Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2012

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 not promoted by

Mount Meager

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 07:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be ready for FAC now. I have spent months of research on Mount Meager to recreate the article then I did some copyediting for clarification. I am aware there are terms in the article that make it a little technical to read like rock types (e.g. dacite, rhyodacite, andesite, rhyolite, breccia) and other volcanological terminology, but as far as I am aware of they are appropiate for FA volcano articles. Nevertheless, they are supported by helpful links. Volcanoguy 07:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, PD attribution tag present. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods

Fixed. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether publisher locations are provided for books

Done. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 37: last name?

Fixed. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 20: given that Trafford is a print-on-demand service, what are the qualifications of this author?

Just to get away from this I have replaced the book source with a better one. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 22: typo in title

The source that had the typo in title has been replaced with another source. Volcanoguy 04:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Check formatting of newspaper citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to {{cite news}}. Volcanoguy 05:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support: Spot check looks good, but I'll made a full review sometime later. Nice to see you around Tusk ;) ResMar 03:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support comments - on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. reading through - queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 1,094 km (680 mi) long fault zone running 80 km (50 mi) off the Pacific Northwest from Northern California to southwestern British Columbia. - should that be " Pacific Northwest coast"?

No. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Para 2 of Regional setting - the word "trench" is repeated in 3 successive sentences. Any way this could be reworded to lose one (without sacrificing meaning) would improve prose.

I have changed the second "trench" to "this large depression". Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, earthquakes along the Cascadia subduction zone are fewer than expected --> " However, earthquakes along the Cascadia subduction zone are less common/rarer than expected"? (sounds funny as is)

Done. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though very few eruptions in Canada have been witnessed by people, Canada is nonetheless an area of intense volcanic activity. - 2 canadas in the one sentence. could the second be "the region"?

Changed. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These signs generally occur well in advance of a potential eruption, - how far in advance? weeks/months/years/days......

That depends. According to the Geological Survey of Canada, warnings can be weeks, months or years long, so I have added that to the sentence. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its' the sort of thing laypeople are keen on knowing....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else people do there? popular summer hiking or winter skiiing?

No. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise prose and comprehensiveness look pretty good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

I have always had problems with this. Which captions should not have periods? To me a sentence is a statement with a period, so I have no idea what captions are you referring to. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've got these either changed to sentences with periods, or frags w/o. The Interior (Talk) 01:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hot spring caption needs editing for prose

Revised. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Graph is illegible at this size - can it be made larger?

Increased graph size. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Garibaldi_Volcanic_Belt-en.svg: second source link returns 404 error

Fixed. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Eruptive_history_of_the_Mount_Meager_Volcanic_Complex.png: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page number added. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re:

PS:Volcanoguy, if you can't access them, a few of us have access at different universities and can probably help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware of, the Volcanology of the 2350 BP eruption of Mount Meager volcanic complex, British Columbia, Canada journal dosen't have lots of important information about the actual event. It's mostly just about the deposition of the eruptive products and stratigraphy. Nevertheless, all of the events the eruption produced (e.g. pyroclastic flows, pyroclastic fall, collapsing of lava flows, outburst flood) is within the article. Same thing for the second source, but it discusses the deposition of block and ash flows that occurred during the same eruption. Nothing really important to note in the Impact of a Quaternary volcano on Holocene sedimentation in Lillooet River Valley, British Columbia journal other than the fact that Meager has been the source several large landslides in the past 10,000 years and are potential hazards to inhabited areas in the Lillooet River valley (which is already discussed in the article). As for the Pylon Peak source, landslides are a major hazard at Meager (and are discussed in the Threats and preparedness section), but the largest events are not unique and don't need a separate section about them. They are, however, in the landslide table. I have seen and read all of these sources before I nominated and rewrote/expanded this article. Volcanoguy 03:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

• Lead: "... it could again produce a major eruption; if this were to happen, relief efforts would probably be quickly organized. " - Can be improved ... "probably" just seems out of place. What do the source say? I presume they positively say "Would be quickly " or "could be quickly ..".

Done. Volcanoguy 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead: "The Garibaldi Volcanic Belt has a long history of eruptions and poses a threat to the surrounding region. .." That sentence follows a few sentences on eruptions. It seems like that sentence should start the 2nd paragraph of the lead, leading into more detailed discussion of eruptions.

I switched the second the third paragraphs to make it more obvious. Volcanoguy 17:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Photo quality: the two photos in the "Historic" section are rather poor quality, especially the bottom one ... it looks like red lava, but the caption indicates it is a landslide. I'd recommend removing that bottom photo ... or, better, going to the source and asking for a better image.

I do not see anything in the FA criteria that mentions all images should be high quality. And lava just dosen't look like that. In my view it is brown. Have you ever thought the rock might be that colour? Volcanoguy 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: Should be alphabetized

Done. Volcanoguy 16:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: Some editors believe that a FA quality article should have no articles listed in See Also, because the ideal article would include, somewhere in its body, a mention of (and link to) any article that would/could be in the See Also section. Personally, I'm not one of those editors; but, maybe you could ask yourself if any of those six links could be sensibly fit into the article body somehow.
• External links: should be alphabetized.

Done. Volcanoguy 16:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Table column headings: "Age": reader should not have to jump down to footnote to understand the column. Recommend change "Age" to "Years before present" (top table); and "Year" (bottom table).

Done. Volcanoguy 17:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although Mount Meager is a potentially active volcano, ...". Is there a better, official word for "potentially active"? Volcanos are either dormant or ....? What? Just because it is not erupting today, there must be some term that means something other than dormant, true?

It is mentioned in the article that the regional hot springs are most likely related to volcanic activity. If so, it is not not a true dormant volcano and thats why it is probably more appropiate to use potentally active. Furthermore, terms like dormant and extinct are pretty vague in science and are not normally used by scientists. Volcanoguy 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no section on "Recreation" or "Climbing". Is there boating/fishing/camping on the mountain? How about hiking or backpacking trails? Certainly the mountain climbers have routes. E.g. when was the first ascent? What is most popular route? What is the route graded? Etc.

I couldn't find anything for most of those things. Why would this article have information about boating and fishing? It has no lakes. Bivouac.com has information about ascent of Meager but as far as I am aware of bivouac is not considered a reliable source. Volcanoguy 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)—[reply]

• Surveying history: If possible, add info about surveying history. When was it first surveyed? By which party? Original height estimate (vs modern)? Ah, that is covered okay in the "Naming" section ... I overlooked that in my first read. --Noleander (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "Climate and vegetation" section: broaden title to include wildlife. Maybe "Natural history"? Or similar.

Changed to "Regional geography". Volcanoguy 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you add any more details about fauna? The article seems heavily tilted towards geology, giving short shrift to recreation, flowers, animals. I'm not suggesting each be equally represented, but there is only one sentence on animals.

There is not lots of information available for fauna and flora. Volcanoguy 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Better photo: Just a thought: it looks like a gorgeous mountain ... but the photos are not doing it justice. Even the InfoBox photo is dark and shady; and the other pics have white snow fields against a white sky. Can you put out a request to Canadian mountaineering groups soliciting a photo someone would be willing to donate to WM commons? Not a show stopper for FA, but the article is poorly served by its photos.

Changed image in infobox. What is wrong with having a cloudy sky with a glaciated mountain? Can still tell the difference between the two things. Furthermore, clouds are common in mountainous regions. Volcanoguy 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Noleander comments --Noleander (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come now people, this is starting to look like one of my FACs! ResMar 15:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment - Sadly, after one month and 16 days, there is still no clear consensus to promote this article—despite the two encouraging supports from respected reviewers—so I have decided to archive this nomination. Please do not give up on this, and to quote one of the reviewers "come now people".

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 not promoted by

Battle of Radzymin (1920)

Nominator(s): //Halibutt 16:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started an extensive re-write back in October (from this stub). The re-write got out of hand and the article ended up being a GA and an A-class article. It has had extensive copyedits for GA and A-class already (big thank you to Adamdaley, Piotrus, Demiurge1000, AustralianRupert and Vecrumba) and I believe it is ready for FAC now. //Halibutt 16:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Essentially drive-by, as I have only read the lead, but a few points:

• Give the dates (1919–21) of the Polish-Soviet War in the opening sentence
• Why is this single citation in the lead, when the same point is made in the text and, for consisitency, could be referenced there?
• Delete peacock term "extremely"

Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

added the date and deleted the pt. Not sure about the citation in the lead. The point is not made anywhere else in the article and I really have no idea what would be the appropriate section to mention that - if not the lead. And this is important piece of information, as many people believe that since Battle of Warsaw is most commonly called a battle, it was a battle in its' own rights, while in reality it was a military operation consisting of a number of smaller battles. Any ideas? //Halibutt 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that the point is covered in the "Result and assessment" section, which includes: "it was one of the cornerstones of the overall success in the Battle of Warsaw" – hardly different from what's in the lead. It is a general principle that everything of significance in the lead should be refelected in the text. I don't think that's a problem here, it's just the inappropriate location of the citation. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. //Halibutt 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These points are resolved now. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

1. Avoid sandwiching text between images
2. File:The_fighting_near_Radzymin.jpg: what steps have been taken to look for previous publication? Same for other images from that source
3. File:Battle_of_Warsaw_-_Phase_1.png: on what source(s) was this map based? Same for File:Warsaw_1920_battlefield.svg
4. File:Kosynierzy_1920.JPG: need more information on source
5. File:Mogiła_żołnierzy_poległych_w_1920.jpg: need more info on original source.
6. File:POL_Radzymin_9.jpg: is the architect of the church known? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1. I was pretty sure it depends on your screen resolution and text size. Is it ok now?
   2. I'll ask the uploader to comment on that.
   3. In the case of Phase 1 I'm not sure, as it's basically a vector version of a map I made... in 2004, in GIMP, with less then satisfactory accuracy. I assume the source might have been the description of the battle in the Polish wiki article on the battle of Warsaw. In the case of the newer File:Warsaw_1920_battlefield.svg I added the following line to the file's description: Shape of rivers loosely based on OpenStreetMap (CC-BY-SA); location of units based on numerous books mentioning the battle of Radzymin (list). Is that what you meant?
   4. I added a full citation using the {{cite book}} template
   5. What info do you need exactly?
   6. Of course. According to the church's website the original church (main aisle and the bell tower) was built by Johann Christian Kammsetzer while the later additions (side aisles, presbyterium, and two towers) were added by Konstanty Wojciechowski. Do you really think this is relevant to this article? //Halibutt 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second map is now fine. The first I'm less confidant about, as a) the specifics from the battle are overlaid what was presumably a pre-existing map from somewhere, and b) that would mean this map is sourced to a wiki, which is not a reliable source. For point five, the image description says "originally published in: Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny"; I'd like to know what type of source that is, when it was published and by whom, and possibly a page number. As for the church, that information is completely irrelevant to this article, but should be added to the image description page per article 34. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not use any pre-existing maps, that map is entirely hand-drawn in GIMP. And unless anyone can copyright the shape of the river Vistula (not in Poland and not in Europe, that's for sure), we should be fine. And as to the sources, it's "sourced" to wiki in a way that the wiki described that "this army attacked westwards to the north of Vistula". Or it could be any book on the war of 1920, I don't really remember as all of them write basically the same when it comes to general movements of Polish and Russian armies. I'm sorry, but it's only for orientation purposes. It doesn't precisely represent the route of particular units and it's not 100% accurate. Much like this file does not show actual bacteria. It only shows their representation.

As to the architects, I won't argue, though we have freedom of panorama here in Poland. Names added to Image info.

