Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virginia/archive3


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009.

Virginia

 * Nominator(s): Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very excited to announce Virginia is ready for FAC. I, and a handful of editors, have given a great push to get it to featured quality. This is the third time I am nominating it, but the third time's the charm. We have taken measures since the last nomination to correct any errors in the prose, including a fourth peer review, and have tripled our textual sources. We also recently moved to Harvard style citations, so if you catch any lingering errors from that migration, let us know, though I am confident in our system. While the page is long in wikitext, the prose is the same length of similar articles on Oklahoma and Minnesota, the two other FAs on states which have been a guide for us. All comments are welcomed!-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I've only had time for a quick spot check so far:-
 * Page ranges in refs shold be marked "pp." not "p."
 * Those page ranges should be separated by ndashes (some are, some have hyphens)
 * Some no-break spaces are missing
 * The Religious Affilation table is confusing. The "Christian" percentage is 76, but the denominational breakdown only totals 48%. The non-Christian breakdown only totals 18.5%
 * Presentational point on image placement: The left-right zigzag seems to have been abandoned midway through the article – all the later images are right-aligned.
 * Values such as "over $2 billion" should be made date-specific

These are nit-picks on what looks like a well-prepared and presented article. Wiki-time for me during the next week will be very restricted so I may not be able to extend this review. I hope the above pointers were helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I found three that only had one "p", were there more? Are the hyphens in the Harvard style or the other citations? I know you're busy, so I'll see what I can do. Also, I could add a line with "other christian" with the remaining 28% percent, but it might be confused for a cohesive group and I felt it was self-explanatory. The remainder below 100% are "unaffiliated", which is different than "non-religious" . I also got a date for that value, 2006. And, thanks to our editors, the zig-zag continues somewhat now, though its function is generally only used for sections with multiple images, and ones with just one image have it on the right, per the MOS.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the three remaining hyphens in page ranges. As to the table, I believe that if a table shows percentages the total must add up to 100%. I assure you that "Other Christian" is much less confusing than leaving readers wondering who the other 28% are. Also, show the unaffiliated figure for the same reason. Has anyone checked out the no-break spaces? If the article is still here in a week's time I'll try and look at the prose (which looks pretty good on a rapid glace-over). Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch for getting those dashes! I added the row for "Other Christian" and will for the Unknowns, but I don't agree that we need it. "Unaffiliated" was the wrong word, that does actually that same as "Non-religions." We use data from two different religious surveys done in 2008, and they use the different words. The first survey gives us five divisions in Christianity, but none in "other religions", and the second unfortunately lumps Christians into Evangelical, Non-Evangelical, and Black, but gave the breakdown of the four other major world religions. Both surveys have margin of error, i.e. people they spoke to but refused to answer. So I can add a row that lists 5% as either "Unknown" or "Refused" if you want, but I don't think we need it. Accurate numbers probably would add up to more than 100%, since many people hold more than one religion.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 23:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * done. No links to disambiguation pages. A few images (the infobox ones, primarily) lack alt text. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Image copyright check:
 * File:Shenandoah deer 20050521 191017 1.3008x2000.jpg should specify the image from which it was derived, for GFDL compliance. If it was the previous version of that image, it should say so.
 * File:Virginia Civil Rights Memorial wide.jpg is a copyvio as it stands, as the statues are copyrighted and freedom of panorama in the USA is for buildings only. While it can be uploaded locally and tagged with appropriate non-free tags, its use in this article will fail WP:NFCC. It can still be used in Virginia Civil Rights Memorial.
 * File:Virginia sign.JPG is probably a copyvio unless the sign is known to have been there since 1977 or earlier
 * Not a matter for opposing, but it would be awesome if someone could come up with a version of File:Virginia population map.png as a vector image.
 * That's all I can see for now. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at the images for us! The infobox template sets the alt text for those images, and I don't currently have control over them, but they do have alt text. I've asked repeatedly about these images you see concerns about, and not got a straight answer. Ultimately, I believe the contextual significance for the Civil Rights Memorial is appropriate, just as WWII memorial would be significant to the article on WWII, and not only the article on the memorial. I was also told over at WP:IMAGEHELP that the welcome sign probably wasn't "creative enough" to be copyrighted. As for the population map, I doubt anyone would take the time to do it, especially since it's already ten years out of date. Perhaps next year after the new census we'll get an SVG. Best-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't think the deer is a derivative file. I touched up the colors, and it was later migrated to the Commons, but I don't see where its a derivative. Am I missing it?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Unrelated to sources, but WAY too much linking going on... at least a third of the words in the article are blue! Need to seriously cut down on the links to thinkgs like "Haze" "black bear" "beaver" "tobacco" "median household incomes", etc.
