Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.html
 
| ca | de | en | es | fr | it | nl | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | fi | sv | tr | vo |


 

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

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

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

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

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

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

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically several weeks at least.

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

Tea & Sympathy

previous FAC — June 2008

Nominator(s): Giggy (talk)

Bringing this back a few months after the last FAC. I've done a fair bit of work on it since then I think it now meets criteria. Giggy (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Iridium

Nominator(s): Itub, Nergaal, WikiProject Elements


Comments are very welcome, and also, please write your opinion weather the article should use primarily SI units or ounces. Thanks, and you probably want to put your savings into this! Nergaal (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I left a question at the talk page of the user who originally uploaded the image. --Itub (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Very good article; great coverage and an interesting read. COI - I brought this article from stub to start class just under 6 years ago but others have brought it through B class. Itub and Nergaal along with other members of WikiProject Elements started to expand and improve this article to A-class starting in mid-September. By the time I came in, there was very little to add so I submitted this to A-class review and it passed. Since then, the article has further improved and I now think it meets FA criteria. --mav (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

  • Current ref 58 (Organic Light Emitting Diodes) is lacking a last access date. Also this looks to be a reprint of an article in a publication, could we list what publication it is?
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as NIST in the references
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Very well written, with many complicated topics explained in simple terms yet accurately. One suggestion though: introduce complex paragraphs with a topic sentence, as in this diff. --Una Smith (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Milk

Nominator(s): Moni3, Dank55


On February 4, 2008, I stood at the corner of 19th and Castro Streets and watched a film crew park the most hideous vehicles in the history of mankind along the street in preparation of the day's filming of Milk. It was a coincidence that I was there during filming, and I kind of forgot about it for a few months. This article was on my radar to rewrite for various reasons, but was not so fun for me to take on. A bit of a bipolar journey: both very inspiring and profoundly saddening. I would appreciate your review of the article for Feature. Watch the trailer for the film for inspiration if you need to. I hope you find the article an engaging and perfectly human story, and, as ever, accurate. Thank you for reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to reviewers: at first glance, the goings-on mentioned in Early career may seem a little soapy and unconnected ... but keep reading :) It's a small world after all. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.spur.org/about.shtm is a non-profit, public policy think tank. For many purposes, it would not be a reliable source. It is reliable for the text it is citing: "Where Market and Castro streets intersect in San Francisco flies an enormous Gay Pride flag, situated in Harvey Milk Plaza, which doubles as the Castro District San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) station." (In fact, the statement is so non-controversial that it shouldn't even require citation.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Shall I just remove the citation then? --Moni3 (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out, Sandy. That bit of information seems non-controversial enough for the source to not be a problem. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't hurt to keep the citation; I'm less sure about the text cited to sfweekly.com, and unclear why Julian struck it, unless he knows something I don't know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Whoa. That's an interview with Ray Sloan, Dan White's second campaign manager and then political aide. Not sure how that would be unreliable. --Moni3 (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Just that I've not encountered sfweekly before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) That was actually erroneous striking, sorry. In any event, Moni's argument seems convincing, but I'm still concerned about that source. Ealdgyth, thoughts? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I dug a bit further: sfweekly.com is owned by the Village Voice, and the author has written for several well known publications, including the LA Times, so he should be able to conduct an interview :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed. :-) I re-struck that. Thanks for the help, I'm still somewhat newbie-ish at reviewing sources. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The publisher for ref #136 is simply FindLaw.
  • Ref #153 is missing publisher info.
  • Otherwise sources look good. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done, and I'm quite sure the two in question are reliable. --Moni3 (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This article is a fascinating read. But when I was finished, I was troubled by questions regarding attribution. Look forex at this sentence: "San Francisco, a major port city, was home to a sizable number of gay men expelled from the military who decided to stay rather than return to their hometowns and face ostracism." The nearest cite is one (long) sentence later, ref #15 to Clendinen p. 151. Am I to assume this info is from Clendinen p. 151? I tried to poke around on the (dearchable) Amazon page for this book, searching for this info, but was unable to find it. That doesn't mean it isn't there, justthat I didn't find it. But if the info is not in Clendinen then it is WP:OR; if it is OR then I think I see several other questionable passages. Please shed some light on this. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It is from Clendinen, probably pulled from Alan Berube's book Coming out under fire: the history of gay men and women in World War Two. Clendinen summed up the factors that led to San Francisco, and the Castro District in particular, to become the first gay neighborhood in the US. Berube dedicated an entire chapter to it, to my memory. If you want me to use Berube, I can. Let me know any other places where the attribution seems spotty. --Moni3 (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There are more than a few places where a sequence of sentences seems unattributed—but on closer inspection, the nearest subsequent cite usually goes to a page range rather than a lone page. It seems likely that the sequence of sentences are all drawn from that source and that page range... The "port city/navy/expelled" one just jumped out at me 'cause it's a lot of info (gay bars, hippies, Victorian houses, Kinsey Institute, etc.), and the cite only mentions a single page. Can you scare up the exact text of that cite (or a unique-looking chunk of it)? That would help me find it online, I think. Thanks Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeh. Give me a few hours. The book is at home and I am not. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. This is an entirely worthy, fascinating and culturally important topic. I saw the film at a time when it was still a little naughty. But the writing is a significant problem. While it shows skill at the clause level (aside from the irritating repetitions), it suffers from the writer's knowing too much about the topic, being too close to it. The result is unreasonable assumptions WRT the unfamiliar reader (even the familiar one), ambiguities, and unintended POV. There's definitely a need to find fresh eyes to copy-edit this carefully and thoroughly from that "distant" perspective. I've looked only at the lead, and what I've written here is nearly as long as it.

