Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

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; 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 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 "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.
  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

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

Nominations

WarCry (band)

Nominator(s):  Rockk3r Spit it Out!


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is very professional and I think it deserves to be a FA. It's well sourced with the citations for verification. It is the history of a power metal band, where appears the most important events done since the creation on 2001. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 21:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

New York State Route 373

Nominator(s): Shoemaker's Holiday, Mitch32, Juliancolton


While the road is quite short (just over three miles), I think this is a detailed and comprehensive article on the road. The sourcing is strong, the text well-written, and, though the road's short length limits the length of the article, there is nowhere it could be merged. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: Drive-by nomination. Per FAC instructions, have you contacted the article's contributors (Mitchazenia and Juliancolton) whether they believe the article is ready for FAC? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • This is no drive by - I have a FAC and I asked if he could do it - there is no problem here - he is also interested in helping out with any changes.Mitch32(UP) 21:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't say you asked me, so much as mentioned the problem when we were talking. Wikiporoject New York Roads doesn excellent work, so when I heard there was an article ready, but unable to be nominated, I jumped at the chance. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Alright, thanks for the explanation. I didn't see any recent communication between you two, so I assumed it was a drive-by nomination. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's road race

Nominator(s): Tone


The article has recently been promoted to a GA. It is comprehensive, sourced, with illustrative images and it is written in the style of other articles about olympic events. In case there are some minor issues, they can be addressed quickly, otherwise, I think the article is in good shape. Tone 17:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - it's a bit early (within two weeks) to nominate for FAC, but that's no reason to oppose. A question: is there any more precision available? And did they first six cross the finish line within a second of each other? Sceptre (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
At cycling races, time is measured in seconds. But because the speed is high, the distance difference between racers that finish within one second can be considerable (I am not sure, do they use photo-finish? Probably it was not needed.) --Tone 20:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I have contributed to the article myself and there were some ideas of nominating this article before (of course, GA first). The reason why I nominated it straight after it became a GA is that the article is pretty much complete in content and would therefore not change much during next weeks. Constructive comments at FAC usually help to polish the last details. --Tone 20:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Right off the bat, how do articles pass GA with incorrect names? In terms of fixing the incorrect hyphen, please come to consensus before renaming and moving the article and FAC; an incorrect move is complicated to fix, and there are several pieces that need to be gotten to the right place (the article, article talk, the FAC itself, and the FAC listing). Once the correct name is settled upon, please ask for help here in getting all the moves in the right place. Tone, if you haven't consulted the principle editors, the FAC should be withdrawn, and then the name can be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The name is being discussed at the Olympics project and there was a consensus that all the articles will be removed to use the en dash but only after the games. So this will be taken care of in a week or so. --Tone 21:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Literature in the Hoysala Empire

Nominator(s): Dineshkannambadi (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it deserves a FA status. The article discusses an important period in the development of medieval Kannada literature. The article has completed a peer review by User:Ruhrfisch and User:Redtigerxyz and is well cited from reliable sources. MOS check was done by User:Epbr123 and copy edits by User:Michael Devore, User:Finetooth and User:Dank55. Image issues have been cleared by User:Elcobbola.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Blocks of references need to be in numerical order. I noticed quite a few out of order. Calor (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I will take care of this. thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks to be a nice article on an obscure topic. I will be spending time reading through, but to indulge my curiosity more than anything. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hope you enjoy the read.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Nice job! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

  • All images have correct licensing, descriptions, and sources.
  • All of the images in this article on the right-hand side of the article. The MOS recommends alternating images for the best visual layout. See MOS:IMAGES and WP:PICTURE for advice on placement of images. Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Alternated images.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk), User:Malleus Fatuorum (talk) and User:SandyGeorgia (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it use to look like this. After 700 edits, and an addition of citations from many major scholarly sources on the subject, an extensive peer review, and constant reviewing on the talk page with full scale MoS check, plus a full scale image and ref check, I think it may be FA standards. If not, well ... User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:SandyGeorgia performed over 400 quality edits in the push to FA status, examining every minute detail with punctuation, grammar, language and MoS. They are the main reason why this is not simply a GA, and why I feel confident that this is FA quality. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Comment During a conversation with his biographer, Johnson became infuriated at the suggestion that Berkeley's idealism could not be refuted. In his anger, Johnson powerfully stomped a nearby stone and proclaimed of Berkeley's theory, "I refute it thus!"[200]

Presumably this interpretation of Johnson's emotions is based on a misunderstanding of the word alacrity? 86.44.27.122 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was based on the language in a contemporary biography, but I think that reference was dropped when reffing to Boswell directly. Regardless, I reworked the paragraph, as it was too long for something explained in the quote box. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • What makes the following sources reliable?
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it is only hosting the primary source and nothing else. It was just nice to link to an online version. If you want, I can replace it with a hard copy and page numbers. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a courtesy link; in this case, it's probably better to cite the hardcopy, and add that link to External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the links and put in books. I thought it would be best to use biographers who string those line together as to avoid any possible "OR" claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Good compromise, that site works REALLY well as an external link. Perfect for it. And let me compliment again on the excellent quality of the sourcing! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. This gave me an opportunity to buy three biographies that I didn't have and really forced me to spread out in order to accommodate a few people that were wondering why ___ was relied on while ____ was not. I think, out of the original list of random biographies grouped at the bottom of the page, there were only 4 works not chosen (but no major biographer was left out, and all other writers were given prominence on individual article pages that related). Johnson has a huge amount of criticism, and I think every single piece will make it in some form on Wikipedia after I am done. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