 * Still a lot of extra linking going on, but I'll leave that for someone else to worry about. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One unreferenced paragraph in "Civil War"
 * Other unreferenced bits that need referencing "World War II and the Cold War led to massive expansion of national government programs housed in offices in northern Virginia near Washington,..." ... need to double check that no other bits are lacking citations.
 * Personal pet peeve, but there is no need to link to an external website for the publisher name in your references when you already link to the site in the link title. It just adds to the sea of blue. An example is Current ref 36 (Virginias' Forest Resources) which has THREE external links in it. One for the link title (which should remain) one of rthe title of the work on the website and one for the home page of the website with the publisher name. Overlinking here, just need the original link.
 * Current ref 118 (The Best States for ...) lacks a publisher
 * Current ref 170 (Virginia Council for private Education...) lacks a publisher
 * Double check that all your newspaper titles are in italics. I noted Current ref 205 (Hart..) but there are probably others.
 * What makes http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/bowls/current_consecutive.php a reliable source?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking over the references. Good eye catching the non-italicized one, it was listed as the publisher. I've added sources for the Civil War and the federal government, and replaced the one questionable source with a newspaper. I'll see what I can do about the wikilinking and external source linking.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 19:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the excessive wikilinking, Patrick removed the ones you specifically mentioned, and I made a run through the article and trimmed a couple dozen more.-- Kubigula (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. A first-class article in every way. Comment. Alt text is done. Alt text is present and is in pretty good shape (thanks), but I spotted some problems :
 * In the lead infobox, please supply FlagAlt, SealAlt, and MapAlt parameters which I just now added to Infobox U.S. state. For example, the MapAlt parameter should tell a blind reader the gist of the locator map, which is that Virginia lies on the Atlantic coast, just north of the midline of the country, and mostly runs east-west.
 * The alt text for the maps doesn't convey to the visually impaired reader the gist of what the maps tell you. Please see WP:ALT for advice. I discussed the locator map in the previous bullet. Other maps whose alt text need revamping in this way include File:Virginia painted relief.png, File:Virginia population map.png, File:Virginia Ancestries by County no text.svg, and File:National-atlas-virginia crop.png.
 * Some phrases can't be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT. These include "in Williamsburg during winter", "nobleman" (this word happens to be incorrect anyway), "of Richmond", "Capitol" (twice), "James River".
 * "Autumn" shouldn't be capitalized.
 * Several alt text entries start with "The" but "A" would be better, e.g., "The swooping airport terminal..."
 * One comment that is not alt text related:
 * File:Pocahontas.jpg is kinda romanticized. Wouldn't it be better to use a historical image that likely better shows what Pocahontas looked like, such as File:Pocahontas by Simon van de Passe.jpg? Or, if the goal is romance, why not tell the popular story and use File:Pocahontas-saves-Smith-NE-Chromo-1870.jpeg?
 * Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick question with your FlagAlt and SealAlt: can I describe the seal in detail, then in the next field, refer to that description, or do I have to repeat the seal's description in the flag?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, those are all added and the touch ups are done. Can you confirm that it meets standards now? With Pocahontas, I realize its romanticized, and the caption admits that up front, but the other images of her have their own historic issues as well. In general, we use Pocahontas to introduce the breath of Virginia's history and her status as a native, not specifically the colony or anything about the person. If I replaced it, I'd want one that attempted to show how natives looked, rather than how a native in European clothing looked.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Later alt texts can (and in this case should) refer to earlier ones to avoid repetition.
 * Other changes to alt text look good; thanks.
 * The suggested image File:Pocahontas-saves-Smith-NE-Chromo-1870.jpeg does show native dress, not European dress. Plus, it depicts the context of her most famous action, which was in Virginia. Isn't it a better image, if the goal is to introduce the breadth of Virginia's history?
 * Eubulides (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - meets FA requirements. Dincher (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, with suggestions:
 * The writing in the second paragraph of the climate section, first two sentences, is stilted and a little ambiguous. It could use a little work.