  • "Milk was born and raised in New York, where he acknowledged his homosexuality early, but chose to pursue relationships with secrecy and discretion." The reader will have to assume that "secrecy and discretion" refers to his adult period in New York, having introduced the statement in terms of being "born and raised". You'd need to mention the vital fact of when he "came out", surely, as a bridge between these two statements. "Relationships" needs to be explicit (not business or political relationships).
  • "moving frequently"—does this mean moving house within New York City?
  • "Milk joined the counterculture of the 1960s, shedding many of his conservative views, and moved to San Francisco in 1972."—Can you let us know first that he came from a conservative background?
  • "earning their resentment"—nope, you could earn their respect, but here a positive metaphor is mixed up with a negative epithet.
  • "He was brash, outspoken, animated, and outrageous." Is this WP speaking? Sure, claims can be made in the lead without citation, as long as they're not too interpersonal (a grammatical term, which certainly applies to "outrageous", and probably to the other terms, too) or contentious, and are cited further down; but this looks like a highly subjective framing; at the very least "he gained a reputation among [blah] for being ...".
  • "Equating politics with theater, Milk earned media attention and votes, although not enough to be elected."—This equation earned him votes? Can you find a more straightforward way to put it? We're left to make the leap from his inner equation to his attitudes to his outward methods or style to his votes. It's all too much. And we have "earning" ... "earned" in the space of three sentences.
  • "He campaigned again in the next two supervisor elections,... and also ran for the California State Assembly"—just checking that he did run simultaneously for both offices in those two elections. I shouldn't have to wonder whether a supervisor is a civil servant or a politician, since officers other than politicians are elected in some US jurisdictions. I still don't know which.
  • "He became increasingly popular, taking the role of a leader in the gay political movement in fierce battles against anti-gay initiatives." Can't it be simpler? "He became increasingly popular and led the gay political movement in fierce battles against anti-gay initiatives." Just a few words to make explicit what these intitiatives were (referenda?).
  • He was elected to the state assembly or as supervisor in 1977? ... I suppose I got it after re-reading the sentence.
  • "chosen from neighborhood districts rather than on city-wide ballots"—on --> through.
  • The lead could do with some trimming: the end of the second para could go, presuming that it's discussed further down.
  • City-wide ... city-wide.
  • "In the 1960s and 1970s, the largely working-class city had a conservative municipal government and police force, but quickly gained a diverse population, including a gay community well-connected both economically and politically. These developments were supported by a liberal city government but resisted in a number of ways by the police." This essential background needs to come earlier. I hate "in a number of ways". Does it add anything useful?
  • history ... historic
  • "gay ... gays ... gays ... gays" in the one long sentence.
  • "his most comprehensive biographer"—that's WP speaking is it, privileging one biographer over others? Just checking that it's not contentious/POV, since there's no citation or "in the words of blah,". Otherwise, just "biographer Randy Shilts".
  • "Writer John Cloud remarked on his influence, "After he defied the governing class of San Francisco in 1977 to become a member of its board of supervisors, many people—straight and gay—had to adjust to a new reality he embodied: that a gay person could live an honest life and succeed." It's not the smoothest lead I've seen into a quote. More seriously, I worry about the word "honest"; does it mean that gays were inherently dishonest? You see, I think the writer uses "honest" in a very particular sense, like "an honest day's work", and here means "mainstream, public, straight". But through the veil of decades and varieties of English, this is going to be misconstrued as offensive by some people (I almost did). One option is to paraphrase this bit. And the bit about defying the governing class of SF seems to need to go earlier; you could break up the quote and use it in two places, one directly and one paraphrased. I'm unsure. Tony (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Joking Apart

Nominator: The JPS (talk)
previous FAC (00:24, 24 April 2008)