  • Image:Dictionary2.jpg and Image:Dictionary3.jpg - Could you add the complete publication information to the source field? I would, but the image resolution isn't high enough.
  • Any images that are in the PD could be moved to Commons. It would be nice to share these images with other projects.

I look forward to reading and reviewing this article! Awadewit (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Added the printing information. I think Elcobbola might be able to help with the Commons. I tend to stick to Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

AMX-30E

Nominator(s): JonCatalán (talk)


I started this article only a little while ago, and it recently passed an A-class review. As always, it probably needs the prose to be edited, but I will always be able to quickly make the necessary changes (although, I think the quality of my writing has improved since my first FAC). Otherwise, I believe it easily meets the requirements for FA. JonCatalán (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)-Hello again. You seem to be churning out one excellent tank article after another. Here are my comments on this one:

  • "...total production within Spain amounted to as much as 65%." 65% of what?
  • "Spain's AMX-30Es went through two separate upgrades in the late 1980s, including a modernization program and a reconstruction program, each done to one half of the fleet." Including is unnecessary here.
  • "In 1985 Indonesia expressed interest in the AMX-30E, while in 2004 the Spanish and Colombian governments were discussing the possible sale of around 40 AMX-30EM2s." Keep the tenses consistent:"In 1985 Indonesia expressed interest in the AMX-30E; in 2004 the Spanish and Colombian governments discussed the possible sale of around 40 AMX-30EM2s."
  • "Ultimately, both of these possible trade deals fell through." Ultimately should be however, "of these possible" is redundant.
  • "The M47 was first supplied to the Spanish army in the mid-1950s,[2] offering an improvement over the existing fleet of Panzer I, T-26 and Panzer IV tanks." Slightly awkward wording, I believe "offering an improvement over"-->"to replace" (delete the comma before if you make the change).
  • I changed the hyphens to en dashes in the year ranges in the infobox—that was a problem in your last FAC too.
  • A general issue of the article is the incosistency of spelling. Are you using British English, American English, or something else (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)?
  • "However, the Leopard boasted of greater armor protection than the AMX-30,[10] partially accounting for the weight difference between the two tanks. However, the French AMX-30 was being sold at a cheaper price tag than the German Leopard 1." Let's combine these sentences to add flow: "Although the Leopard boasted greater armor than the AMX-30—partially accounting for the weight difference between the two tanks—the latter was sold at a cheaper price." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Furthermore, in terms of lethality, at the time the French Obus G high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) round was one of the most advanced projectiles." Move "at the time" to the end of the sentence.
  • "However, the Leopard was armed with the L7A3, capable of penetrating the frontal armor of the Soviet T-55 tank." I'm not sure that "however" is the correct contrasting term; try "on the other hand".
  • "Whatever the advantages or disadvantages of either vehicle" Ambiguous statement that doesn't need to be there.
  • "The UK's unwillingness to sell their L7 tank-gun, the low cost of the AMX-30, and the French offer to allow Spain to manufacture the tank, had decisively inclined the Spanish Army towards the French armored vehicle." "had decisively inclined the Spanish Army towards the French armored vehicle"-->"led the Spanish Army to favor the French armored vehicle".

