Wikipedia:Featured article candidates 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations

Rheinmetall 120 mm gun

Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)


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

Edgar Speyer

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk)


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

WrestleMania XXIV

Nominator(s): iMatthew


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

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

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

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

Scout Moor Wind Farm

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum


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

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

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

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

Boeing 777

Nominator: User:Chergles (talk)


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

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

Comments -

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

–

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

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

Comment

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

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

Wonder Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk)


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

Comments -

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

Images

Ralph Bakshi

Nominator: User:Ibaranoff24 (talk)


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

Comment

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

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

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

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
What has been taken care of? And are you saying that you used citations for works you did not consult when you say that the "articles that are missing information are cited from Cohen's Forbidden Animation book"? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The information was listed in Cohen's book. In a few instances, I cited the sources that Cohen used, which were given in the back of the book. Some of them were missing information. Thus, the citations are presented as they were printed in the source list for Forbidden Animation. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC))
You need to cite that information to Cohen's book then, if you did not actually utilize the other works yourself. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten articles on three films by Bakshi using the same kind of formatting and writing style, and I've never been asked to do so before, nor has this kind of formatting deterred the success of a FAC. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Query Hi, the claim that the 1978 Lord of the Rings Film "laid the groundwork for future adaptations of the book" is quite controversial and I think would need a citation. Also could the sentence "director John Boorman was attached to direct adaptation of The Lord of the Rings" be revisited? Should it be "director John Boorman was (attempting, contracted or planning?) to direct an adaptation of The Lord of the Rings"? ϢereSpielChequers 23:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle

Nominator(s): NuclearWarfare, User:Haha169, User:Rau J


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe that this article meets the FA Criteria. That's the only thing that matters, right? Oh, and also because this article specifically is part of a topic (Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes) that I am hoping to get to Featured Status. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the tools bit. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 22:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All of the images in this article are non-free and none of them have sufficient rationales at this point:

For help on non-free images, particularly on writing "purpose of use" statements, see this dispatch on non-free images. Awadewit (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In lead. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Use an ellipse, if possible. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Comments - From a person who knows less than nothing about anime-type shows, here are some general thoughts. I didn't read the text closely, so please don't consider this a comprehensive list of everything that needs fixing.

Giants2008 (17-14) 01:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from the nominator - Would you say that this source would be OK to use as a review in the reception section? - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ravenloft (D&D module)

Nominator(s): Drilnoth (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been a Good Article since March 2007, and I think that significant improvements have been made since then that qualifies it for FA status. -Drilnoth (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review - All of the images in this article are non-free and none of them have sufficient rationales at this point.

  • Agreed that the image isn't needed. I think that it is beneficial, however, because the two books are actually quite different (based on what I've read about them; I don't actually own either). The original module is shorter and for a very different edition of the game (1st edition, rather than v3.5). Images for the silver anniversary and House of Strahd mostly illustrated reprints of the original which didn't have many major modifications from the original, as opposed to Expedition which has a lot of modifications, additions, and updates. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed that image from the article and added in a new one, Image:Expedition to Castle Ravenloft map.jpg, in its place. The new image more directly relates to the article. I think that the fair-use rationale I put on it should be sufficient, but you might want to take a look just to be sure. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This rationale is a bit on the weak side (3-D is pretty self-explanatory). Is there anything else that could be added to strengthen the rationale for having this particular map, for example? Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There are actually very few D&D maps which are rendered in 3D, and I thought that between that and the point mentioned in the article the rationale would be good enough. There isn't a specific reason why this map was chosen; there was a selection of three different 3D maps in Wizards of the Coast's online map gallery, so I just chose the one that I thought would look best in the article. I had decided that a map might be good enough based on Ragesoss's statement below, but if it isn't it can be removed. Is there anything else that could be done to make this image acceptable? -Drilnoth (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't really matter to me whether this image is in the article or not. I think that the main reason it is is because it was merged with the rest of the Ravenloft II: House on Gryphon Hill article (which is also why it had the completely incorrect fair-use statement). -Drilnoth (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest this image be removed, then. Awadewit (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay; I'll remove it shortly. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Each and every one of these fair use rationales has to make a specific case for each image. See this dispatch on non-free images for help on writing fair use justifications. Many of these covers seem very similar, so I'm not sure how necessary they all are. We usually only include one book cover in articles about pieces of literature. If you want to include more than one, the article is going to have to discuss the cover itself - that is, it will have to contain critical commentary on the cover which must be accompanied by the image in order to be understood. Awadewit (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I will go through and update the fair-use rationales. The reason for the number if images is because each image is of a different book; if needed, I could see the removal of Image:House of Strahd lr.JPG and Image:Ravenloft Silver lr.JPG, as they are mostly just revised versions of the main topic book, but the other three all represent very distinctly different books. As I said, I'll work on the fair-use tags and rationales and notify you when I'm done.
I'll also either move the module code or put it in more context. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll take care of the alpha numeric code; I added it, so it's on me to fix it. ;) I'll move it out of the lead, for one thing. BOZ (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Took care of the "only one better". Any other specific items need fixing while I'm attentive? :) BOZ (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have removed the two extraneous images and tagged them with {{orfud}}. I am still working on fair-use updates for the other images, and then I'll get to work on the prose. Good idea regarding the map; I'll see what I can do. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I admit that I'm not an expert at Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, so I might be completely wrong about this. The {{Non-free book cover}} template says that "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers to illustrate an article discussing the book in question qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." If WP:NFCC takes precedence over that template, shouldn't the templates text be modified to make that more clear? I had been under the impression that use for simple illustration was significant fair-use because of the template's text. My apologies for any trouble this may have caused. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • NFCC does take precedence - the template even states this. It says "please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information". It then links you to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding non-free images, which are a bit complex. Awadewit (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that I've mostly taken care of the tense; I tried to put everything about a module's plot or the design of the books themselves in present-tense, while information about the creation of the modules and world in past-tense. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay; I think I've sufficiently update the fair-use rationale for Image:Ravenloft I6.jpg. I've done what I can to update the others; I think that it would be a real shame to see them go, but if they must, they must. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