As to

Ilustrowany Kurier Codzienny, it was a newspaper and a news agency active between 1910 and 1939. I asked Piotrus for more info on the pics. //Halibutt 22:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think I ever got the message - or it got lost. Anyway, I am not sure what else to add to the pics. I would like to hear from an expert on the status of pre-1923 photos that have never been released (as far as one can tell) and have been recently scanned and made available online.

Template:PD-Polish, which is not valid for photos published after 1994. So what are the correct templates to apply for old images that have only recently been scanned? They do not gain a new copyright, they are anonymous as far as we can tell, yet because the mentioned templates require previous publication, does it make them perpetually copyrighted, under the logic "since we don't know when the author died, we have to assume they are immortal"? We are talking about photos from 1920 here, but frankly, now I doubt what license to use for 19th century anonymous photos, or even 15th century anonymous paintings that were published for the first time in Poland after 1994. I am lost; what is the Poland or EU version of Template:PD-UK-unknown? Note how this UK template clearly states that all pre-1942 photos that were anonymous are PD, even if they were not released to public. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I looked at Copyright law of Poland. Of relevance:

"According to the Art.3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 (valid until 1952) and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) printed without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are public domain. Status of those photographs did not change after Polish Copyright Law of February 4, 1994 was enacted." This is confirmed by my reading of Polish Wikipedia article ("W Polsce fotografie korzystają z nieograniczonej ochrony prawem autorskim dopiero od roku 1994. Wcześniej, na podstawie ustawy o prawie autorskim z roku 1926 i art. 2 ust.1 ustawy o prawie autorskim z roku 1952 korzystały tylko fotografie posiadające "wyraźnie zastrzeżenie prawa autorskiego".") and the text of the 1926 law here.

"According to the Art.21 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 (valid until 1952) photographs lose copyright protection ten years after picture was taken. Series of scientific or artistic pictures lose copyright protection after 50 years. According to Art. 27 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 (valid until May 23, 1994) photographs and series of photographs lose copyright protection ten years after publication date."

What the above suggests to me is that the

Template:PD-Polish has an incorrect requirement (or unfortunate wording), that the photos have had to been published. My reading of the above does not support that wording, it seems that unless the photo has a copyright notice on itself, it was not copyrighted (and/or the copyright expired after 10 years). This suggests to me that all photos taken in Poland prior to 1994 are now in public domain (with the potential exception for clearly copyrighted photos taken or published in or after 1984, which is not the case here anyway). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Lastly, digging through Commons I found this AFD discussion which seems to support my argument above (unpublished photos from family archives have been voted as keep under Poland-PD several times), see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leszek Moczulski 1978 1980.jpg. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the template is the same as at

template:PD-Polish

on this wiki.

At some point I was interested in images from Warsaw Uprising and I uploaded several hundred of them - all images were found online and were carefully matched to photographs found in books from 1950's. I assume similar thing can be done for photographs from 1920 war. --Jarekt (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After some more thinking I realize that there will be harder to find published images from that war since they would have to come from books published in 1920-1939 period. I doubt books published after 1939 would have much on the subject. --Jarekt (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments - After 20 days and no support for promotion, I think this candidate would benefit from being archived. I advise that all the issues pertaining to the images are resolved before renomination.

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 not promoted by

George Went Hensley

Nominators: Mark Arsten & Astynax

George Went Hensley is one of the more quixotic figures of Appalachian Christianity, whose windmills eventually proved to be his undoing. As the lead says, he "emphasized strict personal holiness and frequent contact with poisonous snakes". He wasn't always very good with the first part, but he kept up the snake handling until he died, of snakebite. The article has been reviewed by MathewTownsend and Allens and I think that this is a neutral and comprehensive treatment of Hensley's life, several scholarly biographies were consulted and I don't think there are any major sources missing. I've had a few people look at the prose, but there may be some small issues that slipped by. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a few quick ones from a brief glance at the article...

• Minor, but in the last sentence of the lead the semi-colon should be just a regular old comma.
• Ministry in Tennessee: Why is Nontrinitarianism capitalized? It doesn't seem to be in our article on the subject, at least when it's not starting a sentence.
• Before the citations are nit-picked by others, let me note that ref 24 should have a pp. instead of p., since it's a multiple-page cite. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good eye, I think I've fixed them. BTW, nervous about this weekend? I'm expecting a close one... Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but if the Giants don't win I'll always have Super Bowl XLII to remember fondly, as you can tell. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it looks like you have to change your username to Giants2012 now :) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, prose, 1a: prose issue in the lead, I stopped there:

• Hensley continued to minister and established churches, ...

... change in tense, confusing, cumbersome. Finding this in the lead suggests the prose throughout will need a close look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Alright, 1a sure isn't easy. Astynax and I will try to take another swing through the article and check the prose again. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm not sure that

Title: Differential Maintenance and Growth of Religious Organizations Based upon High-Cost Behaviors: Serpent Handling within the Church of God

Author: W. Paul Williamson, Ralph W. Hood, Jr.

Source: Review of Religious Research Vol. 46, No. 2 (Dec., 2004), pp. 150-168.

JSTOR 3512230

Title: They Don't Have to Live by the Old Traditions": Saintly Men, Sinner Women, and an Appalachian Pentecostal Revival

Author: Shaunna L. Scott

Source: American Ethnologist Vol. 21, No. 2 (May, 1994), pp. 227-244.

JSTOR 645887

• Thanks for taking a look, here are my thoughts on the sources: the American Ethnologist only contains a couple brief mentions, nothing new there. Almost all of the information in the Review of Religious Research research was incorporated into the later book by Williamson & Hood that I used in the article, I added a couple small details from the article though. I don't have access to the three page note by Burton/Speer at the moment, but I know where I can grab a copy and will be able to look it over in the next few days. I had noticed the Labarre book but chose not to use it in the article. Williamson & Hood discuss Labarre (who published a few decades before the main sources I used) a bit in their book and criticize the factual accuracy of some of his claims [4] and the quality of his research [5]. Based on their comments about his scholarship I doubted whether he qualified as a high quality reliable source and left him out for that reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, fair enough. These two reviews (
  JSTOR 2945631) mentions that there's a fictional account, Saving Grace (1995) that might be worth a mention. (p.s. let me know if you'd like any of these jstor articles emailed to you, including Burton/Speer discussed above.) Sasata (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Very interesting, thanks for the digging. I definitely would be interested in looking into those JSTOR book reviews, if you wouldn't mind emailing them. Salvation on Sand Mountain was actually used as a source in an older version of this article, it focuses more on snake handling in the 1980s and 1990s and just mentions Hensley a few times as background. Saving Grace probably will be worth a mention too once I see the source. On a mostly-related note Guncrazy was the first time I saw anything about snake handling, it contains a very Hensley-esque character. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alright, I removed one of the claims in the article after seeing that a couple of the reviews criticized it. Otherwise, I think the article's sourcing is on pretty solid ground now. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Wow, Mark, you weren't kidding. That was even more entertaining than Carrie Nation (you and Asyntax should work on that one next – it could really use an overhaul). I did some fussy cleanup, and I also have a few general suggestions:

• The lead is a bit too long and gets tedious with all the details of Hensley's weddings and divorces. I think it might be worthwhile to condense the references to Hensley's many failed marriages to just one or two sentences about his, erm, relationship struggles.
• Similarly, I think personal life should also be teased out of snake handling and church history and moved to a new, separate section (just looking at the section headers, it's clear the article is too top-heavy). The concluding paragraph implies an ironic juxtaposition between Hensley's public sanctimoniousness and his private failings as a husband and father, but I don't think it really comes across in the body of the article as well as it could, since it's all sort of mixed together. I'd be happy to start a little mockup in my userspace if you'd find that helpful.
• Do we really need to know the exact measurements of the lard can that housed the fatal python? :)
• Last sentence doesn't make sense – media coverage of Hensley's death by snakebite prompted churches to include snake handling in their services? There's probably a better way of phrasing it to make it sound less schadenfreude-y, though I can't think of it at the moment.

Thanks for the fun read, and good luck with the rest of the FA process! Accedie^{talk to me} 21:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Alright, took care of the last two bullets. Some reorganizing about personal life vs career might be a good idea, I'll do some thinking about it and report back. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took a stab at trimming the lead down a bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: It wasn't his death which caused other congregations to adopt snake handling, but media coverage of his ministry. I've moved the last sentence you mentioned to the preceding paragraph to minimize any confusion on that point. • Astynax ^talk 09:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I have moved some of the marriage and family details to a Personal life section. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Sorry I missed this earlier, but:
  • I'm doing some further copyediting; hope I'm making things better, not worse... I'm not seeing the prose issues earlier commented on, just a few minor things.
  • Was the "Pineville Church of God" actually part of the "mainline" Church of God that he had been a minister in, or the "Church of God with Signs Following"?
  • The "Final Years" subsection under "Ministry" should probably not have each paragraph introduced by talking about his marriages, but I'm not sure how else it could be put... There's also some duplication between that and the last two paragraphs of the "Personal Life" section that could use some rephrasing.
  • What's the citation for "One of their children claimed that the separation occurred after an incident in which Hensley became drunk and fought a neighbor" in the "Personal Life" section?
  • In the second paragraph of the "Personal Life" section, "Pineville with their four children" is mentioned, while he is said to have had five children by her; did he have another with her in Pineville?
  • Under "Personal Life": "In the mid-1950s, they moved to Athens, Georgia" but he died in 1955. Shouldn't this be "early-to-mid 1950s"?
  • "procuring a 5-foot (1.5 m) rattlesnake from a local zoo" under "Death" - I'm guessing this was a commercial zoo, and he bought it, or is there no data on this?
  • Under "Legacy", one (remaining?) tense problem: "Practitioners of snake handling continued to view Hensley as a great man, and his personal failings have sometimes been dismissed as slanderous fabrications" - is it "continue", or "had sometimes been dismissed"?
• I have to consider the above pretty minor, however. Allens (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, thanks for the copyediting help. I think I have resolved the rest of your concerns. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite welcome, and you indeed have. Very interesting article! Allens (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Very interesting article. I am not quite certain that the article is prose-wise quite up to FA standards, but I'll try to point out a few things. More later, but here's what I see in the lede:

Lede:

• " and then came to believe" omit "then". Consider "; he then came to believe" I think it's more effective but it's a close call and just me.

  While I understand not that much is known, consider beginning the second paragraph with a sentence about Hensley's pre-1910 life?

  "Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee)" I am sure this is the name of the article; unless the parentheses are included in the formal name of the church, consider "[[Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee|Church of God]] of [[Cleveland, Tennessee|Cleveland]], [[Tennessee]]"

  " and inability to make a living" This is problematical because neither his alcohol abuse not his failure to bring home the bacon have been foreshadowed. Can you state these things, and then maybe "because of this (these?), his wife divorced him in 1922."

  "Soon after" Omit phrase and instead have a paragraph break here.

  I would mention the state where he was arrested in the sentence where you mention his arrest. Then you can say "state authorities" in the next sentence, assuming it is Tennessee.

  Did the snake biting or the claims take place in his last years? It's unclear. Possibly both ...

  "Nevertheless, family members recalled occasions when he seemed close to death. " Strongly suggest omitting. There is no need to put anything between the claim of being bitten without ill effect and the rather dramatic proof of the opposite.