It's comprehensive, stable, well referenced, neutral, etc. Non-free images with full rationales, and a couple of free images too. Since its last nomination, it has undergone an extensive copyedit by User:Gosgood (whose skill and politeness are highly appreciated). The JPStalk to me 17:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi, the opening section ends with "The first series was released in May 2006, and the second on 17 March 2008." I think this refers to the DVD release, I would have thought that the broadcast dates would be more relevant, perhaps with "and subsequently released on DVD". ϢereSpielChequers 21:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Also is Johnathon Barlow a mispelling of Jonathan Barlow? I know there are some people who spell the name Jonathon, but I've never heard of a Johnathon. ϢereSpielChequers 22:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your observations and tweaks. I've removed the sentence with the DVD release dates as it is probably too much detail for the lead. I've kept the "One fan acquired the rights..." sentence, though, as there is a significant chunk of the article about that. You're right about Jonathon: checked the credits, and corrected. Tweaked the lead slightly to incorporate the years of broadcast (exact date within the article). The JPStalk to me 22:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's my points finished, good luck with the FAC. ϢereSpielChequers 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As covered in the first FAC, the author of this article, Graham Kibble-White, is an established writer (a lot of results on Amazon.co.uk) The JPStalk to me 08:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The article was first published in The Guardian, and is reprinted on the official website of its author. Richard Herring is a well established writer and broadcaster. The JPStalk to me 08:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Clearly a self-reference is unacceptable. I'm confused, though, as neither #45 or the surrounding ones point to this? The JPStalk to me 08:05, 10

October 2008 (UTC)

  • Ah, OK. My answer above covers all of the review links. They don't seem to breech WP:RS, particularly as they are not supporting any controversial/BLP issues. The JPStalk to me 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Notebook must have been lying to me. Changed to cite magazine. The JPStalk to me 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "The show attracted a small audience because of scheduling problems, yet it scored highly on the Appreciation Index and it accrued a loyal fanbase."
  • "One fan acquired the rights from the BBC and released both series on his own DVD label." What type of rights?
  • "Separating from his wife, Moffat was going through a difficult period and aspects of it colored his creative output." Add an "As he was" to the beginning of that sentence.
  • "Moffat scripted all sorts of unfortunate things for the Magboy character, such as having a typewriter drop on his foot."-->Moffat scripted unfortunate situations for the Magboy character, such as having a typewriter drop on his foot.
  • "Various episodes of Coupling played with structure, such as the fourth series episode "9½ Minutes" which showed the same events from three perspectives." The episodes didn't play with the structure, did they?
  • "Mark is quick-witted, and the stand-up sequences serve to show that he thinks in one-liners."-->Mark is quick-witted, and the stand-up indicate that he thinks in one-liners.
  • "They have a baby, which is seen or referred to occasionally." "which"-->who.
  • "We are shown Becky and Mark's first date, and then going back to her flat." No first person pronouns should be used in articles.
  • "In his overview of Moffat's celebrated Press Gang, Paul Cornell says that..." I would change says to said to keep the tense consistent in the paragraph.
  • "While the transmission of series two was still being delayed by BBC 2 controller Michael Jackson" Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for these helpful copyediting comments. I highly value how you have taken the time to offer alternatives. I've enacted all of your suggestions, apart from the Coupling comparison. The first series of JA plays with narrative structure, albeit less gimmicky than Coupling. The JPStalk to me 08:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "The pilot from Comic Asides is also included on Disc 2, along with a complete set of Series Two script pdfs..." Write the full name for "pdfs" on its first appearance.
  • "The second series followed a more linear structure, though retaining the stand-up sequences."-->The second series followed a more linear structure, although it retained the stand-up sequences.
  • "Mark meets Becky in a newsagents"—A typo? Needs a comma after "newsagents" or whatever that word is supposed to be.
  • "It is practically identical to the first episode of the series proper: some scenes are even reused, notably the scene with Mark and Becky meeting when he accidentally turns up at a funeral." Colon needs to be a semicolon.
  • "The reused footage gives rise to the first episode's shared director credit between Spiers and Kilby." Change "give" to gave for tense consistency within the paragraphs. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for the second batch. Done all, about from 'newsagents', which is a legitimate word in British English for a specific type of shop: Newsagents#United_Kingdom. The JPStalk to me 13:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

comment - this is an odd article it has a number of excellent free images complete with OTRS tags, which is very good. However with the exception of the infobox image, I can see none of the remaining non-free images meeting WP:NFCC, and thus meeting Featured arcticle criteria #3 Fasach Nua (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely like to keep Image:Joking Apart - Robert Bathurst.jpg since it's an image that opens nearly every episode and is referred to within the article. The JPStalk to me 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, NFCC#3 states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." A title screenshot is completely different in nature to an image of the major characters, and it is very unlikely that all the characters appear in one frame (with the exception of copyrighted publicity material). The article talks extensively about these characters, and it is important for them to be shown to completely fulfill the FAC#2 criteria of being "comprehensive" to a reader who probably hasn't seen this series. Bob talk 21:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Acid dissociation constant

Nominator(s): Petergans (talk)


The concept acid dissociation constant is of major importance in chemistry, physics, earth sciences (including environmental sciences) and biology (including human biology) and is also important in other areas such as the development of new pharmaceuticals and all sorts of industrial processes where acidity has to be controlled. The article presents a comprehensive coverage of the topic and indicates the main areas of application. It should therefore be of interest to a wide range of the readership.

