Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2011

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:09, 28 August 2011 [5].

Calgary Stampede

Nominator(s): Resolute 00:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, the Stampede is Calgary. It defines this city's identity and history and is one of Canada's largest and most important festivals, and a party perhaps without equal in this country. It has drawn politicians, actors, dignitaries and British Royalty... and it has drawn criticism by animal welfare groups for its rodeo and use of animals. I have been slowly working on the article over a period of about two years, but with the centennial Stampede coming next year, I used this year's event to drive the final push in the hopes that it will be featured in time for next year's celebration. I open the floor in the hopes that you will agree. Resolute 00:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to note that I am a current WikiCup participant, so this is potentially a Cup nomination. Resolute 15:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally titles of website pages don't need to be italicized
• Not sure why, but your Foran and Reasons harvlinks aren't working
• FN 137: page(s)?
• Why include a location for Globe and Mail and not for National Post? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Points 2,3 and 4 addressed (I found a url for ref 137), but I am not sure how to address the first. The italicization of the website links seems to be the result of the {{citation}} template's behaviour, and I don't see an alternative option. Thanks again for the reviews, Resolute 15:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support - after seeing the progress made with my small comments, and others more significant ones.

• Love reading about the Stampede.
• I have more to come, but just something to point out - in your section on Animal welfare (not my favourite, I must admit), mention of tie-down roping and not steer wrestling seems to ignore some modern incidents (and a bad year for the Stampede)(CBC Story from 2009). (The incident with the steer also inspired a rule change). A very fair presentation of the animal rights issues overall, though.
• Also, unless I missed it in your sources, this Maclean's article (Link) also covers steer wrestling and rule changes to promote safety.
• Kudos for including all aspects of the event, these links aren't meant to swell the section to undue weight, just to add in some of the more recent material. Canada Hky (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I worry a little about getting too far into the minutae of the issue, but that is an interesting MacLeans link. I will see about how to integrate it into the article, as it does offer some good info. Thanks, Resolute 23:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I second the concerns about going into too much depth here and a WP:UNDUE problem, as these issues are issues facing rodeo as a sport in general. The Stampede is sort of like the Kentucky Derby; because it's so big, it gets the most press and attracts undue attention, but the issues are actually industry-wide (Cheyenne Frontier Days just had kind of a bad year this way, too.) I'll defer to Resolute on any changes, but having fought NPOV issues across most of the rodeo articles on wiki, I just want to suggest that this issue is well-covered elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, that it doesn't need a ton of weight - just that there were some sources that were not included from fairly prominent Canadian publications / broadcasters. I think the issue I raised has been addressed adequately, I will try to take a look at the rest of the article as time permits. Canada Hky (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Minor inconsistency between caption and article text about pancake breakfast: "up to" or "over" 60,000 people?
• Redundant description on File:CalgaryStampedeLogo.png is redundant. Really, though, if you're claiming the image is PD you don't need an FUR at all
• Clicking on the source link for File:Program_for_1912_Calgary_Stampede.jpg yields "your current query is expired". Also, which of the applications of PD-Canada are you claiming here? Should specify on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 1912 image, I have encountered this problem with Glenbow Museum images before. It appears they do not assign permanent URLs to their files, you have to perform your search each time. 117Avenue (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you go to the search page and enter the ID number for the image (NA-604-1A) in the keyword field, it will come up. I have fixed the pancake breakfast caption to be consistent with the source. The Stampede Logo one I am not sure of - I uploaded it as Fair Use because I wasn't certain of the copyright status. Someone else changed it to PD-Text but left my FUR. I was going to remove my FUR and leave the source, description, etc. behind, but it occurred to me that while US copyright law would argue it is PD, I am not certain about Canadian copyright law. I believe it is, but am not completely certain. I am trying to find something in the copyright law that will answer one way or another. Thanks, Resolute 14:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Connormah transferred it to Commons and fixed the description. Resolute 23:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch. I was involved in an extensive peer review of the article and suggested some images for use here in that process. I have just re-read the article and find it meets the FA criteria. The article is very well done, cleanly written, and beautifully illustrated. I made one typo correction and found a missing word (assume this is not just an AM Eng vs Can Eng thing) Corporations and community groups hold lavish events throughout the city for their staff and clients,[139] while bars and pubs erect party tents, the largest of which draws [up] to 20,000 people per day.[140] Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that was definitely a missing word. Thank you for catching that, and I appreciate both the review and the support. Cheers! Resolute 04:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Source-checking – Spot-checked about 10 or so references and found nothing troublesome. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments reading through now. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an algorithm for figuring out when in July it is? Has it always been thus?

For many Calgarians, the event results in reduced productivity as workplace and personal responsibilities are relaxed - ermm, what? The last five words have lost me....

• Nice way to say "a lot of people party a lot and are too hung over to do much, and those who aren't take the week off anyway!!" (grinning, ducking and running) --MTBW

Otherwise looking pretty good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Stampede always starts on the Friday closest to, but before, the 10th. So it will always start between the 3rd and the 9th of July. Problem is, I don't have a way of sourcing that. I'll have to do some more digging. Also, will attempt to reword the second passage. Thanks, Resolute 14:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded that passage. I am leafing through old media guides to see if I can cite the formula for the dates the event runs. Resolute 23:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with further nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Might link Alberta in the lead for the poor neglected non-Canadians
• When did the official name drop the "Exhibition"?
• Does E.L. Richardson have an article?
• Per
  WP:MOSNUM
  , "12-hour clock times end with dotted or undotted lower-case a.m. or p.m., or am or pm", not "AM"
• Comma use could be tweaked - some phrases need one (ex. ""Aggie Days", a program designed to introduce urban schoolchildren to agriculture, was introduced in 1989") while others need one removed (ex. "It is the largest, and most famous event of its kind in the world")
• "Offering a prize of $100,000 to the winner of each major discipline and $1,000,000 total on championship day alone, it also offers the richest payout" - offering...offers is repetitive, can a synonym be used? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Appreciated. All of your points should be addressed, and no, there is no article on Richardson that I can find. Thanks again! Resolute 22:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The National Cutting Horse Association sanctions a World Series of cutting event,

It is US-based, but seems to have a growing world flair. In addition to the Calgary event, there is also one in France in 2011. That said, I think noting that it is an American organization coming to Canada would add to the uniqueness of the event, so I will make a note as you suggest. Additionally, in response to your question in this edit summary, it is capitalized as a proper name, i.e.: the "World Series of Cutting". Thanks for your review, and the promotion! Resolute 20:56, 28 August 2011 (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 promoted by Ucucha 01:46, 26 August 2011 [6].

Alister Murdoch

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This nom follows on directly from the recently successful FAC for Valston Hancock—similar subject matter, style and sourcing. From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of the Royal Military College, Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force. They were Air Marshals McCauley, Scherger, Hancock, and Murdoch. The first three have been through FAC, and now it’s time for the last of the quartet, Murdoch, whose article has recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews. Thanks in advance for any input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tks Dank. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note: I've read through all the questions and answers and I agree with all of Ian's replies, except that I don't have any firm answer yet for when to attribute a quote in-text. I'm now asking for attribution more than I used to. - Dank (push to talk) 10:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Missing bibliographic info for Coulthard-Clark Air Marshals of the RAAF
• Be consistent in whether you say "Retrieved on" or just "Retrieved"
• Why is Allen & Unwin wikilinked in Dornan and not Coulthard-Clark? Also, did it change locations? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, tks for spotting all those. A&U may have moved, on the other hand it may be vagaries of political boundaries -- St Leonards and Crows Nest are very close together, and North Sydney in its broadest sense covers both of them -- can only go with what the books themselves say... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just several minor ones...

• Rise to Chief of the Air Staff: Is "fulfil" British English or a typo?
  • Good 'ole British/Australian English -- one "l" at the end.
• Is "Murdoch was promoted air marshal" missing a "to". or is this customary phrasing for military pages.
  • Heh, it is customary in militarise, however if WP reviewers object to it I don't mind changing... ;-)
• It isn't customary to wikilink a reference publisher, like in ref 7.
  • Yes but I have linked the publisher in an earlier ref (#4).
    • I didn't mean it the way I phrased it; I wikilink publishers on occasion myself. I was talking about having an external link to a ref publisher, like in refs 7 and 13. That, as far as I know, isn't customary for FAs. This is why I shouldn't review at night... Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand the question. - Dank (push to talk) 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I think I do now, though I assumed it wasn't a big deal after the comment about not reviewing at night... ;-) I assume it refers to citations 7 and 13. Every FAC I've submitted uses links to external publishers of online refs, if WP doesn't have an article on them. I understood that was customary and it's never been considered an issue all the times I've done it -- that includes the three successfuly FAs immediately preceding this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor, but the page number in ref 44 has a space between the p. and number. This is inconsistent with most of the other references. The London Gazette refs are like this as well, but I understand a template forces them to be that way, so I'm not that worried about them. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I like consistency myself and generally modify all citations to match whatever the templates give, so will do so here. Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I went over this quite thoroughly during the MilHist A-class review and the few concerns I had were addressed there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belated thanks, HJ... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, most minor:

• "employment of helicopters in battle". Why "employment", when "deployment" is (I believe) normally used?
  • "Deployment" is certainly often used but I thought "employment" just as reasonable, and perhaps a bit less jargonistic for the lead.
• "Knighted in 1966, Murdoch was the fourth in a series of CASs who had been cadets at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, and as such was described by Air Chief Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger as "the last of the professionals"." A couple of points here. First, this isn't mentioned in the body of the article, which seems to focus more (but by no means exclusively) on his weaknesses as Chief of the Air Staff rather than his strengths. Repeating the quote (or even extending it) could help the balance. Second, I don't quite understand the connection here. Was Scherger saying that Murdoch was a "professional" because he had trained at Duntroon (as did Scherger)? Were later Chiefs who had trained elsewhere not subject to the same rigorous training? Clearly I'm not asking for a detailed explanation in the lead, but I feel the quote may need a bit more context.
  • Heh, re. the first point, I can't extend the quote because that's all there is. Re. the second point, the implication is indeed that Scherger was calling him "professional" because of the (shared) Duntroon pedigree, which is why I specifically said "as such". As far as later Chiefs' training went, it wasn't until 20 years after Murdoch that another graduate of a military college (the RAAF's own, this time) was appointed Chief.
    • As I say, it could help both clarity and balance if the quote was repeated in the body, and Murdoch and Scherger's shared pedigree at Duntroon reiterated. Apterygial ^talk 14:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure of the benefit of putting exactly the same quote in both places, however I wouldn't be averse to moving the quote to the main body, in the context of the Duntroon connection mentioned at the end of Rise to Chief of the Air Staff. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds fair. Apterygial ^talk 05:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Was there something else, Apterygial? It looks like the comment has been moved down. - Dank (push to talk) 20:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, forgot to strike this one. No, I'm happy with it. Apterygial ^talk 00:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Budgetary constraints imposed by the Great Depression". The Great Depression didn't directly impose budgetary constraints, it would have required intermediaries (presumably a cut in government defence spending). Perhaps "Budgetary constraints imposed during the Great Depression".
  • Fair enough, as expressed it was probably personifying the Depression a bit...
• "all were determined to serve with the RAAF and more than pleased with the prospect of entering their chosen service early." Another "were" before "more than pleased" would aid flow.
  • Heh, believe or not I was thinking the same thing but thought I'd wait till the FAC had progressed -- so no prob... ;-)
• I find it interesting that an RAAF officer was given command of an RAF squadron; was this a common occurrence? Did the two services regularly exchange airmen?
  • Not uncommon -- the RAAF welcomed the opportunity to give its officers exposure to the RAF's wider sphere of operations.
• It doesn't strike me as enough simply to link to Morotai Mutiny when you mention it in passing; if it is important enough to mention a (brief) explanation would be useful.
  • Okay, I can probably put a sentence of context.
• "would provide a "lifeline" for Australian forces" Who are you quoting here? Does it really need the quotation marks?
  • The word is straight from the source and seemed so appropriate I didn't want to change it, which is why I put it in quotes. I didn't really feel that saying "according to..." was particularly necessary for one word, however.
    • I reckon you could get away without the quotation marks, but it's not a big deal, so I've struck the point. Apterygial ^talk 05:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Air Marshal Sir Alister Murray Murdoch" "Murdoch was promoted air marshal". Is it normal to have capitals when the rank is used as a title but not when it is simply a rank?
  • I prefer seeing them always in caps myself but the guideline here is only when used as a title.
• "He further contended that helicopter operations in Malaysia had afforded the RAAF sufficient experience in the type of conditions they might face in Vietnam, though the former theatre offered "little if any hostile opposition, and there was none of the insertion and extraction of SAS patrols which was to become such an important part of the RAAF's Vietnam operations"." Is Murdoch being quoted here (which would be odd because it undermines his argument to some extent)?
  • It was another RAAF guy who wasn't notable in WP terms so I didn't name him, but I could put his position to clarify -- thanks for pointing that out.
• "would contribute to the RAAF's battlefield helicopters being transferred to the Army." Might flow better as "would contribute to the transfer of the RAAF's battlefield helicopters to the Army."
  • Actually I might alter to "would contribute to the government's decision to transfer the RAAF's battlefield helicopters to the Army."
• English Electric Canberra is linked both in Rise to Chief of the Air Staff and Chief of the Air Staff and Vietnam.
  • Okay, will lose the second.
• "on what were later described as "misleading" grounds". Described by whom?
  • The RAAF's official post-war history -- I can spell that out.
• The article is very dense with links. Do we need (for example)
  pundits, Malta, helicopters, Darwin and reconnaissance
  ?

—Apterygial ^talk 05:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • The original (B-Class) version of this dates back a couple of years when we did tend to link more than necessary. I'm quite happy to lose all of the above except Darwin, as I think it's helpful to link cities. Many thanks for taking the time to review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All of my concerns were dealt with, or satisfactorily answered (save one, but I'm confident it will be solved). Apterygial ^talk 05:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, just had a go at that last one as discussed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - no significant issues noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers, Storm. Ian Rose (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2011 (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 promoted by Ucucha 01:46, 26 August 2011 [7].

Murder of Julia Martha Thomas

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article; it has been well-received, and I aimed to write it to FA standard from the outset. I believe that it is a well-researched and well-written article that successfully documents its topic - a case that was notorious in its day but has since largely been forgotten about, though it sheds an interesting light on Victorian society. I would appreciate feedback on whether it meets the criteria for a featured article. Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Missing bibliographic info for Conley 2007

• Fixed.

• Newspaper citations without weblinks should have page numbers

• I don't have page numbers for all the newspaper citations (due to the poor state of preservation of some of my sources). I've provided page numbers wherever I have them.

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers

• I've added a few more locations, but generally I have given the location only the first time the newspaper source is cited. Should I be giving locations every single time?

• First time only is probably sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Check for consistency in citation punctuation

• I'm not sure what you're getting at here, could you clarify?

• Similar citations should use similar punctuation. For example, why does ref 5 have a period after the location while ref 9 has a comma? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the clarification. The reason was that some news sources used the cite news template, while others didn't. I've converted them all to use the template for consistency of formatting. Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, looks good now. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Web citations need retrieval dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Manguard

• Media Review A few issues, one opposeworthy.
  • The lead image, File:Kate Webster.PNG, has no source. Specifically, the source is "desconhecido", which if Google translate is correct, is Portuguese for "unknown". Unless a proper source is identified and put into the image description page, this image must be removed from the article and deleted from Commons. I know it's obviously PD, but that's actually irrelevant if there isn't a source. Until this is either sourced or removed, I have to oppose this FAC.
    • If this is sourced and kept, English translations are needed for the information in the Template:Information on the image description page.
  • All of the other images, save the color image, have "Anonymous" listed as their author. I find that highly unlikely (authorship might be listed somewhere surrounding the image or in the back of the paper) and therefore troubling. Normally I'd say that I have to trust the uploader here, however since the nominator is the uploader, I am going to say "please double check, thoroughly, for illustrator information".
• Sorry if this seems like I'm coming down hard on you. Attribution is important though.
  Wha? 06:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - Automatic oppose due to major issue in the media review. Oppose is nullified when the issue is solved.
  Wha? 06:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• There are no bylines or credits of any sort anywhere in the newspaper (which ceased publication in 1913). This is not really a surprise as it was not common practice to use bylines or credits in British newspapers until well into the 20th century. (The Economist still doesn't.) I suggest that the best way to resolve this would be to attribute the "anonymous" images to the newspaper, as they all seem to have been produced on a collective basis - no individual, not even the editor, is credited at any point. It was clearly not the newspaper's policy to identify the authors of individual stories or images and there would certainly be no way of identifying them now.
• Regarding the lead image, it could probably be substituted for another one. However, I think you're mistaken about the source - it's given as "Arquivos Policia de Londres" or "Archives of the Police of London", i.e. the Metropolitan Police. The uploader's description "desconhecido" is given for the author, not the source. The image is a police mugshot taken (presumably) when Kate Webster was arrested. As such, it falls into the UK Government PD category of "a photograph created by the United Kingdom Government and taken prior to 1 June 1957". The authorship is not going to be recorded - it would have been some anonymous police photographer - but the source is clear enough. I'd already added a UK Gov PD template and I've translated the uploader's description as well. Prioryman (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright. I've struck the oppose. I also reinserted the Portuguese text into the image description page, alongside the English text. Please check the template I used, for future reference, as it is polite to use those when there are multiple languages in involved.
  Wha? 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Additionally, I checked the captions, as I was recently reminded that doing so probably fell under the image reviewer's responsibilities. Please make sure that you use punctuation in your captions in the future (I fixed it this time around).
  Wha? 23:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support, given all the changes made. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1

OpposeComments: While this is a very good piece of work, I'm afraid I have to oppose for now. While very interesting, it may be a little overdetailed. Some of the background could be cut and some facts seem to be included simply to include them; the information on David Attenborough is not really relevant and is probably meaningless to the majority of readers who will not be from the UK. Also, the use of quotations seems excessive and I'm sure some of them could be paraphrased; there are plenty which are possibly superfluous; the description after her flight for example. I'm also uncomfortable with the number of parentheses; they interrupt the flow of sentences and often do not really add to the article. If the facts are relevant, why not include them in the main sentence. If they are tangential, either cut them or include them in notes at the end. Also, there are a few parts which go a little over the top in terms of descriptive prose; this style is not really suitable for an encyclopaedia. Although my oppose is not set in stone, I would like to see these general issues addressed throughout the article. I have also left some more detailed points. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm surprised that you think the info on Attenborough's involvement is irrelevant, as it's a key part of the story. First and most obviously, it gives the case contemporary relevance. Second, the discovery of the skull was the direct result of Attenborough commissioning work on the site. Third, if you look at the media coverage of the case (see [8]), Attenborough's involvement was the hook - internationally, not just in the UK, as he's known worldwide - and it was the hook for the recent DYK as well. I've reduced the coverage of this a bit but considering that Attenborough was indirectly responsible for the skull's discovery we can hardly not mention it. I take your point about the other issues with the writing and will address them later today.