  "His frequent travels and inability to earn a consistent income were cited as reasons for his three divorces." Cannot the two recitations of the grounds for divorce in the lede be combined into one?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks for your comments. Mark Arsten has already addressed most of your points. However, the phrase "Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee)" is the normal way to introduce this denomination in both references and in lectures/conversations. "Church of God of Cleveland Tennessee" is unnecessarily imprecise. • Astynax ^talk 18:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply #2: Hi Wehwalt, I appreciate that you took the time to comment on this. Thanks for the lead comments, I've tried to implement the fixes you suggested--other than the style of the denomination name they all look like improvements to me. I had a bit of difficulty with the fourth bullet point though, hope my changes worked there. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source and images - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hill, Hood and Williamson or Hood, Hill and Williamson?
• Where is Knoxville?
• File:Snakehandling.png: according to our article on the photographer, he was not working for the US government on the date given for this image, so the licensing tag would appear to be incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Knoxville is in Tennessee, as is implied by University of Tennessee, but for people not aware of the names of US states (quite reasonable if the person is from & in, for instance, Australia; I wouldn't recognize the names of some Australian states...), I've put in Knoxville, Tennessee in the reference. Allens (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Actually, the article on the photographer looks to be incorrect or incomplete, according to the NARA information for this picture, which says he was working for the "Department of the Interior. Solid Fuels Administration For War. (04/19/1943 - 06/30/1947)" - click on the number in the NARA credit. (The Solid Fuels Administration would apparently be taking care of coal as a fuel for wartime.) Allens (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply #3: Alright, I alphabetized that HH&W reference in the bibliography and Allens got the location (Thanks Allens), so I think that's solved. I agree with Allens on the picture's copyright, it looks like the error on Lee's bio was fixed, as well. (Thanks Matthew!) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In advance of a fuller review (which may take a few days), can I raise two points:_

• In the lead, first paragraph: "he came to believe that the New Testament commanded all Christians to handle poisonous snakes." This sounds somewhat random; I think you should add: "on the basis of a literal interpretation of scripture, he came to believe..." etc
• In the "Ministry" section is it possible to direct the reader at this point to the wording of Mark 16:18, which appears in a window in the "Theology" section? An understanding of the content of that verse would help at this stage.
• Is there any evidence that he took literally the other parts of the verse? For instance, did he drink poisons, or practise faith-healing? The answers may be in the parts of the texts I haven't read, but at this point I would argue: if not, why not? Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, thanks for taking a look at the article. I made the first two changes that you suggested. As for the third, yes, there is evidence that he practiced Faith Healing and poison drinking, though oddly enough I had left that out of the article. I put the info into the body, but didn't change the lead at all. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • That looks fair enough (I see I raised three not two points). I'll come back with moe in a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments - After 23 days and no support for promotion, I think this candidate would benefit from being archived and brought back later after further work has been done.

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 not promoted by

Tammar wallaby

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has expanded, been copyedited and has been source spotchecked since it received GA status. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Comment from Jim I don't think the lead satisfies MoS. It doesn't mention that there are subspecies, or give any description. I'm interested in this article, but I'd like to see the lead buffed before I comment further Jimfbleak - talk to me?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still on lead. Contrary to following comment, countries shouldn't be linked. I'm not sure what variety of English you are using, I thought Australian English used "grey". "Gene" is repeated. Linking seems arbitrary, eg "seawater" is linked, but not "genome" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cutted down on links. Better now? LittleJerry (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I commented on arbitrary linking, not overlinking, genome needs a link, a quick glance indicates several other technical terms that aren't linked or explained
• There are some basic errors, gray/greyer, section starting as such, with nothing to refer to. Other early naturalists, when we aren't told who identified the subspecies in this para. from two ends out of how many? No page(s) for ref 4.
• What are the small superscript numbers next to some of the refs?
• You've given imperial conversions in some places but not others, inconsistent
• You really need to go through again to check the prose/links, This looks underprepared to me, even without looking at the actual content Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The superscript numbers are that actual page numbers for the reference. As I stated before, some the the numbers can not be converted. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen Sasata's comments and the responses to him and me (How can you have a measure that can't be converted?). I believe that there is too much to do in the duration of an FAC period. I think this is an interesting article, and has the potential to eventually reach FA. I've found that people are prepared to help with access to sources (I don't have university access either, try the mammal project), and you should also get someone to copy edit the prose. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found a number of geographical names that weren't wikilinked and should have been - East Wallabi Island, South Australia and New Zealand. I've linked these but there may well be more terms needing links. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe this is premature. This article recently was in the GAR process where I had a chance to review it in some detail. As Jim mentioned, the lead needs work. During my GAR review, I noted that the quality of sources seems under-par for what I would expect from a mammal FA. A lot of web sites, student theses, and information pulled from only the abstracts of journal articles. I'd like to see comment on this from someone familiar with sources on mammal articles. --Laser brain (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are journal articles. How many websites are "too many" and what wrong with PH.D theses? they are good enough to be cited in peer-reviewed articles. Also, the article abstracts summarise the articles. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, unfortunately, as this seems to be premature. Here are some specific concerns:

• As Jim points out, the lead is quite short - articles of this length usually have at least 2 paragraphs, and should summarize the article adequately
• Article needs some copy-editing - for example, in "who named it from where it was collected", "from" should be "for"
• What distinguishes the subspecies?
• WP:MOS
  errors: ranges should use endashes, need conversions for metric measurements, etc
• Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
• Citation formatting needs to be more consistent - for example, avoid mixing {{
  cite}} and {{citation}} templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

LittleJerry (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but in most cases those were examples only of issues. Regarding 5, that's not entirely correct - when you have a source that's 160 pages, for example (as in FN2), you do need to be more specific about where your information is coming from. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Sasata. This is not yet ready for FAC. Breaking it down:

• 1a Prose & MoS compliance lacks polish. Some examples (from a quick scan, not exhaustive):
• caption to John Gould picture should not have a fullstop per
  WP:CAPTION
  (same error occurs later too)
• "The tammar genome comprises 3.6 Gb, with a relatively short genetic map length of 1172 cM".[37] What is so special about this quote that it can't be paraphrased?
• why define acronyms (TSDS, FISH, TCR, Ig) that aren't used again?
• gene names (e.g. RBMX) are to be italicized
• "Tammars can't survive long" contractions are discouraged in formal writing
• "30 degrees Celsius" should give imperial convert (later too)
• "gram-positive and gram-negative" Gram is to be capitalized (should be linked too)
• choose between title case and sentence case for journal article titles

1c (well-researched):

• "The tammar wallaby was seen on West Wallabi Island in the Houtman Abrolhos off Western Australia by survivors of the 1628 Batavia shipwreck, and recorded by Francisco Pelsart in his 1629 Ongeluckige Voyagie. This represents the first recorded sighting of a macropod by Europeans,[2]" I spot-checked this reference, and found the following issues:

• page # is 53, not 58
• source does not mention "West Wallaby Island"
• article says shipwreck was in 1629, not 1628
• in the source, the guy's name is spelled "François Pelsaert"
• source does not say that this was the first recorded sighting of a macropod by Europeans

1b (comprehensive)

• why no mention of these recent articles (sampling only, as a model organism, there's a lot of literature on the subject, much of it recent; meeting criteria 1b and 1c requires the nominator to go through the body of literature, even if extensive, and ensure the article is a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"):

Title: Sequencing Skippy: the genome sequence of an Australian kangaroo, Macropus eugenii

Author(s): Murchison Elizabeth P.; Adams David J.

Source: GENOME BIOLOGY Volume: 12 Issue: 8 Article Number: 123 DOI: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-8-123 Published: 2011

Title: A second-generation anchored genetic linkage map of the tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii).

Author(s): Wang Chenwei; Webley Lee; Wei Ke-jun; et al.

Source: BMC Genetics Volume: 12 Supplement: Article No 72 Pages: 16pp. Published: 19 August 2011

Title: Reproductive and Developmental Manipulation of the Marsupial, the Tammar Wallaby Macropus eugenii

Author(s): Renfree Marilyn B.; Pask Andrew J.

Editor(s): Pelegri FJ

Source: Vertebrate Embryogenesis: Embryological, Cellular and Genetic Methods Book Series: Methods in Molecular Biology Volume: 770 Pages: 457-473 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-61779-210-6_18 Published: 2011

Title: Genetic consequences of isolation: island tammar wallaby ( Macropus eugenii) populations and the conservation of threatened species.

Author(s): Miller E. J.; Eldridge M. D. B.; Morris K. D.; et al.

Source: Conservation Genetics Volume: 12 Issue: 6 Pages: 1619-1631 DOI: 10.1007/s10592-011-0265-2 Published: 2011

• there is much more that could be said about Wallaby genetics, and I don't think 1 paragraph suffices here.
• "Biologists have used sodium fluoroacetate to control their populations.[11]" This may have been true in 1990 when the source was written, but increasing resistance to this compound has spurred the search for more effective compounds, e.g. see

Title: Effectiveness of cyanide pellets for control of dama wallabies (Macropus eugenii)

Author(s): Shapiro Lee; Ross James; Adams Pauline; et al.

Source: NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY Volume: 35 Issue: 3 Pages: 287-290 Published: 2011

• the claims about the miracle protein AGG01 are sourced to a 2006 New Scientist publication; I can't read this article, because it's behind a paywall, but suspect that its source is
  WP:UNDUE. Sasata (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Most of the things you posted could be easily corrected. And for the sources. You can't just do a source dump and say "what about this?" I don't have access to any of these. Also, what information do they present that is so imporant and hasn't been covered. LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 not promoted by

Nominator(s): Binksternet (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been letting this one sit for a while to see how it fits, and I think it is ready for evaluation here at FAC. The article came about when I protested a bit of text inserted at

This story is a complex and tragic tale and as such proved excellent material for an article. Binksternet (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am an entrant in the WikiCup. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and comments by --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The caption of File:Haslett Warehouse (San Francisco).jpg should end with a period since it's a sentence.
• Can English captions be added to File:Ruinas ovila.jpg, File:Cartel Santa Maria de Ovila Trillo.jpg, and File:Santa Maria de Ovila actualidad.jpg? The dates of these photos are missing.
• File:Haslett Warehouse (San Francisco).jpg has its image size forced.
• The ISBN is missing from the second book under "Bibliography". Or is it not a book?
• Why isn't FN 2 moved to the "Bibliography" section?
• FN 18 and 27 are missing retrieval dates.

Sp33dyphil, I have put a full stop at the Haslett image and I changed the second bibliography entry from a book to a journal cite. Thanks for the catch!

I have put dates and English descriptions into the Commons images that were uploaded by a Spanish editor.

The Haslett warehouse is not all that important which is why I chose to force the image smaller.