 * You may wish to consider whether the demographics table should go in the separate article on the state's demographics. It is difficult, and may have a level of detail unnecessary here, given the existence of Demographics of Virginia.  Kablammo (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I spent today fixing up new, simpler race and ancestry tables, and I'll look into the part of the climate section there.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Much improved, on both counts. The new table looks great-- a model of clarity and presentation.  Kablammo (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – I like to spot-check the sports section in articles such as this one. Not only is it my area of interest, but I find a check of a section buried deep in the body as a good test. I'm pleased to report that the writing in this one section looks fairly clean to me, with this exception: "Virginia is home to two NASCAR tracks currently on the Sprint Cup schedule". Technically, NASCAR schedules races on tracks, not tracks themselves.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

- Pretty close. Overall the content is there, the presentation just needs some cleanup.
 * Support - Good work, you should be especially proud to have done most of the work yourself. Over 27% of the edits to the article, compared to 2.7% for the next person.
 * Overall work needs to be done to have the first one/two sentences in each section (and sometimes paragraph) support the rest. For example if you take the Minnesota article and read the first two sentences of each section or major paragraph you wind up with a good overview of the article.
 * Isn't tobacco important enough to get more mentions in the article and possible go in the header? History_of_tobacco pretty much only talks about Virginia.
 * We do note its drawing power in the history section and the plantation economy in general in the lead, but I think the introduction should stay with the current way of things, noting computer chips. History of tobacco has a short section about John Rolfe, but I think the topic is better covered by History of commercial tobacco in the United States, which doesn't even mention Virginia.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "The geography and climate of the state are shaped by the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Chesapeake Bay, which are home to much of the state's flora and fauna." - isn't backed up in the main article body, but is true from what I found -
 * I added a sentence in Flora and fauna that says the mountains and the coast have most of the wilderness, and there's always been a sentence noting the Chesapeake is home to a variety of fish.


 * Can you find a better pic for geography? It's tiny as heck and has no details.
 * "The state population is nearly eight million.[5]" - might be worth expanding this sentence?
 * We used to note that it was majority white and Baptists, but that was rejected, and then we noted its black minority, but that's no good either. Right now it just hangs off of the previous sentence about the cities.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "More than four thousand caves exist in Virginia, with ten open for tourism." Any good wikilink for this, or reason why so many exist?
 * Added carbonate rock as the reason for the caves.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "The climate of Virginia varies according to location." - States the obvious. Maybe have it mention that it crosses two climate classifications?
 * Combined with another sentence to better introduce the section.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a dumb northerner :) - Does the whole state receive snow in the winter? What about reaching freezing temperatures regularly?
 * The whole state gets snow. More in the north than the south, but that seems like, again, stating the obvious.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious to you, but not to others. "humid subtropical climate" areas vary greatly. The tip of Florida is in the same zone and will see snow once a decade or less. Any 3rd opinions on this?


 * "The deciduous and evergreen trees emit hydrocarbons which give the mountains their distinct blue haze.[38]" - This sentence feels like it was taken out of some other context. May want to work in the sentence from Blue Ridge Mountains about how this is why they get their name. Why does it start with "The"?
 * Remove the word "the" and moved this sentence into a caption with a new image, where we note the color.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You may want to touch up the parks paragraph with an overview sentence.
 * Combining the first sentence with a later one as Ruhrfisch suggested may have done just this.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The opening to the history section needs improvement. Why is it starting with mentions of an event/organization?
 * I've added some more to this introduction, but we just want to note the three major cultures of Virginia, and its 400 years of history.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't like how it opens with the "Jamestown 2007" thing, but I can live with it.


 * Native_American_tribes_in_Virginia "an area estimated to have been occupied by indigenous peoples for more than 12,000 years." - Virgina "The first people arrived in Virginia about 5,000 years ago, and farming began there by 900". The articles disagree and the statement seems unsupported by a reference.
 * I think there's a difference between the arrival of nomads, and the arrival of groups, such as the Algonquin, which I think is the lower number. I'll see if we can change the sentence, but historians really aren't sure about this anyways, and some push arrival back to 17,000 BC or further. "5,000 years ago" is covered by the reference two sentences later, which is a book used throughout the history section. I'd generally prefer to stick with the one source, than just find one for this date.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Virginia is sometimes called "Mother of States" because of its role in being carved into several mid-western states.[70]" - would be made clearer with one of the maps from Colony_of_Virginia
 * It is, but there's no room. That's why we have those subarticles.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Modern Times" almost exclusively focuses on race related items. There has to be other things that are important enough to mention.