• "many aspects of Webster's actions": a little cumbersome; why not just "many of Webster's actions"?
• "violated": A little strong for an encyclopaedia?
• "Apart from the sensational and gruesome nature of the crime itself, many aspects of Webster's actions violated social norms of the day (particularly Victorian ideas about femininity), which served to increase the notoriety of the case." In fact, this is a long sentence which may need splitting. I'm also not a fan of the parentheses in the middle of the sentence which interrupt the flow. And no need for "served to".

• The three points above: I've rewritten and simplified this line.

• "jewelry": Should this be in UK English?

• It was originally - someone seems to have changed it since. I've changed it back.

• Second paragraph of background has a lot of unattributed quotes; they need in-text attribution. There seem to be other examples throughout and these should be checked carefully.

• I don't think anything in the article is unattributed. In the specific paragraph you mention, every sentence is cited; the citation covers everything in the sentence, including the quotes. Putting a citation after every quote would lead to a lot of duplication, for instance (every citation here goes to the same source):

She was said to have an "excitable temperament"^[1] and the reputation of being "very much a tartar with her servants"^[1]. She was regarded as "distinctly eccentric"^[1] by her neighbours and frequently travelled, leaving her friends and relatives ignorant of her whereabouts for weeks or months at a time.^[1]

• Is that really the way it needs to be done? I can do that if needed but it seems a bit messy.

• "After returning to crime on leaving prison…" Odd emphasis. What about, "On leaving prison, she returned to crime and was arrested…" or better, "On leaving prison, she was arrested once more for larceny [this is implied in the text at the moment but should be explicit] and …"

• Changed to "Not long after leaving prison she was arrested again for larceny", which hopefully works.

• "However, the activity at 2 Mayfield Cottages did not seem to be out of the ordinary, as it was customary in many households for the washing to begin early on Monday morning." Is the address needed here? And the sentence implies the disposal of the body took place overnight and the "cleaning" was done early in the morning. I think this should be clarified.

• I think the address is necessary. Mayfield Cottages was a semi-detached house - number 2 was where the murder took place, number 1 was where the landlady, who played a crucial role later, lived. If you just say "Mayfield Cottages" then it becomes ambiguous as to where the activity took place - it could mean either of the properties.

• "Webster put on Mrs. Thomas's silk dress and paid a surprise visit to her old neighbours in Hammersmith, the Porters, whom she had not seen for six years. She claimed that she had married, had a child and had been widowed and that she had been left Mrs. Thomas's property by an aunt. She identified herself as Mrs. Thomas, despite her total lack of resemblance to her late employer, and invited Porter and his son to the Oxford and Cambridge Arms pub in Barnes." OK, this loses me a little. She went to whose old neighbours, hers or Mrs Thomas's? And was she claiming to be herself come into prosperity or Mrs Thomas? Either way, this is inconsistent as she can't claim both.

• Try this: "On 4 March, Webster travelled to Hammersmith to see her old neighbours the Porters, whom she had not seen for six years. Wearing Mrs. Thomas's silk dress and carrying a Gladstone bag which she had filled with some of Mrs. Thomas's remains, Webster introduced herself to the Porters as "Mrs. Thomas". She claimed that since her last meeting with the Porters she had married, had a child, had been widowed and had been left a house in Richmond by an aunt."

• "After he dragged it up onto the river bank, he cut the cord encircling it and gave it a kick. The waterlogged container split open and disgorged a mass of flesh wrapped in brown paper." This is not encyclopaedic and drifts a little close to purple prose. I also think it may be over detailed.

• It's a pretty straight description of the man's own account. I've shortened it as follows: "After he dragged it up onto the river bank, he cut the cord encircling it and opened the box, finding inside a mass of flesh wrapped in brown paper."

• "was not straight": idiomatic phrasing.

  I've changed the sentence to: "Meanwhile, Church realised that he had been conned."

• "(Church subsequently made a healthy profit from the increase in custom at his pub after the trial.[39])": This is distracting and would be better in a note.

• In all honesty it's probably not necessary; I've removed it.

• "her actions had violated various aspects of what Victorian society regarded as normative behaviour.": this reads a little cumbersome and could be simplified; why "normative" for example?

• Sociology-speak, I'm afraid; I've replaced the entire sentence with the simpler line "Her crime was seen as both gruesome and scandalous."

• The lead and "Social impact" section make a point about her impersonating her victim, yet in the "narrative", very little is made of it apart from her odd episode with the Porters and when she was caught. Is there more?

• The point here is that she posed as her victim for two weeks after the murder. She seems to have spent most of the two weeks at home, apart from the episode with the Porters, which was necessary to dispose of the body - she couldn't carry it all herself. I've added a bit more further up the article to state what she did during that time, i.e. posing as Mrs. Thomas.

• "Many Irish people had emigrated to England since the Great Famine of 1849, but met widespread racism and persistent associations with criminality and drunkenness." I'm not too sure about "racism" as race doesn't really come into it here. Prejudice? Discrimination?

  Prejudice works better, I agree - changed.

• "but the fact that it was deposited on top of a layer of Victorian tiles showed that it had clearly been buried in the 19th century" The source does not make this inference from the place it was located. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point. I've changed this to "but it had been deposited on top of a layer of Victorian tiles." Prioryman (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies: I am happy to strike the oppose as several issues have been death with and the article is starting to look good. However, I still believe there are over-detailing issues, which I will outline below. I have also found some issues with sourcing which concern me slightly, although not enough to oppose at the moment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you misunderstood me slightly about Attenborough, and I agree with what you have done. My issue was not with including Attenborough's role, but the level of detail about what he did before the skull's discovery. I think it is about right now.
• "Its notoriety was increased by the way that Webster had behaved after the crime and during the trial.": I'm still not sure about this line as the prose is a little lumpy. What about "Webster's behaviour after the crime and during the trial further increased the notoriety of the murder."

• That's fine, I've added that wording.

• Regarding the attribution of quotes: In the case mentioned below, I would say that yes, the quote needs a cite even if the following sentence uses the same ref. All quotes need a reference after them. The case you have mentioned above is trickier in terms of citation but I would say that it is just about acceptable. However, this is not what I meant. I was referring to attributing in the text the person who said the words. For example, the case you mention quotes several views of Webster but does not say who said them. Was it O'Donnell or was O'Donnell quoting someone else? Another example would be: "Webster's first appearance at Richmond magistrates' court was greeted by "an immense crowd around the building ... and very great excitement prevailed."" In this case the quote comes from the Times, so the sentence needs to attribute this: "According to the Times correspondent, Webster's first appearance at Richmond magistrates' court was greeted by "an immense crowd around the building ... and very great excitement prevailed."" All quotes need attributing like this as well as giving a citation.

• OK, I think I've pretty much resolved this now. I've removed a number of quotes and worked them into the text as paraphrases. Elsewhere I've attributed quotes in more detail.

• I think the Porters issue is cleared up nicely now.
• "Meanwhile, Church realised that he had been conned.": I'm still not convinced by conned; what about deceived? It is a little more formal.

• Agreed, and changed accordingly.

• "Her crime was seen..." By who? It is usually better to say who had this view: "The public saw her crime..." or "Commentators saw her crime..."

• Thanks, I've used the latter wording.

• I think there are still instances of over-use of quotes and overdetailing. Here are some examples, but feel free to argue with them: the background to Thomas before the murder seems over detailed, the wanted notice seems unnecessary, as do some of the longer quotes from the trial. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reduced it somewhat; the wanted notice and some of the longer quotes have been taken out. I think the background detail is necessary though, as it sets the scene and dramatis personae for the rest of the story.

• Sourcing issues: I only have access to the Times sources, but checking these has revealed a few issues. I may be able to spot-check one other source in the next few days, but I cannot guarantee it.
• "After he dragged it up onto the river bank, he cut the cord encircling it and opened the box, finding inside a mass of flesh wrapped in brown paper." Original text: " ... noticed a not very large box floating in the water. It was tied around with a piece of rope. Wheatley opened the box, and found what appeared to him pieces of a human body, each separate piece wrapped up in strong brown paper." Aside from the fact that some of the text is not supported by the cite (although it could be argued it is implied, so that doesn't bother me too much), I think this shows some us of "flowery" language. Cut the cord encircling it is too much, given the source is so simple. Why not just "Inside, he found what looked like body parts wrapped in brown paper"?

• Fair enough. I've reworded it: "He recovered the box and opened it, finding that it contained what looked like body parts wrapped in brown paper."