Is the accessdate parameter required for the cite news template? Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You should include retrieval dates if URLs are provided, unless the refs are print-based like books. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I added accessdate parameters as indicated and I moved the Burke reference down to Bibliography. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't read the article, but a couple quick comments at a glance: in the Golden Gate Park section I see sentences beginning "In 1940, Hearst..." and "In 1999 some..." The punctuation here should probably be standardized. Also, why do you have a picture in the Bibliography section? I don't know if there is a rule about that, but it seems odd to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put commas in to homogenize the style.
  • I put a picture into the Bibliography only because I had an extra one and it seemed to fit there. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, well, if no one else objects to its placement I guess that's ok. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, try to be consistent with the use of the serial comma: "After the Confiscations, many of the furnishings and artistic treasures of Santa María de Óvila passed to the surrounding parish churches, especially Ruguilla, Huet, Sotoca de Tajo and Carrascosa de Tajo." vs "On the eastern side of the cloister lies the monastery, the sacristy, the priory cell, and the chapter house stripped of detail." Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, yes, the commas. I took a couple out just now but the specific example you list is one I kept because the sacristy and priory cell are not stripped of detail, but the chapter house is. Thus, the comma helps to separate the "stripped of detail" from the preceding members of the listed items. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, your changes look good to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was raised to GA nearly a year ago, and not much work has been done on the text since. This means that there are numerous prose issues (and a few others) that would probably have been identified had the article had a recent peer review. I have so far only read through to the end of the "Hearst" section and have found the following:-

• Of the stones, "some are being reassembled by Trappist monks at the Abbey of New Clairvaux in Vina." Reassembled into what?
• I'm not sure the beer sponsorship is worthy of the lead
• "within", rather than "on", the grounds of a farm
• I think the lead image caption could be usefully extended, giving a date and confirming this is after the removal of stones by Hearst's agents.
• I think "canonised", rather than "sainted", is the official term, but in any event link to
  canonisation
• "Somewhat later, or perhaps at the same time..." I find that phrasing odd, a bit like "yes, or perhaps no". I would omit this confusing phrase
• Date for chapel rebuilding?
• "From the 15th century Santa María de Óvila began a slow decline..." Yes, but in the previous section we read of major building projects into the mid-17th century, so isn't it a little premature to date the start of the decline so early?
• Hyphenate "wine-making"
• I think the section title "Hearst" is a little too cryptic for the content, and should be amplified, even if only to "Hearst project".
• "his biggest client being" → "whose biggest client was"
• You need some sort of citation for the assertion that $97,000 in 1930 has a current value of £1.2 million (seems rather low), and "today's currency" needs to be time specific, e.g. "as of 2012".
• "Some entire walls of fine facing stones were recommended". Sentence is incomplete; "recommended" for what?
• "Antonio Gomez, the excellent local foreman praised by all who worked with him, numbered the blocks on architectural drawings and painted the number in red on the back of each stone."[4] This, particularly the unattributed description of Gomez, reads like editorial opinion. What the source actually says is "Steilberg and Byne both commented on the excellence of the Spanish workers and especially of their foreman, Antonio Gomez." I think there needs to be some rewording to better reflect the source, and to remove the appearance of an editorial voice.
• "he understood that the illegal project employed more than a hundred men..." You need to clarify that "he" is the Minister of Labor, not Byne's lawyer (which is how it reads at present).
• "failing to interest the government" → "but had failed to interest the government"

I will read through the rest after you have responded to the above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Replies
• The stones have been given extra context in the lead section, addressing the problem.
• The beer sponsorship is a valid part of
  WP:LEAD
  , being a one-sentence summary of article material comprising a paragraph. The beer sponsorship has been widely reported and has significantly aided in the rebuilding of the chapter house in Vina.
• Within the grounds of the farm, yes.
• Lead image caption has been amplified as suggested.
• Yes, canonized with wikilink.
• "Somewhat ...perhaps" removed.
• Chapel rebuilding date uncertain, before 1650 per Clements 1981.
• 15th century corrected to 17th century.
• Hyphen for wine-making.
• I changed the "Hearst" heading to "Removal to California". "Hearst project" was a good suggestion, too.
• Yes to "whose biggest client was".
• "fine facing stones were recommended for removal"
• Gomez praise attributed.
• Minister of Labor clarified.
• Yes to "but had failed to interest the government".
• The suggestions are very good. Thank you, really! The only one I am resisting is the bit about beer sponsorship which I think is appropriate for
  WP:LEAD. I have no financial or personal conflict of interest in the sponsorship, to be sure. I have, however, tasted one of the batches produced. Binksternet (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 not promoted by Ucucha 00:37, 23 February 2012 [8].

The Satanic Bible

Nominator(s): – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started rewriting this article in late August, and have been working on it off and on since then. It was recently was promoted to a good article, and I think it meets the criteria for a featured article as well. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1b and 1c. Looks to be informative and a great intro to the book, however it does not seem comprehensive or representative of the literature in the field about this book. Many, many articles have been published in scholarly journals about a) the literary themes in the book and b) the cultural and religious impact of the book. Essentially, you are missing a Themes section, and the Influence section should be vastly expanded. Recommend withdrawal to commence library research using scholarly databases. --Laser brain (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example this article from the Journal of Contemporary Religion covers how the book affected the spread of satanism in Britain, and some of the themes therein:

doi:10.1080/13537909508580747 --Laser brain (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the suggestion! I'll try to go back and add this. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per User:Laser brain and suggest withdrawal (even though the nominator doesn't seem to be interested anymore). Auree ^★★ 06:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am still interested. I refrained from withdrawing immediately because I was hoping to get more than just one opinion. Now that I have, I withdraw the nomination. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for jumping to a conclusion. The article is solid, and once that info has been added this will stand a good chance. Good luck! Auree ^★★ 19:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 not promoted by Ucucha 00:37, 23 February 2012 [9].

May Revolution

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a key event in the history of Argentina, and I have worked a lot with it. I worked first with Argentine books, as those made the most comprehensive study of this topic (not surprising), but I checked some books in English as well. I have also trimmed down some parts to related articles, but trying to keep this as an article that could be understood on its own, having in mind that most readers from outside Argentina or even South America are unlikely to have even a clue on who were this people or the events described.

All the issues pointed during the previous nominations were addressed by then. This article has been promoted to A-Class by the Military History wikiproject. Cambalachero (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

Almost none of the sources are available online, so this is the only one I could check:

• Source

• Text: En 1813, en tiempos del Directorio, el sistema político está en crisis. Se estaba pensando en un príncipe europeo. Después Alvear empieza a pensar en el protectorado inglés. En medio de esa crisis, se crea la Asamblea del año XIII para declarar la independencia, pero la independencia no se declara.

• (Rough) translation: In 1813, in times of (Supreme Directors?) the political system is in crisis. There were thoughts of a European principality. Later Alvear began to think of an English protectorate. In the midst of this crisis, the Assembly of (1813) was created to declare independence, but independence was not declared.

• Article

• Before the declaration of independence of 1816, the supreme directors considered other options, such as negotiating with Spain or becoming a British protectorate.

In other words, this source is accurately represented without copyvio. Another I could check online:

• Source 209

• Text: Mitre inventó una revolución de Mayo antiespañola, separatista, por el comercio libre (implícitamente pro británica) para legitimar su política de 1862. Hoy, inclusive los profesores de la línea de Halperín Donghi –como Luis A. Romero y José Carlos Chiaramonte- admiten que no comparten la versión de la Historia mitrista sobre Mayo. Chiaramonte sostiene que ya nadie da validez a la fábula de “la máscara de Fernando VII”, con la cual se intenta justificar el voto de la Primera Junta del 26 de mayo de obediencia a Fernando VII; sin embargo, el Departamento de Historia del Colegio Nacional Buenos Aires persiste en aceptarla. L. A. Romero, por su parte, afirma que Mitre “inventó” esa historia pero que debe procederse con cuidado porque es un “factor de cohesión de la nacionalidad” (Diario Clarín, 24/5/2002). Considero, por el contrario, que es un factor de colonialismo mental, legitimador de la influencia inglesa a partir de 1862.

• Too long to translate, but ...

• Article:

• Juan Bautista Alberdi and later historians such as Norberto Galasso,[198] Luis Romero and José Carlos Chiaramonte[209] doubted Mitre's interpretation and put forward different ones.

• Verified, with no copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Article:

• This situation would change with the final defeat of Napoleon and the return of Ferdinand VII to the throne, as he began the Absolutist Restoration and persecuted those holding the new libertarian ideas within Spain. For people in South America, the idea of remaining part of the Spanish Empire, but with a new relationship with the mother country, was no longer a feasible option: the only remaining options at this point were to return to absolutism or to adopt independentism.[209]

• Source text:

• Could the nominator please post the text from the source that verifies this text? I grew tired of looking for it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I have been out of home a pair of days for health reasons. The text that verifies this is at the end of the first question to Galasso. In English, he says more or less this: "When the Spanish democratic revolution is defeated in 1814 and Spain returns to absolutism, anulling the democratic constitution of 1812, restoring the inquisition, etc; the rupture is needed (as cited in a mail from Gervasio Posadas to San Martín). Independence, to avoid falling again into absolutism, becomes urgent, because Spain will send now two fleets to recover "her" colonies. (break) The Spanish revolution of 1808 was national (against the napoleonic invader) and became democratic during the fight, by establishing popular Juntas that trusted Ferdinand VII to be progresist (he was fighting with his father, Charles IV). The American revolutions were initially democratic (antiabsolutist) as extensions of those others, and became national, meaning independentists, when the democratic revolution was defeated in Spain. That's why there are six years between the events of May and July 9, 1816 in Tucuman, the declaration of independence of the United Provinces of South America" (Note: Im in a hurry, this is a rushed translation, and may not be correct here or there) --Cambalachero (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding: I can translate, could you please quote the exact text in Spanish? I had a hard time finding it, and the spotcheck on sources means I'll look at the original text (in Spanish) and make sure there's no close paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraphs in Spanish are the following:

• Cuando la revolución democrática española es derrotada en 1814 y se vuelve al absolutismo, anulando la Constitución democrática de 1812, reponiendo la Inquisición, etc., se hace necesaria la ruptura (Carta de Posadas a San Martín, del 18/7/1814). La independencia, para no recaer bajo el absolutismo, resulta entonces urgente pues ahora España mandará dos flotas para recuperar “sus” colonias.
• La revolución española de 1808 fue nacional (contra el invasor napoleónico) y se hizo democrática en la lucha, al constituir Juntas Populares que confiaron en que FernandoVII era progresista (estaba enfrentado con su padre, Carlos IV). La revoluciones americanas fueron inicialmente democráticas (antiabsolutistas) como prolongación de aquella y se hicieron luego nacionales, es decir, independentistas, cuando fracasa la revolución democrática en España. Por esta razón, hay seis años de diferencia entre los sucesos de mayo y el 9 de julio de 1816 en Tucumán, donde se declara la Independencia de las Provincias Unidas en Sudamérica. --Cambalachero (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, confused ... is "reponiendo la Inquisición" what you're using to source "persecuted those holding teh new libertarian ideas within Spain"? Where do I get, "for people in South America, the idea ... etc"? IN other words, it's obvious there is no close paraphrasing concern here, but I'm struggling to see how the text is verified, perhaps as a result of my inadequate knowledge of the history here. If we can get this part verified, then I'll move all of this over to talk and indicate that you've cleared a spotcheck on the two sources I could view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The persecution of liberalism is part of the Absolutist Restauration. Galasso mentioned the restauration but not the persecution; but that's common knowledge, so I mentioned it just to place the reader into context. The restoration of the inquisition and the rejection of the liberal constitution are just specific examples of a wider policy; the text is better understood if we mention the wider context (because if I mentioned just those he said, the reader may misunderstood that those were the only problems). I don't think there was any original research or synthesis in doing that. The "for people in South America..." is basically the second paragraph, and the last sentence of the first. Have in mind that, in Argentina, "American" means "from the Americas" (the continent; in this context, Spanish colonies in the Americas as opposed to European Spain). Thus, the "South American people" is the "revoluciones americanas" bit (the several conflicts of the Spanish American Wars of Independence; the May Revolution is only one of them). But this usage of "American" is different in other countries, where it is read as "from the United States", so I can't just say "American revolutions" as Galasso. Cambalachero (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Declaration_independence.jpg is tagged as lacking source information, as is File:Red_versus_blue_swords.svg
• File:Carlota_Joaquina_por_Manuel_António_de_Castro.jpg needs a US PD tag, as do other images using the PD-old/PD-art combination
• File:Castelli_y_Cisneros.jpg needs a US PD tag and more info on the source
• File:Invitación_al_Cabildo_Abierto.jpg: the first copyright tag is incorrect
• File:Domingo_French.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Same with File:Primera_Junta,_litografía.jpg
• File:El_pueblo_quiere_saber_de_qué_se_trata.jpg: source link returns error
• File:BartolomeMitre002.JPG: date given is date of upload, should be date of creation or publication
• File:Piramide-de-Mayo-Buenos-Aires.jpg: as Argentina does not have freedom of panorama, you need to account for the copyright of this monument as well as the picture
• File:Manuelbelgrano.jpg is tagged as lacking author information
• File:Argentine_Bicentennial_Logo.svg: I would argue that this design does meet the threshold of originality, and that it would thus be subject to copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done I fixed some images and replaced others. I'm not sure about the bicentennial logo, so I open a deletion request; so far there's a keep vote, but I removed it from the navbox for the moment. Most images have US compatible licences, but that's still a topic under discussion in Commons. The WMF had promised to consider the topic and provide some guidance as soon as possible, I think the best thing to do is to stay using the current rules until they have a definitive advise. Cambalachero (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 not promoted by Ucucha 00:37, 23 February 2012 [10].