 * Virginia's modern history is more tied to that of the United States. Yes, there was a depression and two world wars, but these aren't unique to Virginia. Uniquely Virginian events, like major conflicts, are race related in this period, with the exception of 9/11, which is noted.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Metropolitan Statistical Areas" section is a little messy. Flips between metro areas and cities, some have population counts some don't.
 * Might be worth noting that the state is fairly populous, but the population is not concentrated in one area.
 * This is now noted in the caption for the population map.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Due to their ties to the U.S. Navy, Hampton Roads has a sizable Filipino population, numbering about 45,000 in the area" - why are Filipinos tied to the US navy? Is that common knowledge?
 * Now explained.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any change?
 * Well it was changed from "because of their US Navy connection, Filipinos live in Hampton Roads" to "Filipinos live in Hampton Roads, many of whom have connections to the US Navy", which is backed up by a news story on them.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "In November 2006, fifteen conservative Episcopal churches voted to split from the Diocese of Virginia over the ordination of openly gay bishops and clergy;" - on which side of the split did they fall?
 * Changed the ordination to a possessive, "its", to clarify who was naming the gay bishops.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Virginia's economy is balanced, with many diverse sources of income, and is made up of 4.1 million civilian workers." - what is balanced intended to convey here? Also why exclude federal workers?
 * Federal workers are civilians. This doesn't include the standing military jobs, though we do note the number of veterans. I've changed this around with the following sentence to be more of an introduction.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * More discussion of coal and tobacco in economy since they historically carried the state?
 * Coal is noted in the Geology section and in the economy for its impact. Again, the historic economy isn't as relevant as the current one, but I've added a sentence about tobacco to the paragraph on agriculture.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Fine and performing arts" - might be worth mentioning the proximity to washington DC and all that it offers?
 * "There are however racial and social health disparities, with African Americans experiencing 63% more premature deaths than whites, while 14.1% of Virginians lack any health insurance.[186] " - bad sentence. Rearrange and split up. How does the 14.1% compare?
 * The lack of health insurance is a social disparity, and the sentence is set up to give examples of both racial and social problems.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I tweaked Law and government a little - this ok?
 * Yes, it looks good.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick search turned up 2 featured pictures related to virginia File:Opossum_2.jpg and File:Richmond_Virginia_damage2.jpg. They may be worth including.
 * I'm not sure where the Opossum photo was taken, and I think the current image of Richmond destruction gives more context.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pocahontas is pictured but not mentioned in the text. Perhaps provide a picture that supports the text instead?
 * Pocahontas is now mentioned in the history section's introduction. I do wish there were better images of Pocahontas.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a picture of the blue ridge mountains would be nice.
 * Added one to the Geography section!-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't this a better picture of Virginia Beach? File:Virginia_Beach_from_Fishing_Pier.jpg
 * We used to use that one. New buildings have gone up since it was taken, and our new one shows even more tourists. Still, its a toss up.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There aren't any scenic pictures of Virginia.
 * I'd like to think that the deer, that Wolf Trap, and maybe Christ Church or Richmond are somewhat scenic. Nevertheless, there's now an image of the mountains.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And that's all! - Ravedave (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Once these points have been replied to I will re-review the article. -Ravedave (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a great review, and has some terrific suggestions. The big thing I will look to get are more broad or introductory sentences for sections. The images are tough, since there's limited space for them. For example, we used to have an image of the Blue Ridge, but the climate chart pushed it out. I don't see us getting the map from the Colony page or other scenic photos in without removing what's already there. Also, while that is a Virginia Opossum, I don't know if the photo is taken in Virginia. I also like our image of Civil War Richmond because of the Capitol in the background, which makes it a little more specific, but am not married to it. I suppose we might add more to the modern history section, but I worry about length and contemporary bias, which is why the Virginia Tech massacre was ultimately removed. So we will continue to look to articles like Minnesota for some guidance, feel free to make whatever edits you think necessary. Thanks again!-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to see you oppose. We've added items like reasoning for caves, noted the population dispersal, and clarified the gay bishops and Filipino immigrants. I still hope to address other items as we can, and even get a scenic photo in there for you.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to say we've combined two (or more) of your suggestions there in adding a scenic image of the Blue Ridge with a caption that explains the color.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 03:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the current status on the image issues raised above? Karanacs (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Virginia sign.JPG was Kept after its RfD, and File:Virginia Civil Rights Memorial wide.jpg was moved off the commons. I believe those were the two issues.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Stifle will be away until September 28, so we could get a further response if you wanted to wait.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 17:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I find many flaws in the prose at the top, which strongly suggests that the whole text needs surgery.