  • I'd say that it's reliable because it is a review of the book by the executive chairman of a pretty large role-playing game fansite. If it was just "any member" I'd say it wasn't reliable but I think that its use is justified because of who wrote it. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
If it was just being used as a review, I wouldn't question it, however, it's being used as more than just a review. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I will look into the reliability of the source further. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I've actually just removed all instance of said source that were used to describe the contents of a module without reviewing said contents, so that should be fine for this reference. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that The Acaeum is a pretty trusted source for information on 1st edition game materials. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:22, 30 November 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 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I will look into the reliability of the source further. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I ran this Google search to find sources regarding why The Acaeum is reliable. It looks like there are quite a few mentions of it in reliable locations (I am aware of Wikipedia's "Google Search" guidelines; many of the sources that come up are unreliable, but there are some good ones in there, too). -Drilnoth (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a long review of the book. There were a number of links listed as references which didn't actually link to any text in the article, and I was trying to fix that last night. This was one of the last ones I looked at, it was long, I was getting tired, and I jumped at the first thing I saw. :) I'll try to find some way to fix that; the statement can probably be backed up with a more reliable source, and the review could probably be used to source other information in the article. BOZ (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I did remove that ref because it was both on a messageboard and by a relatively unknown person, so if you want to restore it you'll need to look through the article history. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You're thinking of the Wizards' message board post (which I agree with removing); this is an ENWorld book review by a guy who's written dozens of very thorough reviews for them. BOZ (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Oops; my bad. -Drilnoth (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I used the ENWorld review as a source for about as much as it could be used. I tried to find a source for the "first part of the Expedition series" as I would like to keep that line, but haven't had any luck so far. Will remove it if it can't be sourced. BOZ (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I added an appropriate reference. It's from a primary source, but it still provides a citation. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into the online links, but I don't have the book by Schick. -15:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Drilnoth (talk)
All links have been updated or removed as requested, with discussion on reliability of d20zines and The Acaeum above. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The article looks good, but an overall copyedit is needed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Disagree with "gypsies has" over "gypsies have". Will consider what to do with the video game sentence; maybe increase, maybe fold in somewhere, maybe kill it. Handled the rest. :) BOZ (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Currently, that sentence reads "no one have", so I still believe "no one has" would be better. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, LOL, I was looking at the other "have" - corrected. :) BOZ (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Better. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Real Madrid C.F.

Nominator(s): Hadrianos1990
previous FAC (15:57, 12 October 2008)

I think this is a very good article and should be a featured one. Hadrianos1990 08:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Hate to do this again, but the prose still doesn't meet FA standards. I advise that you obtain the services of a good copy-editor to help polish the text. Here are a few examples of problems.

Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Done--Hadrianos1990 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)