The topic is covered, at an elementary level, in all text-books on general chemistry, though the treatment is usually simplified. The simplifications are explained in this article.

I have been active in research in this subject area since 1972. Our programs Hyperquad are the world market leaders for the determination of acid dissociation constants and stability constants of metal complexes with ligand acids. Correspondence with users of this software has given me an appreciation of the range of applications of interest in research today. This is reflected in the structure of the article.

I am confident that if this article is accepted for featured status that it will enhance the reputation of Wikipedia among scientists and science students.

Petergans (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

This is a source of data, not of the article content. I believe the data to have been reliably taken from the literature. Petergans (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I"m not sure what exactly you mean by "source of data, not of the article content", do you mean that it's not used as a source? If it's not used as a source, why is it in a footnote? If it's being used as a source for data in the article, then it needs to be reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I did not make myself clear. It is an comprehensive source of numerical data, that is, numerical values of acid dissociation constants, the title entity of this article. As such, I prefer to reference it directly in the relevant place in the article rather than list it in external links, but I'll move the reference there if Wiki style demands it.
Regarding reliability, http://www.chem.wisc.edu/areas/reich/pkatable/index.htm gives access to a list of the 64 references to the primary literature from which the data were extracted; the current link is more general and has a link to that page. Petergans (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 43 (Washburn) needs to have the link title formatted so it's not a bare url.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Currently Leaning Oppose I really appreciate the editors/nominator of this article for working on this article and bringing it up to to its current quality. I see that it has been the recipient of nontrivial amounts of thought and elbow grease... I'm seeing two things that concern me: first, the article is a bit beyond the reach of the uninformed reader [insert arguments <here> that uninformed readers won't be examining this article anyhow]. In the first sentence of the WP:LEAD there are already blue links that lead to other articles; I'd have to read those before I could continue on with this one. A WP:LEAD is supposed to function as a stand-alone intro/summary of the article... The article, especially the lead, needs to make an attempt to address a more elementary-level reader.. although it's fine to retain info that is beyond that level in later sections. Second, I'm really not getting a concrete feel of the reasons for its importance. After searching about 3 or 4 minutes I found this book (just the first interesting one I ran across): "Risk Assessment of Chemicals" By C. J. van Leeuwen, Joop L. M. Hermens.. it says "To neglect the chemicals' dissociation may lead to serious misjudgment of their hazard.. " on p. 254. Now that's a real-world fact I can hang onto. I'd like to see more such. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 10:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The first line of the lead reads "An acid dissociation constant (aka acidity constant, acid-ionization constant) is an equilibrium constant for the dissociation of an acid". If the reader does not already have some grasp of the linked concepts, then I suspect the article will be completely unintelligible to him/her. The links put these concepts on a more rigorous basis. The need to address a more elementary-level reader is a recurrent theme for technical articles like this one and it is difficult to resolve. We have pitched the intro level towards a school student studying chemistry and coming across this idea for the first time.

I take the point about risk assessment and will insert something about it in the importance section. Petergans (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Please have a look at this link which suggests possible wikilinks for the article. Note that some terms may already have been wikilinked previously in the article, and also that any new wikilinks should typically be double-checked to make sure they are relevant to the article (though for specialized, technical terms it is far less likely that the suggested link is irrelevant. Choose carefully; no real reason you have to add any of the suggested links if they don't appear to add value to the article.
  • "Biochemistry Primer for Exercise Science" by Michael E. Houston (p. 5) states: "The stronger the acid (HA), the more it is dissociated, and the higher the concentration of the conjugate base (A-). Therefore, the larger the numerical value for Ka, the stronger the acid." That last sentence in particular is crystal clear. Our article says (what I believe is) the same thing in a different manner: the larger the value of pKa, the weaker the acid .. but this article is explicitly about Ka. I understand the easy relationship etc. (very roughly, of course), but I think we should couch our explanations in terms of the explicit topic of the article... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem here: in common usage the terms "pKa" and "acid dissociation constant" are used (wrongly!) almost interchangably. I think that we would have to say something along the lines of - the stronger the acid the larger the values of Ka and the smaller the value of pKa - but to me this sounds a bit confusing. In practice pKa values are used much more often than Ka values, but I don't see how this can be reflected in the article title. Petergans (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Houston (see above) states in his Glossary (p. 245) that 'Ka "describes the ability of an acid to donate a proton". This is a restatement of the observation (above) to the effect that "larger 'Ka = stronger acid", since an acid is apparently a compound that can donate a proton. I can see why you would skip this, since we are unpacking the defition of "acid" here. But really, I think we actually can unpack these things, at least in the lead, without any damage to the article as a whole. I hope you'll understand that my intention is not to dumb-down the article; just to make the WP:LEAD a bit more stand-alone. I understand your stance that the reader must have "some grasp of the linked concepts" (to quote, not to scare-quote). But... the higher the number of elegantly-expressed ideas (some appearing as blue wikilinks) in the lead, the less stand-alone the lead is... thanks Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 18:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