 * Thanks for the suggestions, and I'm sorry you feel that way about the article. The introduction tries to compactly go over each of the sections and highlight that which is unique about the subject, per the MOS. Understand that this article has now been through GAN, five peer reviews, and two previous FACs.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Logic problem: "Virginia is known as the "Old Dominion" and sometimes as "Mother of Presidents", because it is the birthplace of eight U.S. presidents." The comma makes the meaning that "Old Dominion" is also attributable to the eight presidents. Can you move the comma earlier?
 * Sure.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "of the state" and "the state's", three seconds apart. Try to avoid "state" twice.
 * Even though its an article about a state, we do try to vary the word "state" as we can, and are fortunate we can use "Commonwealth" as an alternative. I changed this one to "its".-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * is is is. You could ellide (remove) the third one.
 * Okay.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A fourth "is". Perhaps "There are nearly eight million Virginians"?
 * A problem with saying "there are X number Virginians" might be that one could say there are "Virginians", like myself, living in other jurisdictions. And passive sentences are usually a problem in the lead.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "both major national parties are competitive in modern Virginia"—well ... in which states are they not both "competitive"? And this refers to both federal and state representation, one presumes. Do you mean that it's a swing state?
 * Right, its a swing state. States like Utah and Hawaii aren't particularly competitive, but I'll see if there's a better way to say that.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "The state government, home to the oldest legislature in the Americas, has been repeatedly ranked most effective among U.S. states." I'm sure I could easily find people who would react very badly to that claim. What criteria and tests are used to arrive at it? Impossible to avoid POV. The next issue is that the subsequent statement has an unclear relationship to this assertion: "It is unique in how it treats cities and counties equally, maintains most of the state's roads, and prohibits its Governors from serving consecutive terms." Are these reasons it is claimed to be the "most effective" state legislature? If so, a colon is required. Maintaining "most of the state's roads", wow, I can't believe it, that is amazing. (Sorry to appear sarcastic: there's a bit of puffery here that needs to be wound back. As well, you'd need to explain why double-term governors are such a good thing—some people would bring up the experience argument, so why go there at all?)
 * It is actually very odd in the U.S. that the state government controls the local roads inside counties and cities. "Manages" is probably a better word though. These aren't really reasons for the Pew Research Center's grades, only that its the same topic. I think any number one ranked school, program, or group might mention that in their summary. We've been told to highlight what makes the subject unique in its field, which is the reason for mentioning the governors, roads, and counties.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Still comes over as puffery, the ultimate claim. It is appropriate to let us as the readers come to that conclusion after reading the whole article; or at least to pitch the claim as not of WP's making, but the Pew Center's (lower down in the body of the article).  Tony   (talk)  14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can work with that. Do you think the ranking just needs to be attributed, or should it not be in the introduction altogether?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 18:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Virginia's economy has many sectors: agriculture in places like the Shenandoah Valley; federal agencies in Northern Virginia, including the Department of Defense and CIA; and military facilities in Hampton Roads, home to the region's main seaport." So the "many" are agriculture and government, yes? The list items, separated by semicolons, are not entirely logical: "military facilities" are not "federal agencies"? And they are lumped together with a seaport? Then there's a period, which suggests that the list of economic sectors has come to an end. But has it? "The growth of the media and technology sectors have made computer chips the state's leading export, with the industry based on the strength of Virginia's public schools and universities." Computer chips are a low-grade product made in cheap-labour countries in east Asia. Surely you don't need a high-class education sector for that. What a jumble.