I'll review the 2nd half of the article tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all the changes done except a couple. Namely, I'll need to look through to change British spelling to American where I can find the former. And second, the idea behind the sentence, "Whatever the advantages or disadvantages of either vehicle", was to avoid possible arguments in the talk thread on which tank was better and so although the article does state some differences and whatnot, that sentence was supposed to give the impression that for whatever reasons Spain chose the AMX-30E. But, I'll remove it if it didn't serve its purpose. Thanks again! JonCatalán (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I found a solution to fix that phrase: diff—how do you like it? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "the other "20" were in fact the 19 to be delivered to the Spanish Legion". I read this several times, and I still don't understand how 20 became 19.
  • "This agreement also set the foundations for the upcoming tank plant at the industrial polygon of Las Canteras, off the town of Alcalá de Guadaíra." Wording is a bit off—how about: "This agreement laid the foundation for the upcoming tank plant at the industrial polygon of Las Canteras, off the town of Alcalá."
  • "The first 20 tanks were to have 18% of each vehicle manufactured in Spain, while the next 40 would have 40% of the vehicle manufactured in Spain." Comma needs to be a semicolon, delete "while".
  • "The other 120 tanks had a grade of nationalization of 65%." "grade of nationalization"-->nationalization grade.
  • "This allowed minor modifications to be done to the vehicle without having to go through GIAT, while also meaning that the degree of nationalization of each vehicle augmented considerably. Production of the second batch lasted between 1979 and 1983." How about: "This allowed the vehicle to be modified slightly without GIAT intervention, and also meant that the degree of nationalization of the tanks could be augmented considerably."
  • "By the time production ended the Spanish Army fielded 299 AMX-30Es (280 produced between 1974 and 1983, and 19 delivered from France in 1970) and 4 training vehicles delivered in 1975." Comma after "ended".
  • "The average cost per tank, in the first batch, amounted to 642,800 dollars (45 million pesetas)." Amounted to-->was.
  • "Otherwise, options included swapping the existing power pack for a new American diesel engine and a new American transmission or exchanging the power pack for a new German diesel engine and a new German transmission." Otherwise-->other, comma should be deleted.
  • I see spaced em dashes, unspace them.
  • "Ultimately a mixed solution was picked, named Tecnología Santa Bárbara-Bazán (Santa Bárbara-Bazán Technology), or TSB." Comma after "ultimately"
  • "This new engine gave modernized tank a power ratio of 23 metric horsepower to tonne (21.13 hp/S/T). Mobility was further improved by the use of the AMX-30B2's improved suspension, which used larger diameter torsion-bars and new shocks." "This new engine gave the modernized tank", yes?
  • MOS fixes needed:when units are written out as compound adjectives, there needs to be a hyphen between the number and the unit (12.7-millimeter gun). Also, the converted units need to have non-breaking spaces in between the number and the abbreviation (0.5 in.).
  • "The gun's accuracy was augmented through the installation of the new Mark 9 modification A/D fire control system, designed by Hughes Aircraft Company." The word "augmented was used the sentence before, how about "improved"?
  • "A new ballistic computer was also issued, being the NSC-800, as well as a new digital panel for the gunner, designed and manufactured by the Spanish company INISEL." Sentence needs a rewrite: "A new ballistic computer, the NSC-800, was issued, as well as a new digital panel for the gunner, designed and manafactured b the Spanish company INISEL."
  • "The tank commander also received a control unit, allowing him to choose the type of ammunition to be loaded into the gun and gave him information on the ballistics of the round and the target about to be engaged." This too, needs a facelift for clarity and gender-neutral language: "The tank commander also received a control unit that allowed the choice of ammunition for the gun and provided information on the ballistics of the round and the target to be engaged."
  • "Increases in survivability came through the addition of new steel side-skirts, a new smoke generating system linked to the engine and a new fire suppression system." Here's a clearer sentence:"Safety improvements included the addition of new steel side-skirts, a new smoke generating system linked to the engine and a new fire suppression system."
  • "Ultimately, Spain's AMX-30EM2s were replaced by brand-new Centauro anti-tank vehicles, although partially manufactured in Spain, in the early 21st century." although-->which were.
  • "The other 149 AMX-30Es went through a reconstruction, focusing majorly on the improvement of the tank's mobility." How about, "The other 149 AMX-30Es were reconstructed to improve their mobility."
  • "The reconstruction consisted on the replacement of the original French transmission with the American Allison CD-850-6A." on-->of.
  • "Amongst the possible armaments for sale, Indonesia expressed interest in the procurement of the AMX-30." "Amongst"-->Of.
  • "Although this deal fell through, in 2004 the Spanish and Colombian governments came to an agreement for the sale of between 33 and 46 second-hand AMX-30EM2s, which had recently been replaced in the Spanish Army." came to an agreement-->agreed on.

Lots of work to do on the prose. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I worked on everything, although in some cases I tried something different. For the first point, the 20 to be produced in France were the 19 delivered to the Spanish Legion (so, the order was ultimately for 199 not 200) - I tried to change the wording to reflect this.
"This allowed minor modifications to be done to the vehicle without having to go through GIAT, while also meaning that the degree of nationalization of each vehicle augmented considerably. Production of the second batch lasted between 1979 and 1983." How about: "This allowed the vehicle to be modified slightly without GIAT intervention, and also meant that the degree of nationalization of the tanks could be augmented considerably." -> I changed it to - This allowed minor modifications to be done to the vehicle without having to go through GIAT. It also meant that the degree of nationalization of each vehicle augmented considerably.
In the sentence about survivability, I kept survivability as safety and survivability are not the same thing when talking about tanks. Otherwise everything should be changed! In regards to British spelling, I believe the only thing I saw spelled in the British manner was Labour, since it's referring to the Labour Party - should I change it to Labor? JonCatalán (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - few little typos:

  • reponsible
  • effecting > affecting
  • options includes
  • and ended in on 25 June
  • steel side skirts > steel side-skirts?
--ROGER DAVIES talk 04:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. In regards to "reponsible", I should start to pay more attention to my spell check! A question about "effect" and "affect". The word was changed to "affected" before, but I looked up affect and Wikipedia says - "The term Affect generally suggests an emotion." Is affect the correct term in this instance? But, everything else should be changed!. JonCatalán (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good. Links checked with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. (Someday, someone will use a medieval latin source and I'll be forced to actually try to remember my "second language"... I live in dread of that day...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments Some things I noticed at a glance:
  • Maybe stub that redlink in the lead?
  • Although the Leopard boasted greater armor than the AMX-30[10] — partially accounting for the weight difference between the two tanks — the latter was sold at a cheaper price. Unspace the em dashes.
  • France's GIAT also offered to modernize Spain's AMX-30Es to AMX-30B2 standards — this modernization was also being applied to French AMX-30s. Ditto.
  • In the second image caption, "Zoom-in" → "close-up".
  • Mobility was further improved by the use of the AMX-30B2's improved suspension, which used larger diameter torsion-bars and new shocks. Needs a source.
  • However, the deal was canceled after José María Aznar was replaced by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero as president of Spain — to seal the decision, the new Spanish government declared that Spain didn't even have enough AMX-30EM2s in working conditions to sell to Colombia. Another spaced em dash.
  • Images look good. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know about the em dash had to be unspaced. Everything else should be resolved. JonCatalán (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Question, nice article but I was left wondering, was the tank ever used in an actual battle? maclean 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge. Although it was deployed to the Spanish Sahara, this province was abandoned some time after the unit was disbanded. JonCatalán (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images - Images have correct licenses, good descriptions, and sources. You might think about alternating the images so that they are not all on the right-hand side of the article, as suggested by MOS:IMAGES. Awadewit (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll play around with them. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Nominator(s): EclipseSSD (talk)
previous FAC (05:06, 10 June 2008)


Self-Nomination: I am nominating The Texas Chain Saw Massacre for FA status, because between this nomination and the previous one, I believe that I and other editors have significantly improved and expanded this article enough for it to reach FA status. It is my opinion that the article explains all the relevant points in a good amount of detail, and has valid references to back up the statements made, where necessary.--EclipseSSD (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

  • The source link does not work. Listing who the main characters are and who played them would make this a better rationale. Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Leatherface1974.jpg - There is no fair use rationale for the Texas Chainsaw article.
  • Image:Tope Hooper TCM.JPG - I am not convinced that we need a fair use image of the director making the movie. What is an image of this necessary for the article?
  • Image:Leatherfacenumber1.jpg - This is an insufficient fair use rationale. Please expand upon the reasoning for why this image must be included in the article to significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the film (see WP:NFCC). Also, there must be a separate fair use rationale for each article in which the image is used.
  • Illustration alone is not a sufficient reason to use a non-free image. We have to have a compelling reason to use this particular comic book cover. I would suggest removing this image unless we can find a good reason to include it. Awadewit (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded the purpose for the image on the film's article. Let me know if I should expand upon that one.--EclipseSSD (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope these comments help! Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - I am addressing these issues right now.--EclipseSSD (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • (for the Tobe Hooper image) I just thought the way the film was shot would be relevant to the production section of the film. --EclipseSSD (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • It would be nice to include if it were free, yes, but I don't see why this particular image is necessary to the article. The moment in the image is not discussed in the article. I would suggest removing the image. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues Addressed. Feel free to go over and correct, if corrections need to be made. --EclipseSSD (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Once again, I support this article. If there's anything that I can do, let me know.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
We're trying to sort the referencing out. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I've got my usual FAC sourcing load, my own FAC up, and a class tonight. Sorry, can't really help (and would be hopeless anyway, I don't follow movies at all). If you want some suggestions, I strongly suggestion contacting Moni3 (talk · contribs) who has worked on some film FACs and is in better touch with good sources for movies. I do bishops and horses, they don't work so well for movie sources! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Any suggestions on how we can improve the sources? I don't want the article to fail again. --EclipseSSD (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Have you tried searching Google Scholar? I see a few things that look good right off the bat. There is an entire book on the movie entitled The Texas Chain Saw Companion. Awadewit (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Plot section is too long. The image in the plot section doesn't meet fair-use criteria. There is no critical commentary on it. The image of Leatherface in the cast section seems obligatory, and unnecessary. Heck, the cast section seems completely unncessary itself. You might as well get rid of it and list the actors in the plot section, because the only thing in the cast section is a brief description of who that character is in the film (something the plot section covers). Leave the sequal information for the film series page, there's no need to go into such detail when the film series page should already cover that. It seems the "Adaptations" section covers the adaptations and continuation of the other films into the comic book medium....not something for this page. If it isn't directly related to this film, the film series page probably should cover it since that page covers the film series as a whole. I don't think this page is close to FA status right now. I would probably also challenge how it met some of the GA criteria, because a lot of the article seems to be choppy in the prose. I would personally withdraw this nomination so that the article can go through a thorough cleaning. I think a peer review would be in better order, as you don't have to worry about trying to get things done in time (and I think there is too much to do to get this in FA shape in a relatively decent amount of time), and you can get more suggestions for improvement. I would be more able to help if this was under PR, as I don't have the time to rush to clean up the article for an FAC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: - This is the last nomination of the article from me personally. I've done a great deal of work on the article, however, I don't think any of that really mattered at all. If anybody wants to nominate the article without mentioning my contributions, that's okay. It's been an honour to work on this article and nominate it, however, I think there is more to learn, so I shall leave it up to the people to decide the fate of this nomination. I probably will continue to edit the article, but won't feel up to nominating it. So, hope to see somebody elses' name by the nominator's place next time. Thanks to all who contributed in the last 2 and this discussion. I've learnt a lot. --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments: Hi, Eclipse. You really need some good references for this article. I think I mentioned the same in the previous FACs for Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It seems obvious that are you passionate about this topic, so reading about this film should not be a chore for you. It might be difficult to get some of the references necessary if you don't live close to a large library, but you should check out the Interlibrary Loan department in your local public library. If you do live close to a college or university, you can visit their library and use their materials while you're in the building. You would have access to film journals, and articles on culture and media. Some of them might let you check some stuff out - you should ask. But I think as of now, your biggest impediment is the lack of good sources. This article could be not just a companion to other informative articles, but among the best and most comprehensive pieces of writing available anywhere. You should not stop working on it until you know it is. I know that working on FACs is arduous and often does not ever seem productive. It can be brutal. But this article of yours here is honoring the subject. This is the "batshit insanity" comment on my userpage. Don't stop. Keep going, looking, searching for more information. When you can "Boo-ya!" at commenters at FAC who may cast aspersions on your sources, you know you've got enough. --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Mangalore