These are very helpful comments, thank you very much. I shall be away for the next two weeks so I will get round to dealing with them and others that will come in when I return. Petergans (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominators are expected to address issues promptly; if you can't get to this for several weeks, I suggest withdrawal. Also, there are numerous WP:ACCESS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Please be more specific about the access issues. I will try to answer them while on holiday. Petergans (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As a Chemistry Education major, though not an expert by any means (precipitates is one of my weaker areas), all the major problems I see can be summarized into three arguments:

  • The article addresses Ka in theory but lacks information of it in practice (i.e. experimental determinations of Ka including lab methods, (answer below Petergans (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)) notable historic milestones and contributors, and applications to industry). Even the "Importance of pKa values" section which addresses applications to industry remains vague as to specific examples of its usage (i.e. stating that acid disassociation values are used to increase blood absorption of pharmaceuticals but failing to detail an example of a drug that has been adjusted due to this...yes I know that there are copyrights on new drugs but maybe an old one like Aspirin pills).

This user does not appear to have read the article properly; there is a complete section entitled Experimental determination of pKa values with a link to a more detailed article Determination of equilibrium constants. Petergans (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The article does not use the simplest and most artful language to communicate ideas. An example of this would be my explanation (above) of what the "example" in the "pharmacology" section was trying to say (which I believe would suffice).

The details are in Avdeef's book, reference 42. Petergans (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  • It does an insufficient job of explaining to the most likely readers of the subject (high school and college students trying to pass Chemisty class) how the equations actually work. It gives the equations and expects the reader to understand how they work. Several examples of real Ka problems (with explanations) would be most effective in breeding understanding of the subject matter.--JEF (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. There are many examples showing how the concept of pKa can be applied to derive useful information. Petergans (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead-in

I've modified it in the light of comments. Does it need further work? Petergans (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly a step in the right direction. I hope to be more specific later; now I need to grade freshmen essays. Wish me luck :-). Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Primate

Nominator(s): Jack (talk)


Recently listed as a good article, primates are an importance subject for any encyclopaedia. The article has seen significant improvement since July and is now stable. Jack (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Jack (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

done
done
  • Missing publisher for current ref 9 (Hartwig)
this one appears to be done too Rlendog (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Same for Ciochon (Current ref 10)
done
  • Current ref 11 (Shekelle) is lacking a publisher, also what makes this a reliable source?
  • Current ref 53 (Shultz) and 54 (Bshary) is lacking a publisher
done
  • Current ref 55 (Stanford) is lacking a publisher
done
  • Current ref 56 (Boinski) is lacking a publisher
done
  • Current ref 60 (Wright, et. al) is lacking a publisher
done
  • Current ref 63 (Wolfe et. al) is lacking a publisher
    Done. Jack (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the [1] a self-published book? (Current ref 67) It appears so from the publishers site here.
    Done. Jack (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Heh. What was done exactly? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
        It was self published so I replaced the reference with "Grubb, P. et al. (1998). "The Sierra Leone monkey drives", Mammals of Ghana, Sierra Leone, and the Gambia. St. Ives: Trendrine, 214–19. ISBN 0951256246.", which had the same information. Jack (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 73 (Nonhuman Primates..) is lacking a publisher
done
  • Is current ref 80 (Cowlishaw et. al.) a book or an article? I'm unclear from the formatting.
done
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Added publishers to all relevant references, will check out reliable refs to replace last two. Jack (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Replaced Shekelle ref with more reliable one. Jack (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, sorry about that. One of them was wrong anyway. Jack (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