• Other issues from this reference to the Times: "The body was in such a poor condition that it was not even possible to ascertain the age of the victim"; this is not said in the Times, which confidently gives the age of the woman as 20 to 30. Although this was not the age of the person eventually revealed to be the victim, it is not what the source says, and if you want to say this, I would argue another source is needed. And the quote should read "a young woman with very dark hair"; the other text cited is "amid speculation that the body had been used for an illegal dissection and anatomical study" which comes from "It was at one time supposed that the remains found were parts of a body had for dissection and anatomical study, but the facts are in opposition to this suggestion." This does not mention illegality.

• Fair point, I've removed the word "illegal". As for the condition of the body, I've simplified this to: "The doctor who examined the body parts attributed them to "a young person with very dark hair".

• "where he was to remain until he could be put in an industrial school." Original source: "where he will remain until he can be put into an industrial school" Slightly close to the source.

• Now reworded as "until such time as a place could be found for him in an industrial school". Better?

• Quote given in article: "an immense crowd around the building ... and very great excitement prevailed." Original source: "There was an immense crowd yesterday round the building ... and very great excitement prevailed." Although just one word is missing, such quotes must be given reliably.

• Amended to add that missing word.

• "On a subsequent occasion, the police had to cordon off the building to fend off the crowd outside." I can find no reference to this in the Times article cited. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nor can I, which is odd. I think I mixed it up with another source but I haven't been able to find which. Given the doubt about it, I've removed the sentence. Prioryman (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning to support: Everything looks OK that you have done, and I think this is almost there. I will give it another read through in the next day or two before I support fully, and hopefully complete some more spot-checks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby2010

Support with comments

• "The head was buried around the back of the Hole in the Wall pub a short distance from Mrs. Thomas's house, where it was found 131 years later." I realize you discuss this later, but you need a reference here

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "I formed an intimate acquaintance with one who should have protected me and [was] led away by evil associates and bad companions." Sentences with quotes need citations (even if the following sentence has the same citation).

• Sarastro1 raised the same point above; I'm awaiting clarification. :-) Prioryman (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I've added a citation now. Thanks. Prioryman (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it over when it was at DYK, and the superior quality still remains. Nice work on an interesting subject. Ruby2010 comment! 22:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mm40

Comment: None of the Harvnb links for D'Cruze work, and the single Gaute link (ref. 36) doesn't work either. Mm40 (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why those aren't working - they don't seem to be any differently formatted from any of the working references. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the Harvnb format to be able to fix it myself. I'll ask around to see if someone can help. Prioryman (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed - if there's more than one author, they must all be in the

{{harvnb}} and the biblio needs them listed as "first2", "last2" instead of "author2". If you don't want all authors in the short-form ref, it's possible using "CITEREF" - give me a shout, if needed.  Chzz  ►  09:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks very much, noted for the future. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chzz

Being as I'm here (see above!) I have some comments. I've also made a few

• The murder of Julia Martha Thomas, dubbed the "Barnes Mystery" or the "Richmond Murder" by the press, - are those scare quotes really necessary / appropriate?

• Probably not. Removed.

• Please add
  alt text
  to the images. I'm not sure if that is a requirement, but it's easy enough, and a Good Thing™.

• I suspect it probably is a requirement somewhere, but you're certainly right about it being a Good Thing™. I'll work on that tomorrow. Now done.

• I'm not sure about one of the most notorious crimes in late 19th century Britain - POV? Unless I'm missing proof of this claim within the body.

• It's a rough paraphrase of comments by various commentators who allude to her infamy, not just at the time but for many years afterwards. I'll see if I can make this clearer by quoting more directly.

• I believe, throughout, it should refer to the victim as just "Thomas", not "Mrs. Thomas" (apart from first mention) - e.g. Part of Mrs. Thomas's remains

• A couple of comments about this. First, virtually all of the sources I used referred to the victim as "Mrs. Thomas" (see e.g. [9]) Second, I did actually start writing the article referring to her as "Thomas" before realising that this introduced room for confusion - as it is a male first name it raises the question of "who is this Thomas person and what does he have to do with the story?" I presume this is why other writers have virtually all used "Mrs. Thomas".

• resulted in the press "teeming with descriptions I consider that wiki-link unnecessary and confusing. There's a second, in the same section - and that should definitely go; advertised as "comprising Twenty Handsome Pages

• It wasn't a wikilink until you turned it into one. :-) It was merely a pair of square brackets indicating a place where a tense has been changed - a standard typographical convention. For instance, the original text of the advertisement you quote above read: "comprises Twenty Handsome Pages".

Probably more later.  Chzz  ►  09:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Sir" re. Dickie Attenborough: I wasn't sure about the use of "Sir" here, but it seems like a) you probably don't need the "Sir" at all, b) if you do keep it, it needs to be part of the link, ie ...the naturalist [[David Attenborough|Sir David Attenborough]]. instead of the current ...the naturalist Sir [[David Attenborough]]. (Discussion was User_talk:Tony1#Sir).  Chzz  ►  14:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Dickie is his brother Richard, a lord, not David, a baronet. I think I would prefer to keep it; it's how he's customarily referred to, so we might as well stick with convention. Your suggestion for the link style is a good one so I've done that. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the above is fine; thanks. Sorry for introducing the [ing] thing; it's a cleanup-script that always goes awry on those [...] things; usually, I spot it before saving. And apologies for mixing up my dickies. I will try and find time to read it some more.  Chzz  ►  12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 again

Weak SupportComments: This is now looking very good. I've read through again and just found a few nit-picky things. Once these are addressed, I am happy to switch to full support. However, I have been unable to do the spot-checks I hoped on one of the books and it is unlikely I will now be able to do so any time soon. The only ones I managed were those outlined above. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Employing a live-in domestic servant at her house was thus probably as much a status symbol as a fulfilment of a practical need." A little wordy, and "thus" seems over-elaborate.

• Changed to "Her desire to employ a live-in domestic servant probably had as much to do with status as with practicality."

• "On 18 April 1874 she gave birth in Kingston-upon-Thames to a son, whom she named John W. Webster": Minor point, but I'd be inclined to move "in Kingston-upon-Thames" after "son".

• Done.

• "She was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment at Wandsworth Prison." Slight redundancy here: maybe "sentenced to 18 months in Wandsworth Prison".

  Done.

• "On this occasion, however, Webster overstayed at the local alehouse and returned late..." Overstayed is an odd choice of word. Maybe "stayed longer than usual", or it implies she was staying after closing or something else "illegal". If you mean that she was required to be back, maybe a better phrase could be used.

• Changed to "visited the local alehouse".

• "An unusual and unpleasant smell was noticed by the neighbours." Maybe "The neighbours noticed an unusual, unpleasant smell" would be a little more elegant.

• Done.

• "A Mrs. Hayhoe, proprietress of a nearby pub..." I don't think we need her name, and "The proprietress of a nearby pub..." would be better.

• Done.

• "Leonard Reginald Gribble commented that..." I think a word on who he is would benefit the reader here; e.g. "Leonard Reginald Gribble, a writer/historian/crime writer, ..."

• Changed to "Leonard Reginald Gribble, a writer on criminology".

• "Miss Ives, who was Mrs. Thomas's landlady as well as her neighbour..." If this is the same Ives as before, the fact that she was the landlady belongs in the first instance.

• Done.

• "the game was up..." Idiomatic, and I would be inclined to leave this phrase out of the sentence.

• Reworded.

• "Webster was defended by Warner Sleigh and the case was presided over by Mr. Justice Denman." The inclusion of these names suggests significance, but a few words as to their importance would be helpful here.

• I've added an explanatory preface to Sleigh and linked Denman.

• "A final surprising twist..." Editorialising? I think this sentence and the next could be recast here; there is no need to set up the pregnancy claim by describing it as a "twist". I would simply give the fact.

• OK, I've reworded it accordingly.

• "The Law Times reported that "upon this a scene of uncertainty..." A very odd link here for "upon".

• It shouldn't be there at all. I suspect that's due to Chzz's script (see above). I've fixed it now.

• "It may be noted that John Church, the publican whom Webster had attempted to implicate, was himself a former servant who had risen to lower middle-class status and earned a measure of prosperity through his hard work and effective management of his pub. Webster, in contrast, had simply stolen her briefly-held middle-class identity." Another piece of editorialising here which does not really say much but does seem to pass judgement. If it is an opinion, it needs attribution. Otherwise, I think it should go.

• It's attributed already (to D'Cruze) - she makes the point of highlighting Church's status as a person who had risen to lower middle-class status by "respectable" means, i.e. the work ethic that the Victorians so valued. I've reworded the piece accordingly.

• "She had had a succession of male friends, one of whom had fathered her child outside wedlock, which suggested promiscuous female sexuality..." Although correct, "had had" never looks particularly good. What about "Her succession of male friends, one of whom had fathered her child outside wedlock, suggested promiscuous female sexuality..."

• Yes, much better - done.

• I noticed a couple of instances of numbers over ten given as words; I believe these should be changed to figures, per WP:MOSNUM. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I could only find two (and one was in a quotation, so I've left that alone). Were there others? Prioryman (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: While I'm sure there could be some further tightening in places, I think this article comfortably meets the criteria now and I am switching to full support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amandajm

Comment: Finally, the fact that she was Irish was undoubtedly a factor in the widespread revulsion felt towards Webster in Great Britain.