 * A military facility is a federal installation (a place), the DOD is more like a federal agency (a company). Jobs in computer chip design and production typically requires a BS/BE/PHD here and in East Asian countries, you may be thinking of computer software or computer assembly.--Old Guard (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very subtle distinctions: I think it should be smooth and easy for the readers here; in the body of the article there will be space to bring this out. Tony  (talk)  14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are sports tacked onto the end of the last para? Tony   (talk)  08:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well colleges are mentioned in the previous sentence, to go with the college sports. If we ignore sports I worry that the introduction wouldn't properly summarize the article, but I suppose we can do without the sentence.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Like all writers, we get too close to the material; can you locate an independent copy-editor to go through it? Tony   (talk)  14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Earlier this year we used that advice to locate User:Dincher, who gave us an invaluable going over in May. The user is now one of our supporters. But yes, we can, it is always good to have more copyeditors.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 18:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this a while ago and was asked to look at it again in FAC. While it has improved considerably, I still found many places where the prose could be improved or was unclear. I will attempt to list as many of these as I can here:
 * In the lead I think I would mention that Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy
 * Done.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 02:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Geography section this almost has to be an error: The southern border is defined as the 36° 30′ parallel north, though surveyor error led to deviations of as much as three degrees.[11] A degree of latitude is about 69 statute miles (111 km), so this is saying there are errors in the southern border of over 200 miles (320 km)?? My guess is that it is off by up to 3 minutes (very roughly 3 miles or 5 km).
 * The source we have says "3°", but I agree, it must be the smaller number, since its about 8 miles off. However, is there a better word than "minutes of arc"? Can we say "by three percent" or something, if not "degrees"?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it now links to arcminutes, which seems fine Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Awkward secntence in Geology (I know what it menas, but there has to be a better way to say it): These form three peninsulas into the Chesapeake.[15] (referring to four rivers)
 * Agreement between subect and verb - are the five regions each a singular or a plural (it seems to me they should all be the same). So "The Tidewater is..." (singular), but "The Piedmont are a series of sedimentary and igneous rock-based foothills..." (plural verb - I could see "The Piedmont is formed by a series of..."). Then we have "The Blue Ridge are a physiographic province ..." (plural verb but singular nouns "Ridge" and "Province") I can see either "The Blue Ridge is a physigraphic province..." or "The Blue Ridge Mountains are a physigraphic province..." (it seems odd to my ear to say Blue Ridge without Mountains)
 * That's tough. Piedmont is French, meaning "foothills", but this is being EN, perhaps we ignore that. Google results are identical for "Piedmont are" vs. "Piedmont is", but the article Piedmont (United States) uses "is", so I've changed it to be singular. With the Blue Ridge, the phrase is always short for "Blue Ridge Mountains", though I added the word "Mountains" in there to be specific.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Blue Ridge Mountains is linked four times in the article - twice in three paragraphs (in the Geology and Climate sections). My rule of thumb is to link something once in the lead, once in the infobox, and then the first time it is mentioned in the body of the article. Or one more example, Mesozic is linked twice in just the Geology section
 * Unlinked those examples.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Climate section has two awkward sentences Most of the state east of the Blue Ridge Mountains, as well as the southern part of the Shenandoah Valley, to the Atlantic coast has a humid subtropical climate ... perhaps something like "Most of the state has a humid subtropical climate, from the Blue Ridge Mountains and southern Shenandoah Valley east to the Atlantic coast..." would read better. I would also move the years in Although Hurricane Camille in 1969 devastated Nelson County, and Fran and Isabel in 1996 and 2003 caused flash flooding in the mountains, hurricanes rarely threaten communities far inland.[26][29] to something like "''Although Hurricane Camille devastated Nelson County in 1969, and Fran and Isabel caused flash flooding in the mountains in 1996 and 2003, ..."
 * Good idea, done.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The MOS says to spell out percent in sentences like Forests cover 65% of the state.[37] - this is a very short sentence and the one that follows is on the types of trees, could they be combined?
 * I like that, done.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 02:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Prose could be tightened in spots - two examples from Flora and fauna Other common ly found trees and plants include chestnut, maple,... and  Deciduous and evergreen trees emit hydrocarbons which give the mountains their distinct blue haze.[39] (are there trees which are neither deciduous nor evergreen?) I also note the previous paragraph (in Climate) said Haze in the mountains is caused in part by coal power plants.[36] could these sentences be combined (probably in climate)?