Nominator(s): Kensplanet - Talk
previous FAC (08:03, 9 August 2008)


Well the article was not promoted last time due to some overlinking issues and due to mixing of cite xxx templates with citation templates. I have corrected it. After a thorough copyedit by User:Epbr123, I think the article is ready for a FAC. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support -- Like the last time. Remove excess images from the page. Seems to be flooded with unnecessary ones. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Removed New Mangalore Port, tiled-roofed, neer dosa Images. If some more images need to be commented out, then do inform us Kensplanet (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

  • Please see MOS:IMAGES and WP:PICTURE for image arrangement. Text is sandwiched by images in this article and the images could be alternated in some places. I also think there are probably too many images in the article. —This is part of a comment by Awadewit (of 18:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
Done. Each section has maximum 2 images now. I hope there are no too. many images now. Kensplanet (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
There is still some sandwiching happening and the images need to be staggered - some need to be one right-hand side of the article and some on the left-hand side. Too many are on the right-hand side of the article. Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Www.kamat.com 13034.jpg - Please strengthen the fair use rationale - why is this image necessary for the article? Why does it significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the article topic? (WP:NFCC) Is there no free image of the town hall?
  • Image:Mangaladevi.jpg - Please add a description to this image. Also, I think "clicked by self" means the uploader and the photographer are the same, but I just wanted to make sure.
Well, I am not the uploader. Do Wiki policies permit me to add a description? Kensplanet (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes - images are still part of the wiki. Fix away! Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Kensplanet (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Replaced Image:Demon Yakshagana.jpg with Image:FullPagadeYakshagana.jpg, a free image. Kensplanet (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The uploader and the username in the copyright release are not the same name or link to the same names. Are these the same people? How do we know that the person listed as the copyright holder has released the image? You might try leaving the uploader a message and see if s/he can clarify the issue. Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Well, this image has been commented out. Kensplanet (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Striking, as this image is no longer in the article. Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Do Wiki policies permit me to add a description? Yes, the photographer and the uploader are the same. The uploader is User:Crazysoul. All the images have been clicked by his camera. His Image contributions can be found here: User:Crazysoul#Images uploaded by me. Kensplanet (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can change the description. I've made the author clearer. Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:NITK.jpg - This image needs a description. Also, who is the photographer?

All free images should be copied to Commons so that other Wikiprojects can use them. See this dispatch for advice about how to describe and tag self-made images. I'm sure resolving these issues will be easy. Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Again do Wiki policies permit me to do those things. 13:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes - images are part of the encyclopedia - you are encouraged to improve them. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A few basic points: I'd prefer that the first (Sura books) source in the etymology section be replaced, if possible, as I am unable to verify its reliability. In the history section, I'd prefer if the "legend" sentences were compressed a bit. Other than that, it needs someone to run through it a couple of times and tighten the prose. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Texas Tech University

Nominator(s): Wordbuilder (talk), Elred (talk), Almosthonest06 (talk)