Murder of Joanna Yeates

Nominator(s):

talk) 18:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC), BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC) [reply

]

Also no deadlinks or disambig links as of checking today. I need to add some alt text to some of the images, so please bear with me on that one.

talk) 19:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• I don't understand. The website is the online counterpart to the newspaper. The convention has always been to cite the name of the newspaper. That's exactly why the {{cite news}} template has a url field to it. So we cite The Guardian for news posted at guardian.co.uk, and New York Times for news posted at www.nytimes.com. Orane (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is 'The Guardian' refers to the newspaper; it's paper form essentially. 'Guardian Media Group' refers to the company, Observer is the sister site. Anything published 'guardian.co.uk' is its online activity: that means a rolling news service (provided by agencies) as well as to providing content in 'The Guardian' and 'Observer' newspapers since 1998. For instance, scroll down to the bottom of this article, find 'article history' and tell me where it was 'published on'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does Ref 90 have 'Guardian Media Group' as the work yet all the other references published by The Guardian don't? Likewise Ref 100 and 'Independent Print Limited'.
• Remove the extra year on ref 88.
• When citing 'BBC News' be sure to add the work as 'BBC' or 'British Broadcasting Corporation' depending on which you prefer. Work parameter is on some references but not all of them so correct that.
• Under Further enquiries, replace apostrophe with full stop in the sentence 'Police launched a national advertising campaign to appeal for witnesses through Facebook, '
• Don't need to repeat that the Sun offered £50,000 as a reward in the same section. – Lemonade51 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted extra year, repeat of Sun Award, and tweaked some refs. I can't seem to find the stray apostrophe, however. There are actually more refs for The Guardian than you have listed above so I've changed them to work= The Guardian|publisher= Guardian Media Group, the latter being the umbrella company that owns all Guardian publications. I hope that is ok, and you weren't specifically indicating those as guardian.co.uk articles and omitting the others because they actually appeared in The Guardian (I see some refs are cited with newspaper= though they are online). Similarly, Independent Print Limited publishes The Independent and its stablemates so I've amended those. Many newspaper refs are actually missing so I'll go through and add them over the next couple of days. Let me know if there are any other issues and I'll take a look at them.

All refs should now have work and publisher in their title. I've also made them consistent where that wasn't the case, e.g., citing from Daily Mail as opposed to Mail Online, and so on. If someone can quickly check they're ok, I'd very much appreciate that. Need a break now, but will tackle the images later.

talk) 13:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Alt text now added to images. Just a couple of comments to make here:

• Do we add alt text to maps? I haven't currently done this so far because I wasn't entirely sure about that.
• Images are not always very clear on my PC so I've done my best to interpret them.
  talk) 22:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Re:apostrophe. I think you may have meant 'replace comma', as there was a comma at the end of that sentence. It's done anyway.

talk) 12:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Whoops, you are right. Just one more niggle.

• Where is the source for the sentence "Jefferies told the hearing how reporters had "besieged" him after he was questioned by the police." ? –Lemonade51 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The besieged thing is actually from ref 115 at the end of the paragraph. But I'll stick it in after that sentence too.

talk) 19:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

ok, I put in an extra ref from the Telegraph to cover this, but have had to use 115 in the previous sentence since it talks about why Leveson was established, something the Telegraph article only touches on.

talk) 19:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

First, isn't this info a bit trivial for the lead? Second, hearing, attending is cumbersome. Third, would it not be better to phrase it as "he attended (in person is redundant) a pre-trial hearing at Bristol Crown Court after previous appearances from prison via videolink" ... or something similar? It seems very trivial for the lead, but this unwieldy sentence in the lead suggests that independent eyes may be needed on the prose throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. An individual awaiting trial can make any number of court appearances before the actual case begins so it's not strictly necessary to mention it in the lead, and you are right that it is problematic. I've therefore removed the sentence entirely. In terms of copyediting, quite a lot of work was done on that recently by someone from

talk) 18:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Although there may be some there, the GOCE is not noted for being "staffed" with folks whose copyediting skills are at the FA level. I am not a fan of extended peer reviews happening at FAC. I believe when issues are found early on, and samples are given, it's better for the nominator to locate skilled collaborators and re-approach FAC once independent eyes have combed through the article. When I find significant prose errors in the lead, I'm unlikely to engage further; finding prose issues in what should be the best polished part of the article does not bode well for the remainder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you do feel you're unlikely to review this any further, can you close the discussion as soon as possible so I can go in search of a skilled copyeditor? I'll bring it back after the two week sabbatical, and hopefully once they've given it the green light.

talk) 19:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not responding here as FAC delegate, Paul; my resignation is effective in two days. I was posting as a reviewer. If you're still sure you want to withdraw, you could ask for that, but I wasn't suggesting you needed to-- only saying how I review. Others may disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess I did think you were commenting in your FAC role and hadn't realised you were about to step down, so I hope you'll accept my apologies for any misunderstanding caused. I don't actually want to withdraw the nomination but thought if the article needed more work doing to it then that was probably the best thing to do. I would like to continue and see what happens with it, and I'll go back to my original plan which is to recruit another copyeditor if it doesn't pass this time. I found

talk) 21:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Is there a specific reason why certain things in the infobox are directly referenced while others aren't? For instance the fact she was a landscape architect is cited in the main body...
• I spotted [89][88] and while I don't believe there's a MOS requirement, it always seems to make sense to me to list these in numerical order.
• "Yeates's death" v "Yeates' body", be consistent throughout.
• Not sure about the use of the co-ordinate table. But if you insist, use en-dash to separate Home and 44, ensure the table is
  MOS:DTT
  )... personally I would have a look at the freely available OS maps which they are happy to release under GFDL to paint a picture of these locations.
• References...
  • You link the work sometimes, but not always, e.g. refs 4, 10 and 13 don't link The Sun but ref 12 does. This is true throughout, so check all refs for a consistent approach.
  • Ref titles should be MOS-compliant, so for instance, ref 5 has a spaced hyphen which should be a spaced en-dash per
    WP:DASH
    . See also ref 101 etc.
  • Is Sky News a publisher or a work? Check refs 23 & 24 etc for consistency.
  • Add publisher and location information wherever available for newspapers, e.g. the Daily Record ref 56 could use this sort of thing.
  • BBC or BBC News? Ref 70.
  • And be consistent with web-based content, if you wish to give accessdates, do it throughout.
  • Don't mix date formats in the refs, e.g. see ref 107.
  • Sometimes publisher is in parentheses, sometimes not, compare ref 93 with ref 94, compare ref 92 with ref 95 etc...
• I just did a Google news search on Tabak, throws up some interesting articles which are quite recent, including this one about the nature of the DNA found.

Once I have more time I'd like to review the prose, but these technical issues do also need to be resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on these. I haven't had much of a chance to be online today, but I'll take a look at them tomorrow evening and hopefully sort out any differences. Thanks also for the ref regarding the DNA. Definitely an interesting addition to the article.

talk) 22:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Most refs now gone from infobox as they're mentioned in the main text. The only one that isn't is her height, although it is mentioned that Tabak was considerably taller than Yeates. What is the consensus regarding refs in the infobox?
  • If it's not mentioned in the text then I'd happily leave a ref in the infobox... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• ok, cheers. Re: tables and maps, etc. I'm not quite sure how to format the table so I'll take it out. I use a screen magnifier which makes reading OS maps difficult so I'll have to leave that one too. If anyone can help with these that would be great.
  talk) 12:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Had planned to look at new Tabak sources this evening, but had an unexpected - but very welcome - visit from relatives so will do it sometime tomorrow.
    talk) 23:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Have done some research into more recent articles and put together a couple of paragraphs of information that could go in. The DNA thing is very interesting and will add to the article so I definitely want to include that. Just need to decide how to factor it in though. Perhaps somewhere in the investigation section would be appropriate.
      talk) 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Quotes removed and paragraphs in lead merged. I'll look at the stuff that needs more clarification tomorrow evening. Not sure if I entirely agree with the "Investigators determined that" as removing it makes it read awkwardly there's a sudden jump back to the night she disappeared without explanation. Maybe have to reorganise the information a little.

talk) 22:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

May also have to reorganise lead a little as my paragraphs edit was swiftly undone with the argument that the two paragraphs concern two different subjects.

talk) 22:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

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 not promoted by Ucucha 00:37, 23 February 2012 [11].

A Community of Witches

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having been surprised at the lack of good quality articles discussing academic texts on Wikipedia, I set about working on this one back on 28 November 2011, and now I think it's about ready for FA review. The article successfully obtained B-class status on 5 December 2011, and then it went on to attain GA-status too on 27 December 2011 after a bit more work. Following a few weeks’ worth of additions and improvements, I believe that it meets all of the FA and would be honoured if someone would like to review it. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Comments from Mark Arsten.
• Looks interesting, just the kind of article to read during a bout with insomnia :) I'll try to give the prose/presentation aspects a review over the weekend. I'll suggest changes as I come to them, feel free to reject them if you think I'm incorrect.
• Lead
• You have "north-eastern United States" in the lead, our article has it Northeastern United States. Also, might want to link that.
• "Berger interprets Wicca as a religion of late modernity as opposed to postmodernity," Maybe a comma after "modernity"?

Right, I've made both of these changes. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Paganism and Wicca in the United States
• "Contemporary Paganism, which is also referred to as Neo-Paganism," Do we need the "which is" there?
• "second wave feminism" Hyphen?
• "One initiate of both the Dianic and Gardnerian traditions was a woman known as Starhawk (1951–) who went on to found her own tradition, Reclaiming Wicca, as well as publishing The Spiral Dance: a Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Great Goddess (1979), a book which helped spread Wicca throughout the U.S." This is kind of along sentence, maybe break it up?
• I'm not sure about the Manual of Style rules here, but I wonder if it's right to put DOBs in text like this "Raymond Buckland (1934–)"?
• Just an opinion here, but this feels like kinda a heavy amount of background to be starting with. Might want to get another opinion though, since reviewers are always getting on my case about not having enough background in articles.