There may be a lot of evidence to suggest that the her Irish nationality was a factor in the "revulsion" towards Webster, but this is an opinion, non-the-less. As an opinion, the author of the opinion needs to be cited directly, not merely with the title of the book in a footnote, as if you stating a "fact". There needs to be a statement that says:Such and such an author suggests that the fact that Webster was Irish contributed to.........

Amandajm (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I've amended the article accordingly [10]. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm late into the review but a large quantity of problems have been pointed out and fixed. I see no glaring and outstanding issues with this article presently. It's a nice read and the lead pic is scary business. Brad (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prose needs to be checked; I already fixed "19th century Britain", but I also notice "whom had been twice widowed", and you need to be consistent in using either spaced en or unspaced em dashes (

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:33, 23 August 2011 [11].

Paxillus involutus

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs), Sasata (talk · contribs) 02:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many moons ago as a child I read about this fungus (widely eaten in Eastern Europe) mysteriously killing people..now I am a doctor and we know why it does, and I find it even freakier. Anyway, Sasata and I have been buffing this and reckon it's ready to roll here. J Milburn's also had a look and offered some suggestions. Have at it. Will reply promptly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 5: publisher?
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
• Are refs 27 and 45 to the same source? If so, should be reversed; if no, missing bibliographic info for ref 27. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• These have been fixed, thanks Nikkimaria. Sasata (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Media review coming later, but first:

• As I was reading it over, I saw the sentence "The Paxillus syndrome is better classed as an allergic reaction than a toxicological reaction as it is not caused by a genuinely poisonous substance but by the antigen in the mushroom." However the characteristics box lists the mushroom as "edibility: poisonous" rather than "edibility: allergenic". This seems like a discrepancy.
• I'm getting the comment "Cite error: <ref> tag with name "Kretzer1999" defined in <references> is not used in prior text; see the help page." in bright red.

• Poisonous in the mycomorphbox indicates that consumption of the mushroom may cause sickness, or even death. The "allergic reaction" refers to the mechanism of poisoning, in that it is mediated by the immune system; there is no discrepancy between the two. I fixed the leftover citation issue. Sasata (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You're the expert. I just brought it up because I noticed it.
  Wha? 01:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Many organisms can be variable in appearance - in an ideal world, we'd have some different ones (i.e. someone cutting one in half for a cross section etc.) but we don't. I think what we have does highlight some different shades of brown and punctuates the slabs of text nicely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.

Wha? 03:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

not sure exactly, but quite possibly - will look into it. yes, see how it is written here. Will clarify, but in am as I need to sleep now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - have added a bit on sanctioning. But still haven't re-found the reason why Fries chose Batsch and not Bulliard (I think I saw it before...will keep looking...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not clear to me: if sanctioning is not necessary, why is the earlier name not used? Ucucha (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why don't you link Paxillus vernalis and P. filamentosus, and where is filamentosus from?

now linked at first instance x 2 - oversight on our part. Will clarify location The latter is from europe and north america and greenland - enough to have the info on its own page? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention the range of other species there, I'd prefer to have it for filamentosus too. Ucucha (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are obscurosporus and validus now considered synonyms of involutus?

The taxa were described in 1999 by Hahn, and it is unclear how widely the names have been taken up. They are still poorly known so my guess is that it is unclear what parts of other populations are actually other species Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me a bit uneasy—if the taxonomy is such a mess, are you sure this article is describing the same species everywhere? Ucucha (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this is probably an issue for many widespread fungal species. A lag time as study X reports what look like cryptospecies but doesn't have enough information to describe some officially, and research that has to be undertaken before there is general uptake elsewhere. What I've tried to do is clarify the current status of what is by consensus called Paxillus involutus (sensu lato). It might be several more years before more material is published to make a formal split. Do you think it is clear enough in the lead? (NB: fungal knowledge is alot more meagre than birds or flowering plants...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All the species linked under "Similar species" are already mentioned under "Taxonomy".

delinked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the southern range limit in North America?

This is proving elusive - have been searching to see if it occurs in Mexico but the status of fungal knowledge of Mexico is meagre at best! I have never seen any more exacting information than the adejctive "northern" ..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit odd. I see it's also mentioned as being in California, which is hardly northern North America. Ucucha (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The gist is abundant across northern north america really. Will see if we can pinpoint southernmost. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 12:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments A couple of nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I made these edits; please check

yup. looks fine to me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Genetic testing suggests there may be several species in the species complex that is currently classified as Paxillus involutus — perhaps Genetic testing suggests that Paxillus involutus may be a species complex rather than a single species.

Yeah. thought about it, and figured the original way doesn't make sense as it wasn't previously a complex when it was thought only one species, hence grammar changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• inrolled refers to the inrolled cap. — Do you need the second "inrolled"?

nope - changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No further queries, changed to support, even though I'm a bit concerned about the mushroom soup I had for lunch! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• "while the fruit bodies of the other two groups tended to appear in groups, have thicker stipes and caps with more inrolled and sometimes undulating margins." Needs an "and" after the comma, I believe.

how about a comma after "stipes"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's nothing leading up to "and caps with more inrolled...". The part before the first comma doesn't match well with it. Try picturing it without the stuff in the middle and you get "tended to caps...". Still think the original solution I proposed is the best, but I'm sure there are other ways of doing it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have done it the way you suggested - does feel a little lopsided somehow but can't think of a better way currently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Description: Extremely minor, but the first photo caption could use a full stop at the end.

fullstops x 2 in photo captions added Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ecology, distribution and habitat: "the brown roll-rim is found across the North Hemisphere, across Europe and Asia, with records...". The second "across" is a bit redundant and interferes with the flow. It's safe to drop it.

duly dropped Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Toxicity: "the" should definitely be added to "and may be beneficial in improving outcome", toward the end of the sentence. I like to use the fewest words possible too, but this is one word too few for me.

definite article added Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 58 is missing a publisher. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

added Casliber (talk · contribs)

• Support – All of the my comments have been dealt with, and I'm satisfied that this meets all the criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I gave the article a review shortly before this nomination here, and my concerns were dealt with. The article is still looking good, and nothing of concern that I missed has been raised in this nomination. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cryptic C62 · Talk:

• "Various shades of brown in colour, the fruit body grows 6 cm (2.4 in) high and has a funnel-shaped cap to 12 cm (5 in) wide" First, does 6 cm represent the maximum or the average height? Second, I think there is a missing "up" in "has a funnel-shaped cap [up] to 12 cm wide".

both are max measures, 2nd "up" added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "It had been recognised as causing gastric upsets when eaten raw, but was more recently implicated in a potentially fatal autoimmune hemolysis in those who had consumed the mushroom without ill-effects for years." I'm so confused by this sentence that I don't even know how to suggest improvements. Why does this refer to "a" hemolysis when there were multiple people who were eating the mushroom? Why does this sentence use the
  relative time
  word "recent"? How can it be possible for the mushroom to have caused a potentially fatal hemolysis "without causing ill-effects for years"? Was this sentence written by chimps or am I just retarded today?

Right - these are the facts - the mushroom was widely consumed for years and was known to require cooking before being eaten (due to gastric upsets when eaten raw). It was anecdotally associated with isolated cases of severe illness, even deatn in 1944, but oddly many people seemed to eat it for years with no problems. Then as time went on, from the 1980s it was established that it could cause a potentially fatal autoimmune hemolysis -which can happen out of the blue at any time (i.e. not exposure- or dose dependent). This knowledge was slow in uptake by guidebooks, some of which listed it as edible until the 1990s. The "a" here referred to a single type of haemolysis, not single episode. You're not retarded - I think we need to tweak it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one idea: "It had been known to cause gastric upsets when eaten raw, but was more recently found to cause potentially fatal autoimmune hemolysis, even in those who had consumed the mushroom for years without any other ill effects." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll pay that - so you concede that "recently" though not ideal is maybe best fit for the gradual sinking in of the mushroom's dangerousness in mycophagous communities? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IAR FTW! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything in the lead about how long we've known about this mushroom. This also makes me sad.

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the second infobox, is the edibility image a joke? I thought we were building an encyclopedia, not a collection of stickers that were drawn by epileptic boll weevils.

Aha, there is some discussion about overhauling the images here that are used on Template:Mycomorphbox. I agree the pink face is...erm...could be better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The genus was later placed in a new family, Paxillaceae, by French mycologist René Maire who placed it between the agarics and boletes." Two things. First, the sentence feels a bit repetitive due to the repetitive use of the repeated word "placed". Second, what does it mean to be placed "between the agarics and boletes"? Were these families laid out on Maire's desk? Or perhaps there is some sort of periodic table of mushrooms? Maybe the meaning is obvious to a mycophile, but I certainly don't understand it.

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The generic name is derived from the Latin for 'peg' or 'plug' and the specific epithet involutus meaning 'inrolled' refers to the cap margin." This sentence is long and it would be nice if it had commas so that it would be easier to read.

nice commas added Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm seeing a mixture of "roll-rim" and "rollrim". Which is correct?

hyphens added Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Study of ... Paxillus involutus has revealed that it appears to form a complex" Unnecessarily high number of consecutive verbs here. I'm also not a fan of "revealed", as this implies that the thing being revealed is necessarily the truth, rather than one particular theory which may be disproved later. How about "Studies of ... Paxillus involutus indicate that it may form a complex" instead?

ok. "Revealed" I didn't mind too much as the mushrooms all look very similar, hence the molecular work reveals hidden relationships within, but I get your point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "while the fruit bodies of the other two groups tended to appear in groups" Repeated use of "groups" is somewhat confusing. Perhaps the first could be replaced with "populations" or the second replaced with "clusters".