Images should be staggered alternating left right per WP:MOS#Images Fasach Nua (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay I've done it as much as possible, though it looks a bit weird having the left-aligned skulls facing left. Jack (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:MOS#Images actually says "Multiple images in the same article can (emphasis added) be staggered right-and-left (for example: Timpani). It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." So, it seems like WP:MOS#Images allows some discretion in the left-right alternation to allow the faces to face the text.Rlendog (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay I've switched two of the photos round again so the skulls face the text, much better looking in my opinion. There is no right-left-right order though. Jack (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Could, Kingdom, Phylum, class... be wikilinked in the infobox? I only have a vague idea what these terms mean. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so, see Bird. Jack (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you expand on that? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you are meant to change a template on a one-case basis? If we were to change Template:Taxobox then thousands of other pages would be affected. I mentioned Bird as another FA which doesn't link the terms Kingdom, Phylum, etc. I understand a lot of users won't understand the terms, is there another way to get around this? Jack (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
A similar thing happened with Yttriumm, [2], several chemicals were already FA, but a standard template was defficient, and was improved as a result of the FA process. I dont see a huge problem improving 1,000s of articles in one swoop, instead of just one (assuming it is an improvement) Fasach Nua (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment The Template:Fossil range/Sandbox template was stretching the page. It was using the sandbox version of the template; I've used the correct template now. Gary King (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments regarding images:
    • Image:Primates-drawing.jpg - If the originator (i.e. author) is "unknown", why are we making a PD claim on the basis of lifetime of the author? This would be fine if the image were dated 1827, but, as this is dated 1927, the author would have to have died only 11 years after making it. (Contrast with Image:PrimateFeet.jpg, which is properly done.)
      The author died in 1884, I believe this is a posthumous publication. How does that work with copyright? Jack (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      In what jurisdiction (country) was it first published? Эlcobbola talk 14:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      First published by Bibliographisches Institut a German publishing company. The EU all follow the same 70 years after death. Jack (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      That's not true; EU follows the Berne Convention, but pma copyright terms range from the minimum of 50 (e.g. Portugal) to 80 (e.g. Spain, in certain instances) years. Germany, however, is indeed 70 years pma. If Brehm is indeed the author, there is no problem, but the summary will need to reflect that. Why isn't there full source information? We wouldn't accept prose cited to the paltry "Brehms Tierleben, Small Edition 1927". Эlcobbola talk 15:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      Oh okay, my bad. The uploader has scanned and uploaded lots from the Brehms Tierleben maybe the rest of it has a better reference? Jack (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Chimps.jpg - needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. The author is "Unknown Researcher"; how can we confirm the copyright holder has released this image as CC-by 2.5? What is "Field Research Volunteer"; a person, a journal, a website? IUP requires an image contain the information necessary to verify the copyright tag. (Do also proof for obvious vandalism.)
      I've emailed Cory Pope, how long do I wait for an answer? Jack (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      Given that time at FAC is finite and the response is indefinite, it may be best to either just remove the image until a response is received or replace it with verifiably licensed alternative (e.g. this or this - Flickr has hundreds of these things). Эlcobbola talk 14:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      His reply is here. The author wants to remain anonymous but Cory Pope says he can vouch for it. What do we do about that? Jack (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Cross river gorilla.jpg - needs a verifiable source. How can we confirm Arend de Haas has released this as CC-by-SA 3.0 unported? This is low resolution, no metadata and a drive by uploader. WP:DUCK copyvio. Эlcobbola talk 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, there is metadata; however, the Canon EOS 40D is a semi-professional camera (i.e. not typical consumer), which is also a red flag. Эlcobbola talk 22:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        Agreed, this does seem a bit suspect. I've emailed Arend de Haas. Jack (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "A primate is any member of the..." Why not "a" member instead of "any"?
    Done. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "With the exception of humans, which now inhabit every continent on Earth" A source for this statement is probably needed, I'm not sure about Antartica.
    • Not sure how to source (or reword) this. Humans do live in Antarctica, though not on a permanent basis. Jack (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Antarctica is permanently inhabited, though the actual inhabitants vary every few months or so. I would have thought you could add in parentheses, after "every continent on Earth" the words: "(if one includes the scientific and meteorological stations in Antarctica)". I don't think a statement like that would require a source.Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree with the phrasing, although I would make that a footnote instead of a parenthical note. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Added suggested footnote.Rlendog (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "65 Ma" Is it possible to write a more self explanatory abbreviation; "mya" for million years ago makes more sense.
    • mya is depreciated, maybe use a wikilink to Ma? Jack (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • According to WP:ERA, "The kya, mya and bya symbols are deprecated in some fields such as geophysics and geology, but remain common in others, such as anthropology." I don't think primates fall under geology or geophysics, so using mya should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        • changed Ma to mya per this discussion.Rlendog (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Molecular clock studies suggest that the primate branch is even more ancient," How about "even older" instead of "even more ancient"?
    Done. Jack (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "divided informally" Switch around the word order.
    Done. Jack (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "In some primates, three-color vision has developed."-->Some primates have developed three-color vision.
    • I oppose this change—your suggestion gives a subtle implication that the primates actively developed this trait. Rather, the trait passively developed without any involvement (or even any knowledge) by the primate. Perhaps "Three-color vision has developed in some primates." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Use Twas Now's suggestion instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    Done. Jack (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "A variety of locomotion techniques are used, including leaping from tree to tree, walking on two or four limbs, knuckle-walking and swinging between branches of trees (known as brachiation)." Avoid using the passive voice: They use a variety of locomotion techniques, including leaping from tree to tree, walking on two or four limbs, knuckle-walking and swinging between branches of trees (known as brachiation)." This sentence and the next both use the vague "a variety of".

