ^T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I do. Just because other articles have passed with subpar opening sentences doesn't mean every article should. If you like, you can ask a few other prose reviewers on FAC for their opinion. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want, sure. I really like the lead as it is now and am going to stand by it. Plasticup ^T/C 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm going to stand by my oppose unless you agree to change the opening sentence - the opening sentence needs to be grammatically immaculate because it's all most people will read of the article; this one is far from that. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A comma after two words is pretty much the definition of awkward. The opening sentence, as it is now, it straightforward and dead simple. The subject is clear and the only commas separate items of a list. Your alternative introduces an unnecessary subordinate clause after just two words. Plasticup ^T/C 21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why is "Tropical" in "Tropical depression" capitalised? This kind of thing happens throughout the article. —This is part of a comment by Nousernamesleft (of 23:12, 25 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

I count one instance of this. It was in the lead and I have fixed it. The phrase "Tropical Storm Gordon" earns a capitalization because it is a proper noun, much like New York City is not New York city. Plasticup ^T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are plenty of places where you write "Tropical Storm" without the "Gordon". Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be difficult, but I just did a case-sensitive search of the article, and every instance of "Tropical Storm" is followed by "Gordon". Maybe I fixed them while making another edit, but in any event I hope that this issue is resolved. Plasticup ^T/C 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rechecking, it appears that that's the case. Never mind. I'll respond to the other point soon after another runthrough of the article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• "In the Atlantic, Gordon rapidly strengthened to Category 1 Hurricane Gordon." - why not just "In the Atlantic, Gordon rapidly strengthened to [the status of] a Category 1 Hurricane?" - words in brackets are optional. —This is part of a comment by Nousernamesleft (of 23:12, 25 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

I'll have a read through for some of these. Doesn't seem like a deal-breaker. Plasticup ^T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The storm's characteristically wandering track" - why not just "The storm's characteristic wandering"? —This is part of a comment by Nousernamesleft (of 23:12, 25 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

That would work too. I'm sure there are a dozen ways to write it - is yours better than the existing one? Plasticup ^T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I always try to make articles a concise as possible - the former method of expressing it seems unnecessarily redundant and lengthy to me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I could go either way on this one, so I made the change. Plasticup ^T/C 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• "warranted that the system be classified Tropical Depression Twelve." - unnecessarily awkward, similar to the bullet two above this one. —This is part of a comment by Nousernamesleft (of 23:12, 25 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:

I have changed it to "was designated Tropical Depression Twelve" Plasticup ^T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article contains many of the faults demonstrated in the last and third to last points. The unneeded capitalisation is also an issue (albeit a minor one), and the rest of the prose has some other mistakes as well. Give the prose a cleanup and I'll be happy to support. Nousernamesleft (