Right, I've made these changes too, but left the birth and death dates of the significant figures mentioned in the text. Personally I feel like this is an acceptable level of baclground detail; I for one might even suggest expanding it, but then I fear it really would be too lengthy for the average reader. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Academic fieldwork into Wicca
• You use "both" a couple times in the first paragraph, I think you could probably remove both.
• "The first of these had been the practicing Wiccan, journalist and political activist Margot Adler" I would suggest "was" instead of "had been".
• "the East Coast and Midwest of the United States" Maybe link these.
• "Orion's work would come to be published as" Maybe just "was" instead of "would come to be"
• "although would be heavily criticized in reviews" Missing a word? Mark Arsten (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've gone through and made all of these corrections too. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Berger and her research
• "who were then living in the area." Maybe see if you can remove a few words there.
• "and she would go on to attend their weekly meetings" Maybe just "attended" instead of "would go on to attend"?
• "on the internet and at festivals, with the duo receiving over 2000 responses, providing Berger with one of her main sources of information." This is kind of a long sentence and includes the
  WP:PLUSING
  construction. I suggest ending sentence after festivals and then starting the next sentence with "The duo received...".
• "She conducted formal interviews with over forty practicing Pagans, with over sixty others" I think "40" and "60" would be better here.
• "north-eastern United States" again.
• "Unlike the sociologists Margot Adler and Loretta Orion," You've already mentioned their qualifications, so I don't think you need to do it here.
• "a series of books entitled 'Studies in Comparative Religion'" Are the single quotes correct? I'm not sure how the MOS handles series of books.
• I made some light copyedits to this section, hope you approve. Mark Arsten (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've made most of the suggested changes here too. However I did keep "the sociologists" because readers may have skipped the previous section, thereby not being aware of the profession of these individuals. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Synopsis
• In one sentence you have "both... as well". Maybe just include one of them.
• "In the second chapter, entitled "The Magical Self"" and then "Chapter four, "A Circle within a Circle: The Neo-Pagan Community"," Maybe remove the "entitled" from the earlier one.
• "She then moves on to look at concepts of gender in the Wiccan community, both for men and women and also for homosexuals." Could probably remove "then". Also, I'm not sure about the last part: men, women, and homosexuals? Maybe there's a better way to put that.
• I might be a bit dense here, but I'm not sure what "emancipatory politics and life politics" are.
• "relationship between Wicca and routinization" What is routinization?

Right, I've made most of these suggested changes here. I've not gone on to explain the concepts of "emancipatory politics" and "life politics"; being sociological concepts, they probably warrant their own Wikipedia pages anyway. Similarly, I am unsure if a discussion of what routinization is warranted here; maybe it could be linked to routine ?(Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Wicca as a religion of late modernity
• "that elements of postmodernism can certainly be found within Wicca" Maybe remove "certainly"

Done. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Wicca as a result of globalism
• "modern westerners picking and choosing elements" I suggest you rephrase to avoid the participle here.

Done. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• The future of Wicca
• "Berger disagreed, arguing that it was" Maybe remove "it was" here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Academic reviews
• "Praising Berger for "maintaining a high degree of theoretical sophistication while remaining accessible for the average reader", he did however have some criticisms, for instance noting that Berger had used the terms "Wiccan" and "Neo-Pagan" interchangeably, even though they have different meanings and he felt that this might confuse some of the book's readers." This is kind of a long sentence, maybe see if you can break it up a bit.
• "Foltz did however highlight some problems" Maybe think about removing "however" here.
• As SandyGeorgia pointed out, this section is a bit quote heavy.

I've responded to these criticisms, editing the aforementioned sentence down. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Awards
• Not sure that I like the idea of a one sentence subsection like this. Also, who gave the award?

I can certainly appreciate your concern here, it's something that has bothered me too. However, I really cannot find any other information other than what I have included here. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Berger's later work
• I think the first sentence here could probably be tightened up a bit.
• "both with Leigh S. Shaffer, a fellow professor of sociology at West Chester University, and also" Maybe just use "both" or "also" here.

Done. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Alright, that's all for now, this was a fun article to read. I think the prose problems are fixable, but will need a bit more work. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if I don't return for a while. Regards, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You've certainly given me a lot to work on Mark, but thanks a bundle for reviewing this for me! I'll try and make my way through the corrections this evening, crossing them each out as I go along, if that's okay? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Sure, that's probably the best way to do it. Maybe we can collapse them when we're finished with them all? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, changes look good to me. I'll try to go through the rest by the end of the weekend. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are discouraged at FAC because they cause the archives to exceed

Wikipedia:Template limits (see FAC instructions.) For a sample of how to move lengthy dicussions to article talk, and avoid clogging the main FAC page, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Wong Kim Ark/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh yes, Ok. Is there a rule of thumb about how much space a review can take up before moving it to the talk page? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but the longer a review, the less likely other reviewers are to engage, since a very long review suggests that the article wasn't FAC ready, and should have been at

peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I've asked Malleus Fatuorum to have a glance over this if they have the time. Hopefully they can point out any further problems with the prose. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Missing bibliographic info for Adler 1979, Luhrmann 1996
• Foltz 1999 or 2000?
• Mary-Jo or Mary Jo Neitz?
• Check alphabetization of bibliography
• No citations to Greenwood 2000, Magliocco 2004, Salomonsen 2002
• Ranges should use endashes
• Where was Greenwood published?
• Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated or not
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for journals. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Nikkimaria, I've removed the superfluous Greenwood entry in the bibliography, and ensured that all the ranges used endashes. I've corrected "Mary-Jo" to "Mary Jo", and added the bibliographic information for Adler 1979 and Luhrmann 1996. I have ensured consistency in the use of state names and removed both the location of journals and the bibliographic entries for Magliocco 2004 and Salomonsen 2002. I can also confirm that Foltz is 2000, not 1999. Oh, and I put N before V in the bibliography, as it should be. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 not promoted by Ucucha 00:37, 23 February 2012 [12].

Swedish heraldry

Nominator(s): Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 05:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets the FA criteria. I think it is well-written, thorough, well-researched, non-controversial and well-referenced, with good use of images. This article is more graphically intensive than a lot of others, but it is an article about heraldry, which is a graphically intensive topic. If there is anything I can do to help further improve the article, please feel free to leave me a message here or on my talk page. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 05:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

1. Flags of the World may not be acceptable as a reliable source: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 87#Flags of the World and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Flags of the World website
   for previous (contradictory) discussions.
2. Ref 20: author name Jan Oskar Engene and date 13 June 1996 missing.
3. Ref 27: author name Željko Heimer missing.
4. Citations are inconsistently formatted. For example, if you're keeping the Flags of the World citations, then they should be formatted in the same way; refs 27 and 28 are not formatted the same way as refs 16 and 20. They should have authors, dates, publishers, etc.; the bare links (e.g. Refs 71, 72 and 73) should use cite templates as well, if you're keeping the cite templates elsewhere in the article.
5. Ref 12: accessdate, publisher missing.
6. Ref 30: date missing. I shall assume the self-published Bergman is reliable as he gives his sources, but see
   WP:SPS
   .
7. Heraldry of the World (refs. 42, 44, 46, 48, 51, 52, 55, 56), OK I see sources are given again, but with so many links to user-generated websites, I think you're going to have difficulty persuading people that the article uses "high-quality [my emphasis] reliable sources", which is part of FA criterion 1c. You've cited Ny Svensk Vapenbok, for example, in the References section (ref. 59), and that is the source most often cited at the user-generated websites, e.g. Granqvist (Flags of the World, ref 16) uses it. So why not use it directly rather than take citations second-hand?
8. Ref 53 is a dead link.
9. Ref 57: publisher is "oxelund.se" but other municipal sites are given as "Om Goteburg" or "Stenungsunds Kommun": formatting should be consistent.
10. Ref 63: accessdate missing.
11. Ref 64 publisher is given as "Svenskakyrkan.se" but below it refs 66 and 67 say "Svenska kyrkan": again should be consistent.
12. What makes Wadbring (ref. 79) a reliable source?
13. I think the barelinks to commons should be formatted the same way as the other commons links (as interwiki link templates) or remove them and rely on one interwiki link ("Coats of arms of Sweden") right at the end in the external links section.

Re:#6: As I recall, I think someone else added a bit of info on a royal decree granting ducal rights to all landskaps, and I think I found Bergman's paper by web searching the date in question with keywords and added it as a source for the claim, then backed it up with a passage from Nordisk Familjebok (a book published 1921) with a link directly to the appropriate page in a digitized copy (see the next ref listed). I suppose we could cut Bergman loose at this point, if the ref is no good. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 15:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:#7: I'd love to go directly to Ny Svensk Vapenbok if only I could get my hands on a copy! I have not even been able to get it through ILL since moving to Okinawa. I don't want to make assumptions based on second-hand sources, per

WP:SYNTH, but I have a copy of the book on order now, and I expect to have it in hand in a month or less. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 15:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Re:#7: I would not consider that web site to be a very reliable source for content, but if it makes any difference, the link was from a footnote, where an image of a seal was linked (in some context) to illustrate the ambiguity of Bo Jonsson's heraldic influence in Södermanland (disagreement over the extent of such influence is the topic of the footnote). I pulled the ref tags out of the footnotes just now to put things back into context. If they need to go, I guess the article could do without the footnote. Please take another look and let me know what you think. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 15:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

1. Refs 16, 20, 27, 28 (Flags of the World): OK.
2. Ref 42 (Härryda kommun): I appreciate I don't speak Swedish but the website certainly didn't look to be about the exchange of a logo with a coat of arms. I presume it's a dead link?
3. Ref 48 (Arboga): I don't see the date 1974 mentioned at the source, though I do see 1969.
4. Ref 51 (Stockholm): I don't see St Olav mentioned at the source, though I do see St Erik and the date of official grant.
5. Ref 66 (Church of Sweden): OK
6. Ref 67 (Church of Sweden): Error message, looks like another dead link

Re: Ref 42 (Härryda): The linked article states:

"2006 gav kommunfullmäktige kommunstyrelsen uppdraget att ta fram förslag till ett kommunvapen. Upprinnelsen var en motion av Pehter Hill vars motiv var att kommunen, vid det tillfället, var en av endast tre kommuner som inte hade något vapen samt att ett vapen som kunde representera kommunens samtliga delar skulle ge en bättre identitet."

In brief, Pehter Hill proposed municipal arms in 2006 because Härryda was one of only three municipalities that still had no arms, and he felt municipal arms would help present a unified identity. So no, it's not a dead link, it's still a good source. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 05:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

1. All images checked. No problems found apart from one minor one.
   talk) 17:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Ref 67 was archived and can be seen at [13]. Ref 42 has been fixed (both link and date were wrong). /Lokal_Profil 12:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 48. The 1974 date is the PRV registration date (1974-01-11) which can be found at this page at prv.se. /Lokal_Profil 13:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, prose, 1a: the prose fails to engage the reader from the very first sentences:

• Swedish heraldry encompasses the heraldic achievements in modern and historic Sweden, including royal and civic arms, noble and burgher arms, ecclesiastical heraldry, heraldic displays and Swedish heraldic descriptions. Swedish heraldic style conforms to the German-Nordic heraldic tradition, noted for its multiple helmets and crests which are treated as inseparable from the shield, its repetition of colours and charges between the shield and the crest, and its scant use of heraldic furs.[1]

Two sentences that manage never to define "heraldry" while using the word eight times. This suggests the prose throughout needs independent eyes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice overcapitalisation: "officer of arms", "Swedish army", "Swedish navy", it should be. And related items. These are not even English-language items, but translated, too.
• The Times.
• "judges and priests... while the merchants tended"—space before the ellipsis points, too.
• First random plagiarism check: "Gotland, as a free republic loosely associated with the Swedish crown, had already borne a ram with a banner (Agnus Dei) as a well-known city seal by 1280." It's on quite a few websites. Can someone check whether they are copying WP, or is it the other way around? It's sourced to a translation from the Swedish; if this is legitimate, did WP translate it, or is that translation provided next to the Swedish-language version? I'd have thought quotation marks were in order. Tony (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Tony, for your feedback. To answer the specific question about the Gotland arms, I added that to the article. I read it here in Swedish and wrote it into the article in English (this is, after all, English WP, though most published sources on Swedish heraldry are written in Swedish). I have tried to use English sources where possible, but few English-language heraldry sources give more than cursory information on any other than British and North American heraldry, and few Swedish/Scandinavian heraldry sources are available in English. I would have thought quotation marks should be reserved for when I am directly quoting or translating the source verbatim, though here I was summing up part of what the source stated. By the way, all I see in Google hits are WP mirror sites. If you find it in that phrasing on another site that is not a mirror, I will be happy to demonstrate that they are quoting/plagiarising WP, not the other way round. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 12:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is lot of duplicated text here [14].
  talk) 09:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The linked page is dated 2010-10-12. Here is a diff from 2009, a full year prior, showing that our page had that text well before the "Heraldic Times" page was written. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 not promoted by Ucucha 21:22, 22 February 2012 [15].