I took groups --> populations, wondered if clusters was too specific a meaning... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "irregular and anastomosed (combined irregularly)" These smell somewhat redundant to me.

"anastomosed" means the gills join up. naughty adverb removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The brownish colour and funnel-like shape of P. involutus can lead to its confusion with several species of Lactarius, many of which have some degree of toxicity themselves, but the lack of a milky exudate distinguishes it from any milk cap, one of the more similar being L. turpis, which presents a darker olive colouration." I don't think ya'll realized that this is one single solitary supersized serpentine sentence! I suggest splitting it into two (or perhaps even three).

duly splitted Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "It can be distinguished from it" It is somewhat ambiguous.

I rejigged to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "by the presence of crystals" What kind of crystals?

crystalline structures seen under the microscope. The reference is a very brief key and doesn't elaborate. I haven't used microscopes with mushrooms yet and can't access some of the earlier journals cited by the key. Using microscopes on the mycelium is really specialised....I'll take another look tonight when I get some time. Sasata (who added this bit) may be able to elaborate also.Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like bagels. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check all redirects: I expect to see at least

Which is correct? The article mentions Northern Hemisphere, we have Northern Hemisphere, but it mentions northern hemisphere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...that's a very good question actually, WRT caps or not..I will prusue that as I'm seeing both on google and WP on first look. Might have to nut this out on the geography pages. I'll ask Tony...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this source, NH should be capitalized. Our article on the same is rather inconsistent. Sasata (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2011 (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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:33, 23 August 2011 [12].

Corn Crake

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once common, and the cause of many sleepless nights, this rail has now declined over much of its range due to changes in haymaking techniques. There is a bucketful of information out there, but much is repetitive or concerned with local conservation projects. If I've omitted anything important, let me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The page title is Corn Crake, the main infobox uses Conrcrake. I advise you choose one or the other. I haven't actually read the nomination, I just noticed that when I clicked on. And now for the real reason I'm here:

• Oops, can't imagine how I missed that in dozens of read-throughs, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Image Review
  • All the required information at the description page for File:Crexcrex.png seems to be there, but it really should be in a template. 07:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I started with the template, but it wouldn't display properly, so ditched. I don't think it's mandatory to use the template, I've used text in many other FAs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The template is not a "Requirement" however it is the closest thing to a gold standard that we have for the logical and orderly display of the information, so it's a "strongly recommended" in my book. I'll look into the display issues for you.
  Wha? 12:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Done.
  Wha? 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • The information at the description page for File:Crex crex00.jpg needs to have an English translation. 07:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I assumed that the description in the copyright box was adequate, but translation added now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Both images in the section "Behaviour" need caption text.

• Done, the egg actually had a caption, but it didn't show because it wasn't a thumbnail Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am personally not a fan of the White Stork image being in the article. If it stays, it needs to be clarified. What is mowing? It just says "The White Stork will kill chicks exposed by mowing", and the text in that section dosen't give any indication as to what you're referring to either.
    Wha? 07:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• I usually show a predator or parasite, it's appropriate in this section and hasn't been queried before. I assume that "mow" was a common enough word not to need a link, but maybe a different term is used for grass cutting in North America. Now linked in caption and first occurrence in text. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for image review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a problem. Good luck.
  Wha? 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks for fix Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Koffijberg, Kees or Kees, Koffijberg?
• Be consistent in how editors are notated
• Ref 22: which volume is being consulted here? Also, is there meant to be a hyphen at the end of the ISBN, or is something missing?
• Series names should generally not be italicized
• What do CMS and AEWA stand for? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for review. All above fixed. I couldn't see any other editor inconsistencies apart from the Kees/Koffijberg slip, let me know if I've missed something. Ref 22 tweaked and isbn fixed. Series name removed, abbreviations spelt out. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There were a few typos such as "...a loud nocturnal call that sometimes leadto disturbed sleep for rural dwellers, the Corn Crake..." under the In Culture section. Also, in the Status section, the phrase "In much of the west of its range," was at first a bit confusing. It might be beneficial to change it to something such as "In much of the western half of its range," A ctrl+F search showed that in the Distribution and Habitat section, "Corncrake" appeared twice. In the Status section, "Corncrake" appears three times, one of which is lacking capitalization. I am unsure if this is necessary, but you might consider adding a source stating that its name was derived from the krek krek call of the male. Hopefully my comments are of use, even if they are a bit "nitpicky". Micromann (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for comments. Typos fixed, also name — I'm afraid I still think of it as one word. "Status" tweaked as suggested. With regard to the call, if you mean in the Lead section, having references there is now discouraged. The derivation and the call are referenced under "Taxonomy" and "Voice" respectively. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah. Sorry, I did not know that was discouraged. Thanks for the speedy response. Micromann (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lit review Sorry I'm late to the party. I'm not sure if the comprehensive criterion is yet met. There's a lot of published scientific literature... here's a small sampling of publications from 2009–2011 that, judging by their titles, look interesting and possibly suitable for inclusion. I can prepare a more comprehensive list if you like. Sasata (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (moved to talk) Sasata (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for lit review. I said in the nom above that there is a huge amount of literature, and I've had to be selective. I get no clear sense from the list of what you think has been inadequately covered. I've deliberately avoided articles like the Yorkshire one — there are lots of similar regional items, mostly in the UK, and I thought it more important to paint the overall picture for Europe, rather than have an endless parochial list of local declines. Similarly, of those articles I've seen, I can't see what the Irish, Transyvanian or Egyptian articles add in terms of new content, as opposed to local detail. I've used several of Rhys Green's studies, but I couldn't see that the one you quote was adding a great deal that was new. I have used the Graham source now, which I overlooked despite having a hard copy. It's a captive study, but since it suggests only that only the male builds the nest, whereas the prestigious BWP, and all other sources which give an opinion (Taylor doesn't), say only the female, that's clearly worth mentioning. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, in retrospect most are local reports. I'll move this list to the archive talk page; I'm away for about a week, and will give a full review then. Sasata (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Consider all my comments below dealt with; I believe the article meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made several changes to the article text to save time; please review and revert if you don't agree

• Fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• link chestnut, downy

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "This secretive species builds a nest of grass leaves in a hollow in the ground and lays 6–14 rufous-blotched cream-coloured eggs." Would it be better to avoid the double hyphen complex with something like "This secretive species builds a nest of grass leaves in a hollow in the ground and lays 6–14 cream-coloured eggs that are covered with rufous blotches."?

• Done as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Corn Crake is omnivorous, but mainly feeds on invertebrates, along with small frogs and mammals, and plant material including grass seed and cereal grain." Perhaps this could be tweaked slightly; one might read this as small frogs and mammals also eat invertebrates.

• "Occasional small frog or mammal" 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• link introduced, taxonomy, wetland, specific name

• DoneJimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The English names refer to this species' nesting in dry hay or cereal fields, rather than the marshes used by most members of this family." The somewhat awkward noun+ing construction could be tweaked to "The English names refer to the habit of the species to nest in dry hay or cereal fields, rather than the marshes used by most members of this family."

• Done as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• link tawny

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Corn Crake is silent in Africa."I'm surprised no-one has commented about this (so maybe it's just me), but this sentence, given without any explanation, and at the start of the subsection, seems to stick out.

• A previous reviewer asked me to put it there, moved back to end Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• indicate the crake call sound file is from a male?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "This crake winters mainly in Africa" Subject of "this" not completely unambiguous, as the sentence starts a new paragraph, and the last crake discussed was the African Rail

• Done, clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "This is mainly a lowland species, but breeds up to 1,400 m (4,600 ft) altitude" I still think new paragraphs shouldn't start with "This"

• Done, starts with the name now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "In China, flax is also used as for nest sites." not sure if there's an extra word in there (as)

• removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "and, also in Scotland in 1999" was it in Scotland and in 1999, or just in Scotland?

• Removed Scotland, since linked from Barra Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The nest, well hidden in the grass, is built in a scrape or hollow in the ground, is made of woven coarse dry grass and other plants, and lined with finer grasses." run-on

• Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "In the Netherlands, 33 territories in 1996 increased to at least 500 in 1998." Not sure what this means… there used to be 33 territories where the bird was found but there are now 500?

• Clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mrs. Beaton's recipe is too small to read; could it be enlarged? Also, it seems to me like File:Corncrake2.jpg is the best image available (as it shows the whole animal); why not have this in the taxobox. The current lead image might be better in Behaviour ( "…usually being hidden by vegetation")

• Images fixed, Beeton forced to 300px Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• link "Loss of habitat"

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "where migrating birds are captured in nets set for the Quail with which they often migrate." Not sure if Quail should be decapitalized here?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "quarry species" any link for this? I suspect it's a Brit Eng term, perhaps with a legal definition?

• Rephrased as "where hunting is allowed" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that Marvell's poem fragment is not italicized, while Clare's fragment is.

• All in-text quotes in quotation marks now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Refs: Seebohm's book was edited after his death (see here), perhaps this should also be in the citation?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Theresa Clay is given as the co-author of the 1952 "Fleas Flukes …."; could you check if this is supposed to be Theresa Child?