I am nominating this article for featured article. We have put considerable work into it recently, addressing the issues raised during its peer review and bringing it into line with what is required of a featured article. The important aspects of the subject are well covered and all claims are sourced. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Overall a very good effort with regards to banishing academic boosterism, populating daughter pages, high-quality pictures of campus, and referencing. Some nitpicks:
    • Colleges & schools: While I find rankings odious, if you're going to include them, include them neutrally. The choice of rankings in this section seem to be cherry-picked to convey the institution in a better light as there are no US News rankings included for the schools of law or medicine which I would expect if you're including the same report at undergraduate and engineering. Likewise, has the institution been ranked by any of the other major publications like The Times Higher Education supplement, Shanghai Jiao Tong, The Center for Measuring Academic Performance, or Washington Monthly? Has Rawls been ranked by any of the publications on List of United States graduate business school rankings? I'm not saying that one should include every ranking ever, but if you're going to include USNEWS, you should include others as well to give a more NPOV portrait.—This is part of a comment by Madcoverboy (of 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
  • Reply - This is difficult to address for a few reasons. 1) We clearly can't list every publication's ranking on the main page 2) I believe that it is assumed, on the part of the reader, that the items listed would be the 'highest' rankings awarded. Thus, if we were to attempt to counter-cherry-pick and include some middle-of-the-pack rankings, it would probably be assumed, likewise, that those are the best. My general impression from looking at other university pages is that those notes usually represent the high-water mark, and that's what we've done. We're certainly open to trying to make it better, but short of listing every single ranking I don't know that there's a better way to present that info.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the presumption is (or should be) that the most recent rankings are used and are presented equitably for all ranked colleges rather than being omitted when they don't reflect well. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - I'll double check and try to make sure we have the most current ones listed.--Elred (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - There are only two mentions of rankings, one for the engineering school and one for the business school. I can't imagine that being construed as fluffing. The engineering reference is from US News and the business one from Business Week. i think that seems pretty sensible. In most cases only the top 50 ____'s are ranked. We are left to include only those that provide data, and I don't think there is cause to specifically mention that "so and so" ranks it as "n/a."--Elred (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. I was thinking the same thing. Most sources only report the top [insert number] of universities. Occasionally there are articles on the worst. However, if it's somewhere in between, you would likely have to locate something like a trade publication that covers every school from a to z. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • "Following a tornado that caused 26 fatalities and over US$100 million in damage" to campus or in the area?
  • Reply - Agreed. (This has been fixed) That's been bothering me for a while and I never got around to fixing it. It was in the Lubbock area. Will be fixed shortly.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • "The groups include service, academic, professional, and religious." Sentence fragment and unsurprising/overgeneral information.
  • Reply - Agreed. This line has been deleted. --Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • "The comprehensive and interdisciplinary research program aspires to exploit the useful qualities of wind and to mitigate its detrimental effects." Strike or merge as full of peacocked, mission statement-y, devoid of meaning statement. I found this sort of alternatively misson statement-y terminology or overgeneral sentence fragments airdropped into various paragraphs throughout the research, campus, and student life sections.
  • Reply - Agreed. This line has been rewritten to remove peacocking.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • "In total, Texas Tech has helped to produce four astronauts:..." Shouldn't this go under Alumni? Why is this repeated in research and alumni?
  • Reply - I can see your perspective on this, but the two mentions are a different context. In the research portion, they are related to the discussion of NASA and the Bassett Pulse Laboratory. In the alumnni section, we mention that Harris was the 1st african american in space and Husband won the space medal of honor. If you're hard and fast on this one we can probably rework it a bit.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Some of the pictures seem tangentially related to Texas Tech such as the HIV-1 and Columbia space shuttle. I would rework the captions to integrate them into the article's context or take them out completely.
  • Reply - The Columbia shot is related for two specific reasons. Rick Husband (alum) was the commander of that ship, and Tech is working on a abort executive program that deals with ascent failures (columbia is in ascent in the photo). Plus, two other NASA projects are mentioned and I can't think of a much better photographic representation of NASA.
  • The image used, while dramatic, is somewhat misleading as Husband was not piloting that mission. Perhaps you could use the image specific to his mission? Madcoverboy (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - If it's a major issue, it could be remedied. But in addition to the fact that the photo in use is superior to the STS-107 photo in wiki commons, the image we've used shows a better shot of the ascent (which is also related to the adjacent text). Ultimately, either shot is the same vehicle doing the same exact thing. The only difference, aesthetically, is the photo quality and the perspective, and thus we've opted for the more attractive version.--Elred (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I expected to read more information about collaborations with other Texas universities (maybe there simply aren't any?) as well as major sports rivalries.
  • Reply - The sports rivalries, while they exist, are hard to source in any meaningful way. Also, we feel that the athletics section of the page is already pretty long (considering we have an entire page for TTU sports).--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - Also, while the universities do collaborate to some degree on various endeavors, I think they are more likely to compete for resources and projects. As a side note, Texas Tech is about 400 miles away from both Texas A&M and University of Texas and 300 miles from Dallas. This may play a role as well. A&M, which itself has a featured article, makes only one anecdotal mention of collaboration with UT on a NASA project.--Elred (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You mention ABET and ABA accreditation, but what organizations accredit the other university degree programs? What academic organizations does TT belong to?
  • Reply - SACS. The SACS provides TT's general accreditation. That's mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the Academic profile section, prior to talk of the individual colleges.--Elred (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Apologies, that's my excellent reading comprehension at work. Besides SOCS, are there other University organizations associated with Tech?
  • Reply I don't believe so. TTU is not a member of AAU or AASCU or anything similar I'm aware of.--Elred (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • While the divisions between the colleges are described under academic profile, there is no description of the size of the faculty and staff, their reporting relationships to the President, his to the board of trustees. Likewise, there should be some information on the endowment, tuition, and financial aid, undergraduate admission statistics, student body profile, student housing/Greek life, notable or contentious policies. These seem to be significant omissions.
  • Reply - We could probably stand to add a bit about the Chancellor, Regents, President and the endowment. I think many of these items would qualify as, in your words, "unsurprising/overgeneral information." Specifically, things like housing, tuition, financial aid, would fall into the category of being the same as any other state school in the country. I suppose the question is, do you really think we should go into that much detail (Pell Grants and the capacity/proximity of the dorms)?--Elred (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree about adding some about the chancellor, regents, president and the endowment. Admission stats would probably be a good idea, too. Something on housing could be added to the "Campus" section. It may be hard to add too much since the article is already a bit oversize. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • While the article as a whole is NPOV, it also seems to be devoid of any mention of controversy. The history tends to give too much emphasis on the naming of the institution while ignoring what must have been contentious issues like racial integration, coeducation, war protests, counterculture, funding disputes with the legislature, contentious faculty departures, controversial student life policies, etc etc etc along the way.
  • Reply - Several of us have combed the desert (in the Spaceballs sense) and the most contentious item we've found was the name change. I think much of the lack of controversy may be due to the fact that until the 1970s or so, the university was a fairly small regional school. It wasn't ever exactly a hotbed of political unrest. Likewise, the only major funding issue between the university and the state is taking shape currently (in TTUs pursuit of flagship status) and thus it's too recent and unsettled to say much more about. I would like to find info about the co-education and integration stuff though, that is important. My conjecture, having not ever seen evidence, is that TTU was open to female students from its inception. The presence of a school called Home Economics in the beginning, seems to make that implication (and that would explain why there is no mention of an act or controversy related to 'becoming' co-ed.--Elred (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - On further examination, looking at other universities, it appears that the co-education trend generally took place in the late 1800s and very early 1900s. It seems most likely that by TTU's founding in 1923, co-education was a foregone conclusion. This would explain why we cannot find a single shred of information on the subject.--Elred (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. Our hunch was correct. I added a very brief mention, along with source, to the article that the college began with both men and women. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I often go into university FACs expecting the worst, but I was actually pleasantly surprised with the overall breadth and depth of this article. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - Thanks. ...and thanks for the quick review.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. Madcoverboy, thank you for your comments. I have reworked the tornado sentence, including linking to the Lubbock Tornado article, for clarity. I also expanded the captions of the HIV and space shuttle images to connect them with the surrounding prose. I will work to correct the other issues as well. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