If the prose in the lead is an indication of the prose of the rest of the article, then there is definitely work to do. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • First paragraph contains a {{fact}}. Giggy (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    Done. Jack (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Alien (film)

Nominator(s): IllaZilla (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria. I spent months re-writing the article in my userspace more or less from scratch, doing tons of referencing and bringing it to what I felt was a fine state of readiness before moving it back into the mainspace. Other editors then contributed tweaks and revisions, and the article passed GA very easily with only 1 or 2 minor corrections needed. At this time I can think of no further improvements that could be made, and so I believe it is ready to be reviewed for Featured Article status and am willing to make any suggested improvements resulting from the review. I am strongly committed to bringing this article to FA status. IllaZilla (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I would suggest you re-examine image usage with respect to WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree. Image:Alien at the Egyptian Theater, 1979.jpg, Image:Alien-The Facehugger.png, Image:Alien (1979) - Alien egg.jpg, Image:Alien model filming.jpg, and Image:Alien (1979) - main cast.jpg at the very least are not necessary IMO. Giggy (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I trimmed some of the images, including a couple of the ones mentioned here and a couple of others that are not. Image:Alien at the Egyptian Theater, 1979.jpg and Image:Alien (1979) - Alien egg.jpg are gone, as well as Image:Chris Foss Pyramid Book of Alien.JPG and Image:Alien (1979) - cocoon scene.jpg. Upon reflection I didn't think these were really necessary to illustrate the concepts being described. This brings the article down to 9 non-free images, including the one in the infobox. The inherent problem is that since this is a 30-year-old film there are no free images available to use. However I think that each of the remaining images used is in compliance with NFCC. The concept art is the subject of specific critical commentary, so that's justified, as are the chestburster, facehugger, and alien as their designs are specifically discussed in the special effects & creature design section. The space jockey set and nostromo model are also specifically discussed and the images are necessary to illustrate the techniques used in filming. The only one I could really see there being an issue with is the cast picture. I've seen a precedent for this type of image use in other FA film articles such as Jurassic Park (film), Battlefield Earth (film), Blade Runner, and The Mummy (1999 film), to name a few. In this case I feel the image is rather strongly justified because the "Casting" section specifically discusses how the ages and sexes (and in the case of Yaphet Kotto, his race) added to the look, feel, and effectiveness of the film. Since there are no other images of any of the cast members anywhere in the article, this single image illustrates these points rather well. Of course, if you still think that further trimming is necessary then I will do what I can to comply. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I am uncomfotable with the quantity of images, but having said that, those that are used are well integrated in the text, are used to illustrate points that could not be easily described with text alone, the usage seems consistant with WP:NFCC, and by extension featured article criteria three. The quantity of non-free content seems to push us away from the m:mission of producing a free encylopedia, but then this is en.wikipedia Fasach Nua (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.comingsoon.net/
      • Changed to a citation from the American film institute itself, which is the original source of the information: [3] --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.gadgetmadness.com/archives/20070402-buy_the_1979_original_alien_suit_by_hr_giger.php
      • I added a cite to the actual auction site [4], however the gadgetmadness cite is still useful because it reprints the accompanying press release as well as reporting the final selling price. For the qualifactions of Gadgetmadness itself, see [5]. Seems reliable enough for this basic factual information (reprinting of a press release and a final selling price). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Do you not have a reliable source for the final price? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.futuremovies.co.uk/review.asp?ID=111
      • I arrived at this one via Rotten Tomatoes, which is widely recognized and used on Wikipedia as a reliable source for movie reviews. The reviewer and his reviews are listed on RT, which collects and aggregates reviews by professional film critics. This site, the original magazine which published the review, is a better source to use (also I was unable to load the RT page of the same review [6]). RT also lists Future Movies UK amongst its published sources of reviews [7] so it appears reliable. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Are you just using this for a review score/quote? If so, as long as you attribute it in the text to the site/reviewer, you should be fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • http://twgnews.com/2008/08/15/character-biography-ridley/
      • I agree on this one, but another editor insisted on having it in the article. I've removed it. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • http://www.aintitcool.com/
      • I normally try to avoid this site myself (mostly because I don't like their layout) but in this case what's being cited is an interview with James Cameron [8], and a film site interviewing a celebrated director is certainly a good source. It has direct quotes from Cameron in it. It is also used as a citation in Alien vs. Predator (film) and was accepted as reliable in that article's FA review (I participated in bringing that article to FA so I can attest that the reference was present at the time of the review and was not added later). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        • To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Please spell out less well known abbreviations such as TWG, etc. in the references.