 * Perhaps these could be combined. For now I changed the second "haze" to "color", and its now in an image caption above.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 02:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Another place where prose could be tightened by combining some Virginia has many National Park Service units, including one national park, the Shenandoah National Park. [2 sentences omitted]... Thirty parks and trails, such as Great Falls Park and the Appalachian Trail, are managed in the National Park System.[45] could be something like this (and there is probably a way to avoid repeating national park twice too): "Virginia has thirty National Park Service (NPS) units, including one national park, the Shenandoah National Park. ... Other NPS parks and trails include Great Falls Park and the Appalachian Trail.[45]"
 * Another good idea. Done.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 03:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In History, I would add either CE or AD to 900 in The first people arrived in Virginia about 5,000 years ago, and farming began there by 900.
 * Added CE.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless they moved the building, I would change the spelling to "capital" in After the capture of Richmond, the capitol was briefly moved to Danville.[76] might also help to add the year (1865)
 * "Captial" fixed and year added.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since Richmond was burned by its own citizens in the Civil War, and the photo File:Richmond Civil War ruins.jpg shows this, I would refer to this in the caption (which is now just the bland Richmond was the capital of the Confederate States of America.
 * Added to the caption.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Needs a ref Virginia was formally restored to the United States in 1870, due to the work of the Committee of Nine.
 * Found one for now.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, that is it for now. I agree that the language needs to be improved to meet the FAC criteria, though this generally looks good. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking that over! Mistakes like capitol/capital are quite embarrassing.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Made some corrections, and will look at phrasing issues soon.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I struck some - will look at the rest of the article for more comments tomorrow. Looking good, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck the rest above, here are my last comments from the rest of the article (after History). I also made some copyedits - please revert if I have made things worse or introduced any errors.


 * Needs a ref (or two): This method of treating cities and counties equally is unique to Virginia, with only three other independent cities in the United States outside Virginia. Incorporated towns exist and operate under their own town governments, but are also part of a county. There are also hundreds of other unincorporated communities within the counties. Virginia does not have any further political subdivisions, such as villages or townships.
 * I got one for the uniqueness. Should we get one for the lack of further divisions?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am OK with this as is, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could this be trimmed? English is the only language spoken by 6,245,517 (86.7%) Virginians, though it is spoken "very well" by an additional 570,638 (7.9%) for a total of 94.6% of the Commonwealth which speaks English.
 * It could, and is now.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Missing word or phrase? People of English heritage settled throughout the state during the colonial period, and others of British and Irish heritage have migrated [there? to the state?] since for work.[108]
 * Changed to "have since immigrated to the state...", though maybe the Irish are somewhat migratory...-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * About seems odd here - the figure seems to be known exactly ...with about 48,745 Vietnamese statewide as of 2007.[109]
 * That's the exact number from the census. I changed it to "about 48,000", since the number is surely volatile, and I think WP:NUMBERS recommends approximating.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Needs a ref or two Tom Wolfe has occasionally dealt with his southern heritage in bestsellers like I Am Charlotte Simmons. Virginia also names a state Poet Laureate, currently Claudia Emerson of Fredericksburg. and "currently" should be "as of 2009"
 * Got two. Will work on phrasing, but I'm having trouble changing the sentence to remove "currently". Maybe we can say she will serve until 2010?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Could it be something like Virginia also names a state Poet Laureate; Claudia Emerson of Fredericksburg will serve from 2008 to 2010. ? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unclear / awkward last phrase in As of 2007, the Virginia state government owns and operates 84.6% of roads in the state, instead of the local city or county authority. I know what it means, but it needs to be clearer. Perhaps "...84.6% of roads in the state, which is unusual as the local city or county authorities own most of the roads in other states."?
 * Added both a reference and a reason for the unusual situation.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the however needed (or in the right place?) in Democratic support persists however in union-influenced parts of Southwest Virginia...?
 * Changed to "also persists", not sure about this though. The idea is most areas outside the big cites became Republican during the 70s and 80s, but because these places had some other influence (unions, colleges...) they didn't. It's actually pretty tricky to say.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am done - am leaning towards support and made some copyedits just now, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the copyedits, they look good!-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to help - I have changed my comments to support above as I now feel it meets the FAC criteria. Good job! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can this be cited?
 * The reasons for this include the lack of any dominant city or market within the state and the proximity of teams in Washington, D.C.

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Should this be musical artists?
 * Virginia has launched many award-winning traditional music artists ...

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.