• It says Clay on the title page

• could you check the page number for Mrs. Beaton's book? An online source I found here doesn't match up

• There's something seriously wrong with the version you have linked. Pages jump from 384 to 805, and recipes from 817 to 1778. The land rail recipe is 1033, as listed in the index, but of course doesn't appear at all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• location for Holden and Cleeves 2010?

• DoneJimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for detailed review, I think everything is fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha:

• You pipe both "rail family" and "crake" to
  Rallidae
  in the lead; that's a bit confusing.

• Unlinked "crake" now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that the article text never links to the article on the genus
  Crex
  .

• Oops, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there some reason for linking the Azores but not the Faroes?

• Since the Faroes are self-governing, I treated the archipelago as a country. Linked now to be on the safe side Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Specify that Barra and Tiree are in Scotland.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The annual adult survival rate is under 30%, although a typical lifespan for an adult may be 5–7 years."—that doesn't make statistical sense

Haven't finished reading yet. Ucucha 03:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No it doesn't make sense. Although it's what the book source says, it's clearly inconsistent with the rock-solid data from the BTO and the Rhys Green paper. Rephrased as "some individuals may live for 5–7 years."

Thanks for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes. Ucucha 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as all comments have been addressed (long ago, in fact). The article still looks good. Ucucha (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Philcha:

• Should "Taxonomy" be the first section. I usually put it near the end, as it is more useful for ornithologists (or equivalents in other taxa) and may be a barrier for general readers - e.g. "
  tautonymous" (I never saw the latter term before). --Philcha (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Most bird articles start with Taxonomy, so we can define what we are talking about. Since I want this to end up in a featured topic, I'm reluctant to change the order, although I agree with with making it more readable. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of it is basic stuff - common names, who named it, relatives etc. But more importantly, many many bird and other FAs have taxonomy as section number 1 - this allows "description" to be section number 2 and have images in that section not abut the taxobox. Hence we'd then have inconsistent formatting across bird FAs. We can examine order of all articles in an RfC.Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re location of "Taxonomy", OK (sigh!). --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd re-structure "Taxonomy" into 2 paras: all the content about the name, including "The binomial name, ... official version is now "Corn Crake""; the affiliations, "The taxonomy of the small crakes is complicated ... are near relatives of the Crex genus." --Philcha (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, please check that I've understood correctly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Taxonomy": What common features unite the genus and, if feasible and not too long, the family? --Philcha (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This was added by another editor. Now "The earlier use of crex gives it priority over Bechstein's specific name pratensis, and leads to the current name of Crex crex, which reads better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See below ("Taxonomy" II). --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Taxonomy": I'd reverse the sentences "The English names refer to this species nesting in dry hay or cereal fields, rather than the marshes used by most rails. The common name was formerly spelt as a single word, "Corncrake", but the official version is now "Corn Crake", so that "The common name was ..." explains ""The English names refer to ...". --Philcha (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Description": In "Males weigh 165 g (5.8 oz) on ...", IMO "are generally smaller and lighter" is redundant. If you think the result would be a too short sentence, you could combine it with the previous one. --Philcha (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Description": IMO sentence "There are no subspecies; although birds become paler and greyer towards the east of the range, the change is clinal, and there is great individual variation in colour within all populations" is clumsy, including the "semi-comma splice", and "clinal" IMO should be in plain English ("gradually") with w-link to cline; and I'd w-link subspecies, which has significant payload. How about e.g. "While there are no subspecies, all populations show great individual variation in colouring, and the birds gradually become paler and greyer towards the east of the range"? --Philcha (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Description": Would the reference to Africa be better in "by late August or early September, before migrating to south eastern Africa"? --Philcha (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Voice": IMO "As might be expected with this skulking species" may look like editorialism. And IMO "localisation" is ugly. How about e.g. "The call has evolved to make a singing male's location clear, as this species hides in thick vegetation." I suggested linking to sexual selection, as males appear more at risk of predators. I considered the alternative, natural selection, but this seems not quite right. --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll think again about "thick vegetation", after seeing section "Distribution and habitat" para 2. Would "moderate vegetation" do the job? --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed adjective altogether Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Voice": I'd move "Slight differences in vocalisations mean that individual males can be distinguished by their calls" to just after "... challenge intruding males and attract females", where it would emphasis the advertising function. --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Voice": Could "Males can be attracted by mechanical imitations of their call. These can be produced by rubbing a piece of wood down a notched stick, or by flicking a credit card against a comb or zip-fastener" be combined? E.g. "To attract males, mechanical imitations of their call can be produced by ..."--Philcha (talk)

• Good, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Voice": I'd insert a para break after all the stuff about males' calls. --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Voice": I'd moved "The Corn Crake is silent in Africa" to the top of the section, so that readers see the scope up-front. --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for review so far, there was an edit conflict half way through editing here, please check that nothings been lost or altered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Jimfbleak. AFAIK None of my comments were lost. Might be good to check with Casliber. --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll check out your responses, and then work through the rest (?later). --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Taxonomy": What's the meaning of "primitive" in "the most primitive forms are found in the Old World". The only potential w-link is
  Corn Crake doesn't go into phylogenetics. Sorry, I forgot this item at the time. --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• changed to "least specialised" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Distribution and habitat": I find the structure of this section confusing. How about sub-sections covering: (a) the breeding areas, including areas where populations have vanished or become sparse; (b) the usual winter quarters, including "There are several nineteenth-century records, .. between December and February"; (c) migration routes and vagrants; (d) habitats, which seem to be similar in both hemispheres - assuming I understand all this. --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As suggested, although I've kept the habitat bits for breeding and wintering as separate paras; although similar, they're not identical. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The large-scale structure is better, thanks. I've comments about individual paras, see below. --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Distribution and habitat": IMO "vagrant" should be linked to vagrancy (biology), as we're not talking about tramps. --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Distribution and habitat": I'll re-review this section when we've resolved the structure. --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Distribution and habitat": Would "This is mainly a lowland species, but breeds up to 1,400 m ..." be best at the start of the section, before the longer and more complex parts about horizontal distribution? --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Distribution and habitat": I find the structure of "The Corn Crake breeds from Britain and Ireland ... misidentification of the eggs of the African Rail" confusing (unless I've losing it). --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• now "result from misidentification of eggs in a museum collection which are actually those of the
  African Rail" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Much clearer, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Distribution and habitat": What does "former" in "with a former natural range mainly between 41°N and 62°N" mean? Looks like you or the sources have crammed a quart into a pint pot. --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• now "Although it has been lost from much of its historic range, this bird was once found in suitable habitat in Eurasia everywhere between latitudes 41°N and 62°N.". Is that clearer? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Distribution and habitat": Can "There is also a sizable population in western China.[21] It nests only rarely in northern Spain and in Turkey" be combined? --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Distribution and habitat": Should "old claims of breeding in South Africa are incorrect, and result from misidentification of the eggs of the African Rail" be a separate sentence? --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Distribution and habitat": In "Its status in Africa is not well known, but most of the South African population of about 2,000 birds occurs in KwaZulu-Natal and the former Transvaal Province", the word "status" is hard to interpret. How about e.g. "Most of the South African population of about 2,000 birds occurs in
  Transvaal Province, and numbers elsewhere in Africa are uncertain." --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes, done as you suggest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Distribution and habitat": In "When breeding in Eurasia, the Corn Crake is a bird of open habitats, which would originally have included river meadows", the word "open" may be ambiguous. How about e.g. "When breeding in Eurasia, the Corn Crake's habitats would originally have included river meadows ...". --Philcha (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Distribution and habitat": How about "On migration, in addition to the expected habitats, the Corn Crake may also occur in wheatfields and at around golf courses". --Philcha (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, that's much better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You still have "in golf courses" - is there a reason for "in". I suggested "around" as I couldn't imagine the birds feeding in putting greens or bunkers or even the fairway - but I could be wrong. PS I've w-linked
  golf courses. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think section "Distribution and habitat" is now fine. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Behaviour": "individuals may become very (confiding) trusting"? See Confiding - Definition from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary, I think "confiding" applies only to human communication. --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Confiding" is actually often used in bird books, but I take the point, changed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Behaviour": I think that, in "would come for chicken feed once the intended recipients had finished", the cure ("intended recipients") is worse than the disease, and I'd use "chickens" again. See Victor Borge :-) --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, but avoided repetition by saying "poultry feed"