    • Fixed as that reference has been removed. The only other I see which might have this issue are h2g2, which I added BBC in front of since it is run by the BBC and appears on a BBC site, and IGN but in that case IGN is the full name of the company (it used to be an abbreviation for something but the full name is no longer used; IGN is the official registered full name of the company). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I am concerned over the reliability of h2g2. As far as I can tell, it is a reflection of Wikipedia (but for registered members who can be anyone). Their "Edited Article" can probably be equated to our "Featured Articles", but that still makes me wonder just how good their peer review is. We cannot assume that editorial oversight is provided by BBC or of equivalent standard as "Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced." is stated on each page of their public online collaborated encyclopaedia. We do not know Ged's expertise in films nor the sources he used for his entry. Furthermore, I doubt we can refer to an attempted encyclopaedic entry as a "review". Jappalang (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
        • No problem, I removed it. I don't recall how I arrived at it; probably through Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic - those were my primary hunting grounds when searching for reviews. I was under the impression that h2g2 was some sort of special subsection of the BBC and had oversight from them, and since it appeared on either RT or MC I felt it was probably reliable. But since it seems questionable at best I just pulled it. I just thought the quote wrapped up that section rather well, but it's not essential. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Note, the article uses three different quotation styles (blockquote, quote boxes and pull quotes), and has left-aligned images under third-level headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a substantive difference between block quotes and pull quotes; I just though pull quotes looked better because of the decorative quotation marks. However after checking WP:MOSQUOTE I see the difference and have converted all pull quotes to block quotes. For the record, though, it didn't use 3 styles before, since it didn't have any block quotes (they were all in pull quote form). The quote boxes are for added emphasis & understanding but are not critical to the body paragraphs, so they are placed in quote boxes to the side. As far as I'm aware this is in line with MOS standards. I'm not aware of any standard or MOS that says there should not be left-aligned images under third-level headings. Could you point me to such a guideline so that I can take the proper approach to fixing them? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - The Impact and analysis section fails to mention anything about the numerous feminist interpretations of the movie. There is a lot of material out there about how Alien relates to feminism. Two places to start are the books Alien Woman: The Making of Lt. Ellen Ripley (especially the introduction and first chapter) and Alien Zone: Cultural Theory and Contemporary Science Fiction Cinema (especially the chapters "Feminism and Anxiety in Alien" and "Feminism, Humanism, and Science in Alien"). Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I honestly don't think this is a reason not to promote the article. There is nothing to prevent such material from being added if an interested editor has those sources and chooses to add them. The featured article criteria do require comprehensive coverage, "neglect[ing] no major facts or details" but the article has the facts and major details in spades. That it doesn't cover one particular angle of critical analysis of the film does not in any way detract from the content it does have. FA status obviously does not preclude further content from being written, and the article has plenty of legs to stand on as-is. Of course, now that you've pointed out those sources I'm intrigued and will probably track them down, but I don't think that possible future additions should be an impediment to promotion. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Why would you not be willing to read this material and add information to the article with due weight? It would tie quite nicely into contrasting the film as a male rape fantasy. Alien was the first film where a physically strong woman was put into an action role. I think that's significant. --Moni3 (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
We actually watched this film in my first Gender Studies class. Girl power! Even if it were just a few sentences, possibly using one of the sources that Kaldari already pointed out (there are quite a bit more), it would be an interesting addition to the article. María (habla conmigo) 12:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
IllaZilla, this is actually a good piece of advice. The current article places a heavy emphasis on a primary source (that of the "making of" DVD feature), which is not surprising when one considers the main focus of the media and public on the fiction industry (more on box numbers and the content). Wikipedia policy, however, prefers to be mainly based on secondary sources (primary could be used to flesh out details but not overwhelm the article). Now, Alien Woman mentions things about the chestbuster that even the "making of" does not mention, such O'Bannon's letter about Giger's loss of focus (getting fixated on the concept of a mutated chicken) when designing the chestburster, the facehugger design, and such. These information can replace those primary references. It also specifically calls the insertion of the facehugger's proboscis into Hurt's mouth as an act of fellatio. This can replace the Future Movie reference, whose reliability is called into question above. Byers in Alien Zone discusses the theme of corporatism in the film (which is not mentioned in this article). The two books can help to improve this article in more than one way (by expanding thematic discussion and replacing questionable sources). Jappalang (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I've changed my stance to a "weak oppose". Honestly, the only reason I think it's important is that this movie is considered quite important in the world of feminist film criticism. There are only 4 or 5 movies that I would raise this objection for, and this is the only sci-fi one. Kaldari (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I am totally willing to continue doing research and expanding some sections, even splitting them off if they can stand on their own, and I will certainly do some research on the feminst interpretations, but I don't think that the possibility of future content additions is an impediment to the article being advanced to FA. "Comprehensive coverage" does not equal "exhaustive coverage". In its defense the article uses just as much (if not more) sourcing from the David McIntee book, which is a secondary source as it is written by a third party independent of the subject, as it does from the "Beast Within" features. That said, I am absolutely going to do more investigation into the sources that you've provided, I just don't have the time at the moment. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per too many fair use images, as well as comprehensiveness concerns. The impact of Ripley is an importa