  • There are several non-free logos used in this article. Would there be a way to replace the mascot logos with free images of the mascot from a game? —This is part of a comment by Awadewit (of 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
  • Reply. - The rationale behind using the 'logos' is primarily to avoid a "recency" problem. The students playing the role of the mascots changes every year (and sometimes from day to day). Having an actual photo of the man or woman dressed as the Masked Rider "dates" the photo in a sense, instead of evoking the intended symbolism of the mascot. Also, the Masked Rider logo is a very prominent and often displayed symbol of the school's athletic teams. That being the case, it has a significant degree of relevance to the page in its own right. In the case of Raider Red, the character originated in cartoons by Dirk West (as mentioned in the article), so the foam costume is actually a facsimile of his drawing. In a sense, the drawing/cartoon version is the truer representation of Raider Red.--Elred (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • That makes sense, but Wikipedia attempts to use free images whenever possible since fair use rationales are not legal across the world. I'm wondering if the benefits gained from the fair use images outweigh having free images. If this article is ever included in any CD version of Wikipedia, for example, all of the fair use images would have to be taken out. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Techphilo.jpg - Are we sure the uploader took this photo, that is, that s/he is the author and can release the copyright into the PD?
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:TTUamin1923.jpg - I am unconvinced that this non-free image is necessary for the article - the building is not mentioned in the article.
  • Reply. - We have contacted the owner in order to secure proper release, but I agree that it is not vital (short of historical perspective). If the release is not forthcoming shortly the image will be removed.--Elred (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Given the age of the image (published before 1964 or 1978), its copyright may not have been renewed implying it is now in the public domain. See United States copyright law. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • When I corresponded with the owner of the photo (about a year ago) he told me that the photo was taken by his grandfather circa 1923-25. The actual photographer is very likely now deceased and it is also likely that any copyright has now expired.--Elred (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Did it ever have a copyright notice? If not, then this would apply and it's PD, not fair-use. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Where was the photo first published? That is the first step to figuring out this mystery. Awadewit (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. The building is now discussed in the article. So, even though it may actually be PD, fair-use applies if it isn't. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:TTcc.png - Are we sure the uploader is the author of this photo?
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. This is a cropped version of a photo Wordbuilder took himself.--Elred (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. The original image has been moved to Commons and is here. I noted this on the Wikipedia version, which will soon be moved to Commons as well. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The original image description says that Krista Mericle is the author of the image. So, 1) the cropped version should indicate that it is an altered version of Krista Mericle's photo; 2) the original image was uploaded by Wordbuilder, but how can Wordbuilder release the rights to Krista Mericle's photo? Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Krista is my wife. If you want a GFDL-release from her for OTRS, I can get this end of it taken care of in a matter of minutes. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • We will have to do OTRS, unless she has an account. You cannot release her copyright for her (we've moved beyond the era where the husband can dispose of his wife's property however he sees fit!). Awadewit (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • She doesn't have an accout, so I'll have her take care of the release. Also, I'm not "dsiposing of my wife's property" as I see fit. She knows I uploaded the image and is happy to have it used. If I was dishonest and/or interested in taking it as my possession, I would not have included her name. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Apparently I should have added a smiley face - it was a joke! Awadewit (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Dang it! I wish I had picked up on that. I've had in-text jokes backfire on me, too (which is really bad when it's on the job). Sorry for the misunderstanding. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:MRlogo.png - There is no fair use rationale for the Texas Tech article for this image.
  • The source link does not work. A stronger "purpose for use" needs to be included - the recentism argument above is good. See also WP:NFCC - why are there are no free alternatives, for example? Why must this image be included in the article? How does it significantly enhance the reader's understanding? Awadewit (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • FIXED. Using my photograph of the statue instead.--Elred (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Raiderred.png - There is no fair use rationale for the Texas Tech article for this image.
  • The source link does not work, the fair use rationale must link to the Texas Tech article, and must include a strong reason for inclusion in that particular article. Awadewit (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • What if, say, we changed the caption of the photograph to read something like: "The Raider Red character as created by artist Dirk West"? You think that would clarify it? ...the source link can be corrected.--Elred (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • FIXED. Using a photograph from wiki commons instead.--Elred (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Question. The link is now dead but that was indeed the source. Should we replace the link, even though whatever we choose now won't actually be where the image was retrieved from? →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - I corrected the link. They just slightly changed where that page is. It's the same page as before, they just moved it into another directory.--Elred (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Techring.png - This has a logo on it, which means it may have to have a fair use rationale. I'll check. Having two logos that are exactly the same in the article that are both fair use would be hard to justify.
  • Reply. - I would think, since this is actually a trimmed down and processed photograph of the actual ring, it would not be subject to this rule. This would be similar to having to use a fair use rationale for the TT logo on a football helmet in a game photograph.--Elred (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - Fixed (I took the photo).--Elred (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see this dispatch for information on how to correctly tag self-made images. I'm sure these issues can easily be resolved. Awadewit (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply. - Will do, thanks. On all images where you've asked "Are we sure the uploader is the author of this photo?" - We are sure :) I took the photos myself.--Elred (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - I've added the source info. let me know if i've done this incorrectly. i can't ever get my head around that process.--Elred (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Massive improvement! Awadewit (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Brief comments - Here are my thoughts on the Athletics section.—This is part of a comment by Giants2008 (of 21:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