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 14:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's a GA, and has been peer reviewed. I believe it's ready for FA. :) Khanassassin ☪ 14:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Inadequate reception. Not a comprehensive overview of the critical consensus. Lacks commentary from the release of the game. Who are "Game Over Online"? Who cares about Mr Bill? Why is the GBA version such a heavy focus? And yet, you don't include a single Playstation review? You need reliable sources contemporary with the release. This means more sources like PC Gamer. I also think you have weighted the "Director's Cut" reception very heavily as opposed to the original release, you have the same amount of reviews listed in that section as the original, even though those sources do not have as much influence now with the app generation than the specialist press did then with the game's original release.

Anyone can quickly Google what we think of Broken Sword now, we can just scan the Metacritic score. What a Wikipedia should show us, is what we thought of it then. -

n 15:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Sorry, but I don't think that's a reason to fail it. It can be easily fixed. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not saying that it can't be fixed. But an article that is not comprehensive/well-researched fails the FAC process. Here's a start - the
  n 16:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • Thanks! I could surely use the making of, please! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Hahnchen. Not comprehensive. Also, relies on some questionable sources. No indication of how Game Over Online and Mr Bill meet

• I'm currently removing Game Over Online and Mr. Bill, and adding sources like GameSpot etc. So please, wait --Khanassassin ☪ 16:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is a
  talk) 00:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Reluctant oppose I peer reviewed this and the comments migrated from the PR page to Khanassassin's talk page. When I was asked if the PR was done, I replied in part The language needs work and I think the plot section could be made more concise. If you get those taken care of and want me to take a second look, please ping me then diff. To my mind this meant that the artcile was not ready for FAC (as the goal of the PR was stated to be FA), although I did not say so explicitly. No edits of any kind were made to the article after I made these comments and before it was nominated at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 not promoted by

The Hobbit

Nominator(s): De728631 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has received a peer-review in January 2012 and has since been edited to a level that meets the FA criteria. Strebe supports this nomination.

As to the topic, The Hobbit is the first published part of

• " Gandalf, an itinerant wizard introduces Bilbo to a company of thirteen dwarves. During the journey he disappears on side errands dimly hinted at, only to appear again at key moments in the story." "he" is ambiguous or even misleading and "During the journey the wizard disappears…." Or similar is needed.
  • Good point, I'm going to add the "wizard".
• men
  (humans); reads oddly to me and [[Man (Middle-earth)|humans]]; would be better I think.
  • We could as well leave the humans away and write [[Man (Middle-earth)|Men]] with a capital M to point out that it's the race, not the gender.
• Elrond the sage implies he may be of the race of sages - suggest "Elrond the elven sage"
  • I don't see a problem here but I'll add "elven" for clarification.
    • He is half-elven, as revealed in LotR. His race is not stated in The Hobbit and possibly was not intended to be elven. If he were of some race of sages the article would capitalize 'sage', presumably? —Strebe

Plot

• "and his band of twelve dwarves" twelve is mentioned immediately above and redundant.
  • Sure, going to remove that.
• the Lonely Mountain contains a duplicate link as does "dragon"
  • OK
• "Bilbo gets separated" surely "Bilbo becomes separated"
  • "To get separated" is correct in my opinion.
    • I agree 'get separated' is correct. –Strebe
• "who engages him in a game of riddles for the path out of the tunnels, or his demise" seems clumsy and needs to explain the reward/forfeit aspect.
  • Going to split that into two sentences: "who engages him in a game of riddles. As a reward for solving all riddles Gollum will show him the path out of the tunnels, but if Bilbo fails, his life will be forfeit."
• "The expedition travel to the Mountain" - why capital M?
  • Because it's called the Lonely Mountain. I'm going to add the full name.

Concept and creation

• I believe "George Allen & Unwin, Ltd." with a comma before Ltd is a US convention.
  • You're right, we should use the British convention without a comma.
    • The correct form is what is given by AU themselves: without comma. –Strebe
• "paper rationing brought on by wartime conditions and not ending until 1949" reads oddly to me. Perhaps "paper rationing brought on by wartime conditions that did not end until 1949"
  • Hmm, I think you're the first one to complain about that. Even the peer-reviewer didn't mind the sentence.
• "unavailable in this period" → unavailable during this period?
  • That's better.
• "In December 1937, The Hobbit's publisher, Stanley Unwin". Surely "In December 1937, The Hobbit's English publisher, Stanley Unwin" as he already had a US one by then too.
  • Do we really need to disambiguate that? It's clear from the name of the publishing house Allen & Unwin that Stanley Unwin was associated with the UK part.
    • Also, the US publisher was by arrangement with AU, not independently. –Strebe
• "Tolkien subsequently began work on 'The New Hobbit' " I don't think the single quote marks conform to MOS.
  • You're right, this should be a working title in italics.
• "better to its sequel" does not read well.
  • How about "attempting to adjust the tone of The Hobbit to its sequel?"
• "These small edits included, for example, changing the phrase elves that are now called Gnomes.." Why the italics?
  • Good question, those should be normal quotes per MOS.
• "published with commentary on the creation" might be better as "published including commentary on the creation"
  • No, because it refers to these two specific editions with a commentary inside. "... two editions of The Hobbit have been published including commentary on the creation" might be mistaken for an arbitrary number of standalone commentaries.
• "Micheal D. C. Drout and Hilary Wynn comment the work provides a solid foundation for further criticism" is missing "that" after "comment" although I wonder about the relevance of this sentence - it seems like faint praise.
  • The only thing to fix here in my opinion is Michael Drout's given name and in fact the "that".

Illustration and design

• "Tolkien's correspondence and publisher's records show that Tolkien" → "Tolkien's correspondence and publisher's records show that he"
  • Good.
• "Satisfied with his skills, the publishers thence asked" - typo.
  • Do you mean "thence"? That's a valid word meaning "therefore".
• "The original jacket design contained several shades of several colours" better as "The original jacket design contained several shades of various colours"
  • Good one.

Genre

• "While Tolkien claimed later" - odd word order
  • Going to swap that: "While Tolkien later claimed".
• "to dislike the aspect of the narrative voice addressing the reader directly, the narrative voice contributes significantly to the success of the novel" - two "narrative voice" in one sentence
  • Going to change that to "...it contributes significantly...".
• "that is accepted into mainstream" → that has been accepted into mainstream
  • Good point.

Style

• "from the poem Völuspá from the Poetic Edda" is slightly clumsy.
  • "...of the Poetic Edda" should be better.

Critical analysis

• "The evolution and maturation of the protagonist, Bilbo Baggins, is central to the story. This journey of maturation, where Bilbo gains a clear sense of identity and confidence in the outside world, may be seen as a Bildungsroman rather than a traditional quest." This has already been referred to above and at the very least contains a duplicate link.
  • This has all been mentioned before in parts. But there is however the section where themes are analysed and thus it is vital to recall what the whole book is about. The link to "Bildungsroman" will be removed though.
• Ancrene Wisse should be italicized.
  • OK
• "...The first men to talk of 'trees and stars' saw things very differently. To them, the world was alive with mythological beings... To them the whole of creation was "myth-woven and elf-patterned".' Has a confused use of apostrophes.
  • Good catch, going to fix that.

Reception

• CS Lewis has a dup link.
  • OK

Legacy

• This tension can help introduce readers to 'readerly' and 'writerly' interpretations" & 'small folk' etc - see above re MOS
  • OK. Per MOS single words and terms may be italicized for emphasis.
• "as related by Deitch himself" what is this intended to convey?
  • That is to convey that it was Deitch who came up with this news last month and so far there has been no statement from related parties like the Tolkien Trust. I think it's important to point out that the news about his film is based on self-published claims.
• "(four total hours)" surely "(four hours in total)" or similar.
  • Going to change that.
• "Likewise, it can be seen that the game is not" is rather clumsy.
  • "Likewise, it can be seen that the game is not attempting to re-tell the story..." makes sense to me and doesn't look clumsy either.
    • Too many words to say too little. Passive. Unnecessary present progressive. Redundancies with preceding sentence. Spurious dashes. I’ll fix. Thanks. –Strebe

Please excuse these quibbles. This is good work and I think you will get there. I also have a question. I know the book itself but have not read much formal criticism of it. In my mind Bilbo was something of an autobiographical figure (a respectable, conservative hobbit) taking his children/the dwarves on a moral journey and it was mildly surprising not to see mention of the idea - but what do I know? I presume it is not mentioned (or treated as significant if mentioned) in the sources. Ben MacDui 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your input (see my comments above for details). As to Bilbo being an autobiographical part, Tolkien has once compared himself to a Hobbit, "I am in fact a hobbit in all but size", but you're right in that this hasn't been taken too serious by a lot of sources. In fact I could only find a single book on Google scholar that jumped on it. De728631 (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The changes explained in detail above have been implemented. Some items have however been removed by other editors as the article evolves. De728631 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a random look shows that some careful sifting is required to polish the prose throughout:

• Unsure why "English" and "UK" are linked, in the infobox.
  • Probably because we have articles on the English language and the United Kingdom which may be linked per the manual of Template:Infobox book ("Wikilinks can be used in any of the infobox fields").
    • We have articles on "the" and "a", too. But we do not link those items. Please remove the links from the inbofox.
      • Done.
• "Subsequent editions in English were published in 1951, 1966, 1978 and 1995. The novel has been reprinted frequently by many publishers.[21] In addition, The Hobbit has been translated into over forty languages, some of them more than once.[22]". Probably remove "In addition" as a needless additive connector. "them" backrefers to something unclear, although we can work out that the noun would be "translations". "into over" might be more stylish as "into more than" (if the next bit no longer requires "more than" ... BTW, were there more than two translations into any language?
  • While I didn't write the sentence it's clear to me that "them" refers to "languages". And see Translations of The Hobbit, there are three different German translations, four translations to Polish and even six to Russian.
    • The referent is unclear: it's a grammatical problem. Tony (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've changed that to "The Hobbit has been translated into over forty languages, with more than one published version for some languages." De728631 (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "a course that would not only change the context of the original story, but also lead to substantial changes to the character of Gollum." You could lose most of the alsos, including this one.
• "in order to " is almost always better as "to". And there are lots of ins hanging around: "In the second edition edits, in order to reflect the new concept of"
  • Ok, those can be trimmed.
• MoS says US, not USA.
  • I'm going to change that.
• "He abandoned the new revision at chapter three after he received criticism that it "just wasn't The Hobbit","
  • Ok, that can be left out.
• "After an unauthorized paperback edition of The Lord of the Rings appeared from Ace Books in 1965, Houghton Mifflin and Ballantine requested Tolkien to refresh the text of The Hobbit in order to renew USA copyright". So it's the old-fashioned BrEng zed? An edition appeared from a publisher ... is this right? They requested someone to refresh? Again, "in order to" is an urchin. US. Is it the US copyright"? (I'm unsure of the context.) Tony (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is of course "the US copyright" that was to be renewed, going to fix that. And yes, this article, like all Tolkien-related articles, uses British English with Oxford spelling (suffix -ize rather than -ise), see talk page template. And I'd say Tolkien was asked to refresh the text.