  • I see two instances of "from 1932-1956". Someone recently told me that year ranges like this should be "from 1932 to 1956". If not, I'm pretty sure an en dash is required for these. There's also 1987-2008 later.
  • Reply. - thanks. Oddly, I just made those '1932-1956' changes (1930 through 1956) because that was how I interpreted the rule.--Elred (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - FIXED. Replaced all the hyphens with "ndash's."--Elred (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hyphen for fifth longest by the football team.
  • Reply. - I don't think that should have a hyphen actually. Judges?--Elred (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. Yes, it should since the two words together create the modifier (much like three-year-old child). →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - you're right!--Elred (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please remove the stand-alone link for March. And the U.S. dollar doesn't need two links in one section. In an article on an American topic, I'm not sure there even needs to be one.
  • Reply. - done. thanks.--Elred (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. - added link. thanks.--Elred (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Having June 2, 2008 is no good. Either link everything or nothing in situations like these.
  • Reply. - done. thanks.--Elred (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "assistant coach, Dan Spencer..." Remove comma.
  • Reply. Done. Thanks for the help! →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont claim to have caught all problems in this section, but hopefully this will be helpful for you. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Is it The Southwest Collection or Southwest Collections or Southwest Collections/Special Collections Library? Pick either with or without the the and either italicised or plain text and a wording you can live with and stick with it.
  • Reply. Fixed (Southewest Collections, non-italics). →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It suffers from the usual problem that university articles suffer from, a heavy reliance on the university itself for information. While, yes, self-published sources are allowed, they should be used sparingly.
  • We (the nominators) recognized and discussed this. We added as many non-university sources as we were able to locate and only used university sources when we had to. Some things—internal workings, traditions, etc.—while a major part of the subject itself, are not always newsworthy; so it is difficult to find a third-party source. Another thing to consider is, as places of eduction and research, data from a university is more reliable than, say, using the record label as a source for informaton on a pop star. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)