Comment Oppose

• I've only taken a quick look here and would like to do a full review, but not sure I'll have time. I'm a little worried about the sources - I'm happy to see Carpenter, Zipes, Anderson, and St. Clair, less happy to see various links to lesson plans and such, so will be taking a closer look. Do you by chance have access to any scholarly sources that are available behind paywalls? If not, let me know. I can check a few places. Thanks.
  talk) 20:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sorry, but I've run into a problem. I have Jack Zipes at hand. This sentence from the article is word-for-word the same as the source, right down to the dash: However, Bilbo "Baggins is not the usual fairy tale protagonist—not the handsome eldest son or beautiful youngest daughter—but a plump, middle-aged, well-to-do Hobbit." (I've removed this from the text, by the way).
• This sentence: "Also printed here are a number of hard-to-find texts such as the 1923 version of Tolkien's poem "Iumonna Gold Galdre Bewunden" in the article is written in the source [18] as "Anderson also provides "a number of difficult-to-find texts (such as the 1923 version of Tolkiens poem Iumonna Gold Galdre Bewunden" -- which is quite close paraphrasing.
  • I have changed that to "The edition also presents a number of little-known texts such as the 1923 version of Tolkien's poem 'Iumonna Gold Galdre Bewunden". De728631 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but it's still too close.
  talk) 14:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is enough for me to have to oppose.
  talk) 21:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • All those points above can be addressed and fixed so I don't see any reason to oppose the nomination, even more since you have already copyedited the article yourself. And what irks me in particular is that there has been a peer-review last month where such objections should have been raised much earlier. De728631 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This book by Zipes: Zipes, Jack David (1979). Breaking the Magic Spell: Radical Theories of Folk and Fairy Tales. University Press of Kentucky. p. 173.
  talk) 21:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That source is nowhere directly characterized as a teaching guide. Teaching guides "and books of study" are treated in the paragraph above. Zipe's Breaking the Magic Spell is mentioned in connection with classroom literature though which is a valid argument when it comes to scholarly literature. De728631 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In the article it mentions it as a teaching guide in this sentence: "Another approach to critique taken in the classroom has been to propose" which is cited to the book and placed in the education section. As a reader, it seems to me that we're suggesting this is how The Hobbit is taught in classroom, ie. teaching guide.
  talk) 14:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• One more point: generally The Hobbit is considered by all children's literature scholars to be in the genre of fantasy. In my view this article isn't quite clear enough on that point.
  talk) 21:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Quote from the article: "The book is popularly called (and often marketed as) a fantasy novel, but like Peter Pan and Wendy by J. M. Barrie and The Princess and the Goblin by George MacDonald, both of which influenced Tolkien and contain fantasy elements, it is primarily identified as being children's literature. The two genres are not mutually exclusive, so some definitions of high fantasy include works for children by authors such as L. Frank Baum and Lloyd Alexander alongside the works of Gene Wolfe and Jonathan Swift, which are more often considered adult literature. Sullivan credits the first publication of The Hobbit as an important step in the development of high fantasy, and further credits the 1960s paperback debuts of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings as essential to the creation of a mass market for fiction of this kind as well the fantasy genre's current status.[58]" De728631 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The genre section mentions fantasy in the third paragraph. Of course it depends entirely on the sources, which is why we need to be comprehensive in our sourcing, but the sources regarding children's literature I have at hand, places it in the genre of fantasy. At the least I think more sources should be surveyed and the section restructured a bit. Regarding the passage that was verbatim from the source and the close-paraphrasing: my policy is to oppose if I find such issues, and clearly to remove a verbatim section. As I had the source at hand it was easier than usual. Here's the problem - I surveyed, at random, about 5 sources. I found one that used a verbatim sentence, one that used a very close paraphrase, one that didn't quite adequately present what was in the source and for two I was unable to verify the cited material (though those were google book snippet views, always problematic.) Given these results, I think the page needs a top to bottom source check, which is time consuming. That's what my oppose is based on.
  talk) 13:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If you have sources that classify The Hobbit as fantasy please add them to the article. De728631 (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm really not editing much these days, which is the reason I'm reviewing. The Riverside Anthology of Children's Literature places it in fantasy, and that's a fairly important text. Aside from that though, I'm not entirely convinced this page is comprehensive. A topic such as this, an important book about which much has been written, presents difficulties regarding comprehensiveness. Some works are repetitive and others derivative, but it's important that all points-of-view have been presented. To be honest, I haven't read the entire page because of the spot-check results, but I will see what I can find regarding sources and post to the article talk page. Won't happen immediately though.
  talk) 14:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have edited the "Genre" section by adding more, recent sources for the "children's literature" claim, some of which also stress out that there is sometimes no disctinction between either genre ("the most popular of all twentieth-century fantasies written for children"). And for the opposite view there's now Jane Chance who says that the book is only theoretically a children's novel. The Riverside Anthology of Children's Literature is just one source though and fairly old at that (1985) so I wouldn't be too confident in that book alone. And even if they place The Hobbit into the fantasy bin, it is an anthology of children's literature first of all, judging from the title. It seems to me that the Anthology is just another case for the "ambiguous genre" sources. De728631 (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In this edit the following was added: "although [Tolkien] said later that the book was not specifically written for children but had rather been created out of his passion for epic legends and mythologies." The source says: "In his letters he writes that he did not know why he wrote it bu that the story was derived from his passion for epic, heroic legend, mythology and fairy stories"'. Unfortunately it's another case of close paraphrasing.

• I disagree. While it may look like paraphrasing the sentences are clearly different and it's in the nature of the terms that the phrases look similar. I chose to write it that way to avoid yet another quote in that section. However, I've now changed it to "created out of his interest in mythologies and epic legends." De728631 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Post edit conflict - re genre it's important to follow what the sources say. The editors of the Riverside Anthology are respectable and well-known scholars of children's literature so a source like that is worthy of consideration and shouldn't be summarily dismissed until fully inspected, imo. As editors we can't decide; we need to let the sources lead us.
  talk) 15:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The question is though, why does the Anthology say that The Hobbit is a work of Fantasy if it is meant to be a collection of children's literature? I don't dismiss the source but I find it ambiguous to derive a final statement "TH is Fantasy" from it. As I said above, even they write that The Hobbit is a work of Fantasy that doesn't dismiss the fact that it was adopted into an anthology of children's literature. De728631 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In the same way that Alice in Wonderland and many other works in children's lit are fantasy. Children's lit and fantasy are not mutually exclusive; what concerns me is that doesn't seem to be clear. Anyway, this discussion needs to move to the talk page. I'd be happy to help with this page when I have time, but first it needs a top to bottom source check.
  talk) 16:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Discussion moved to article talk page.
  talk) 23:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• One more comment on possibly close paraphrasing: per
  WP:PARAPHRASE it is acceptable to closely paraphrase original text "when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing." This seems to apply here for some sources because those texts are already on a professional level where you can't condense the information any further, and using only quotings from any source text is also bad writing style. But I'm going to try and edit those case where something can actually be done. De728631 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 not promoted by

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Nominator(s): SCB '92 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...I've done so much work on it in the past 4 months to make sure it meets the criteria this time-SCB '92 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The toolbox gives the wrong edit count; this is the article history. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 7: can this be split? That's a huge page range for verification pursposes
  • It's all for the system requirements
• What makes this a high-quality
  reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This? This
  ?
  • They're notable-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. I've never heard of any of them, and I spend even more time with video games than I do with Wikipedia (as if that were possible). That however, is a poor argument. A stronger argument is that none of those sites are built into the video game reviews template, and none have their own articles. It shouldn't be hard to find replacements from more notable sites, considering that this game was heavily, heavily covered.
      Wha? 11:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Also, even if they are notable that doesn't matter - notability does not equal reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firing squad is a gaming site started by Dennis Fong. A rationale for its reliability is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midtown Madness in the collapsed section titled "Issues resolved, Ealdgyth".
        The VG project considers Square Enix Music Online is a situational source, in that only content posted by the site's staff is considered reliable. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy XIII/archive2. I'd say that the reliability here depends on what the source is being used for.
        I wouldn't consider the others reliable, and also recommend that replacement sources be found or the content removed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• FN 23: formatting
  • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• BethBlog or Beth Blog? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, it was actually Bethesda Blog-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review - Nothing has changed since my last image review, so this is still good.
  
• Comments A few things I'd change:
  • "Seven skills are selected early in the game as major skills, with the remainder termed minor." - this statement, while correct as is, should specify that there is a difference between major and minor skills, or failing that, be removed from the lead. Consider "Seven skills are selected early in the game as major skills, which improve quickly, with the remainder termed minor." or something else along those lines.
    • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "praised for its impressive graphics at the time" in the lead - I would consider removing "at the time", as it's automatically implied. We don't dis on Halo 1 because Halo 3 had better graphics.
    • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jauffre tells the player that the only way to close the gates permanently is to find someone of the royal bloodline to retake the throne and relight the Dragonfires in the Imperial City." - it needs to me mentioned that the Amulet of Kings is used to light the Dragonfires, thus implicitly informing readers unfamiliar with the game that the amulet is more than a MacGuffin.
    • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section (generally) as the above quote, consider mentioning that Jauffre is the grand master of the Blades.
    • DoneSCB '92 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oblivion features dynamic weather and time, shifting between snow, rain, fog, and sunny and overcast skies, along with the darkening red sky near Oblivion portals." - the second half of the quote, after 'skies' is awkward, mostly because the way it is worded, it assumes that people would have already know about that feature.
    • Removed-SCB '92 (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wherever this was not possible, the screen displays a message stating "You cannot go that way, turn back". However, the team still built in viewable landscape several miles in." - the second half of the quote, starting with 'However' is awkwardly worded. Consider replacing "in" with "past the point in which the character can no longer proceed", or something less wordy than that but which conveys the same information.
    • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soule had worked with Bethesda and Todd Howard back during the creation of Morrowind,..." - this sounds unprofessional. Consider removing the word "back"; I think that's all that's needed as the article has previously established that Morrowind came right before this game in the TES chronology.
    • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he soundtrack was generally positively received, with GSoundtracks awarding it 4/5 stars, calling it a "conventional but atmospheric fantasy score",[64] and Square Enix Music a 6/10, criticizing its "monotonous action tracks"." - Here we have a positive review and a mediocre review connected by an 'and'. I don't feel that structure works well. Consider using a 'however' or 'but' type connector (which will necessitate a bit of tweaking to at least the second sentence.
    • Done-SCB '92 (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the stuff in the "Further Reading" is either a) already entirely covered by the article, b) rendered incorrect by the article, or c) a boring stub written by someone know one's ever heard of about something no one really cares about. My recommendations: remove the 3rd, 7th, and 8th items on the list. The third is behind a freewall, and isn't worth getting an account for, and the 7th and 8th are kinda useless. Also, consider axing the whole section.
    • And done-SCB '92 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it. In the future, please remember that the audience hasn't necessarily played the game you're writing about, you can't make leaps of inferrance that assume that they know the game.
    Wha? 16:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• 5 non-free media is a lot to me (File:Oblivion—Horse Armor.jpg seems like it offers least to the article).
  • removed-SCB '92 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think resizing them smaller would be more prudent for fair-use.
  • done-SCB '92 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • By resize, I meant reduce the size of the uploaded files, rather than the displayed size in the article (Personally, I rarely adjust the size in articles because the default works best). I think 460×345 is a little too big for fair use. If you don't have the software to do this, you can tag the image with {{Non-free reduce|type=screen}} for a bot to take care of it in a week or so. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
      • (
        Wha? 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Undone; so I guess guyinblack's comment "I think resizing them smaller would be more prudent for fair-use" is contradicted by Sven Manguard?-SCB '92 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]