• Nice one! --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Behaviour": "This rail The Corn Crake is most active early and late in the day, ...", as the African Crake (previous sentence) is also a rail? --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Behaviour": I'd move "If flushed by a dog, ... crouch on landing" and "If disturbed in the open, ... watch the intruder" to just before "When captured it may feign death, ..." so all avoidance of threats are one package. --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason for not moving "If flushed by a dog, ... crouch on landing"? --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Breeding": I'm uncertain about the sequence of events in para 1: "A male will challenge an intruder ...pecking, and sometimes kicking" (controlling territory); courtship display; copulate; "The female may be offered food by the male during courtship" (i.e. before copulation?); "the male always built the nest" (when in sequence?) --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've tweaked the sequence a bit, but it's unclear when the male builds the nest since it's only just been discovered that he does so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The bleeding edge of zoology _{♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦} --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Breeding": "The nest is typically in grassland, ... the later-developing grasses further up a hill" looks OK, but then "The nest, built in a scrape or hollow in the ground ..." looks slightly contradictory. --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tweaked to make it clear we are still hidden in the grass Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it better to re-structure these sentences, e.g.: first nest in a scrape among grassland, etc.; 2nd nest higher from the ground, as the grass is then longer. This is a quite tentative suggestion, as each of the sources seems to give only some pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. But if it is possible, it would avoid contradiction. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried in the original text to convey that the nest was still on the ground "higher altitude than the first... later-developing grasses further up a hill" I've obviously failed, but I can't see how to make it clearer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "further up a hill" makes all the difference! --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Breeding": "Incubation is by the female only" (2nd para) but "(male) moving on when laying is almost complete" (1st para). As "The eggs hatch together after 19–20 days", how does the female avoid starvation? --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Many birds, like pheasants and other game birds and rails, have little or no involvement in rearing the brood after copulation. Except in very cold or wet weather, the female comes off the eggs at intervals to feed herself. It's probably not possible to source this for individual species because it's normal behaviour Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I can only spell "ornithology" on good days :-( --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Breeding": Should "Nest success in undisturbed sites is high ... with lower survival in large broods" be separate para, as it's topic is mortality rates and causes? --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Breeding": Should "The annual adult survival rate is under 30%, although some individuals may live for 5–7 years" follow "The number of live chicks hatched ..."? --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Feeding": Would it be good to say that "The Corn Crake is omnivorous ... including grass seed and cereal grain" applies to the breeding season and / or in the northern hemisphere. --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Added, but after first sentence, since the omnivority(?) and general nature of its invertebrate diet is the same everywhere Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Predators and parasites" looks OK. --Philcha (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Status": At "despite its huge breeding range", "huge" looks
  WP:PEACOCK unless you can give a comparison, with citation(s). --Philcha (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I would have thought an area covering most of Eurasia could reasonably be described as "huge". "Large" seems like understatement. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't "from Ireland all the way to central Siberia" just before "estimated at 12,400,000 km²" be concise and resolve the vagueness of "huge". --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just removed "huge" — numbers in millions of square miles speak for themselves Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Status": I love the incisive inevitability of the 2nd para. You might like Gustav Holst - The Planets - Mars, the Bringer of War. --Philcha (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Status": I've made a few minor copyedits, see what you think. --Philcha (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks for those, no problem Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll add this a little later Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, done now, what do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit of fun for those who last the course - editors, reviewers and readers :-D --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Spot check in citations (apparently not done before):
  • "including a five-fold increase in Finland, and a doubling in the UK" supported by [http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=2878 Corncrake (Crex crex) - BirdLife species factsheet
  • "The call has evolved to make a singing male's location clear, ..." supported by Amplitude spectra of Corncrake calls: what do they signalise? (doi: 10.1163/1570756041445218)
  • "... this bird was once found in suitable habitats in Eurasia everywhere between latitudes 41°N and 62°N" supported by Populations, ecology and threats to the Corncrake Crex crex in Europe
  • "... The number of live chicks hatched is more important than the weather, with lower survival in large broods" supported by Effects of weather on the survival and growth of Corncrake Crex crex chicks
  • "The widespread fluke Prosthogonimus ovatus, which lives in the oviducts of birds, has been recorded in the Corn Crake" supported by Fleas, Flukes and Cuckoos. A study of bird parasites - apparently dead URL, possibly server out of business as the message came from my ISP! Code 0--Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as have the parasitic worm Plagiorchis elegans" supported by Helminth parasites of the Balkan green lizard, Lacerta trilineata Bedriaga 1886, from Bursa, Turkey
  • I'll resume the spot check later, poss tomorrow. --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone else can do any further spot checking needed. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Check for other dead links
  • A few need accessdates, please also check for any other missing parameters. --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third report of the Seychelles Bird Records Committee appears to have been pulled by the site. --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ARKive - Corncrake videos, photos and facts - Crex crex looks odd, and few citation params
  • Got a go. Please check any that are not code 200. Sorry. --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed dead Rothschild and ABC urls, these are real publications, so a weblink is a bonus anyway. Removed non-essential Arkive EL. I can't see any web-only refs without an access date, and web versions of real publications don't need them. Have I missed something? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All of "In culture" looks OK to me. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead: looks OK to me. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I have no further comments. --Philcha (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again for careful review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn Intended to get to reviewing this one, but forgot about it, sorry!

• "Crex pratensis" Do you have a citation for that name?

• I'm not sure what you are getting at, the Bechstein ref immediately follows that name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I meant the authority, the author- (Linnaeus, 1758) and all that. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose that I could put "(Bechstein, 1803)", but since I've just said that it was created by Bechstein in 1803, that seems a bit redundant. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was meaning specifically in the taxobox- it just looks a little lonely without it. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC

• The convention is that just the lowest rank gets the authority, so Linnaeus here, Bechstein on the
  Crex page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Fair enough- as you can see on (for instance) Leotia lubrica, on fungal articles we typically list the authorities for the synonyms as well as for the accepted binomial. If that's not how it's done with bird articles, so be it. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think File:Crex crex00.jpg would be a great addition to the description section, but I see why you've chosen the current lead image (despite the fact it could be said to not be the most useful photo). If you want to have something in the culture section, you could use Bewick's picture (or, at least, the one used in his book)- I note he also includes a different Latin name, and has a long discussion, which may offer some interesting tidbits.

• I've added Bewick image, as you suggest. I can't fit the other image in description because of the map, but moved to habitat instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Some more refs would be helpful in "breeding"- first and third paras give the appearance of being unsourced.

• I normally put refs at the end of all the text to which they refer, I don't like repeating the same ref in continuous prose Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Upon Appleton House" - Poem titles should be in speech marks, not italics.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the "names" section, some of the names are not capitalised (which I gather is usual for bird names) and some are in quote marks, some not.

• I think they are all fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read every word, but it's looking great. It's great to have the poetry- that really adds something. J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for review and kind comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kaldari:

• The text should probably be cropped or removed from the image of the egg.

• Well, the image is tiny anyway, so I'm reluctant to make it even smaller. At least it confirms the ID Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The images need alt tags.

• I don't think that's a requirement now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments on prose - was waiting for the dust to settle so Jim gets these reviews one by one rather than all-in. Reading through now. was reduced to minor quibbles I fixed myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for review, fixes and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good according to Cryptic C62 · Talk:

• Do we have any pictures of this critter that don't have twenty scrillion blades of grass in the way of the shot? The infobox image hardly conveys any useful information about this bird.

• Unfortunately not. It's the nature of this species to hide in the grass., I've heard, but never seen one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, poop. If any decent images do pop up, I'm sure you'll make good use of them. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is a medium-sized crake with ... chestnut on the wings" This phrasing just seems weird to me. I would prefer "It is a medium-sized crake with ... chestnut-colored wings".

• It's not the whole wing, changed to chestnut markings on the wings Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "There are no subspecies, although birds become slightly paler and greyer towards the east of the breeding range." Some minor problems with the wording here. "birds" implies that this statement is true of all bird species in the breeding range, not just corn crakes. "become" implies that the coloration of an individual bird will change as it flies east across the breeding range. Here's one possible alternative: "There are no subspecies, although individuals born towards the east of the breeding range tend to be slightly paler than their western counterparts."

• now although individuals from the east of the breeding range tend to be slightly paler than their western counterparts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "rufous-blotched cream-coloured eggs" This is literally the funniest thing I have ever read on Wikipedia. Are you telling me that "rufous" is a real color?! (I've linked it.)

• It's actually very common usage in bird publications, because it perfectly describes the colour of many birds, thanks for link Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "This crake is in steep decline across much of its former breeding range because modern farming practices mean that nests and birds are destroyed by mowing or harvesting before breeding is finished." This phrasing can be made much tighter: "This crake is in steep decline across much of its former breeding range because modern farming practices often destroy nests before breeding is finished."

• That's good, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Despite its skulking nature" What does this mean? I can't tell if "skulking" is a jargon word or just an unusually illustrative verb.

• "skulking" is often used for birds that hide in dense vegetation, but now changed to "elusive" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am happy to see that the lead contains information from each of the article's main sections.

That's all from me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, final point addressed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I would have liked to have read more about the campylobacter problem, but that's because sadly I am more interested in bacteria than birds :-) Thanks for an engaging contribution.

• Thanks for support, sorry no more about nasty diseases! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a double image in the "Status" section which is not ... ???? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, after manually loading the image, now it's there (in my cache), so I don't know what caused that problem ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 23 August 2011 (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 promoted by Ucucha 18:54, 23 August 2011 [13].

Brazilian battleship São Paulo

Nominator(s):

[majestic titan] 09:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Missing bibliographic info for Barman Citizen Emperor
  • Added
    [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• FN 16: why reverse the order here?
  • The journal title is being used in place of the author.
    [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Be consistent in whether "Serviço de Documentação da Marinha — Histórico de Navios" is italicized or not, and also what type of dash is used
  • Fixed
    [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Scheina or Schenia?
  • Scheina, fixed.
    [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• No references to ONI, Preston, Scheina "Argentina", either of the articles titled "The Brazilian Battleship "Minas Geraes"."
  • Sorry, those were holdovers from other articles.
    [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Foreign-language sources should be notated as such
  • Chicago doesn't require noting foreign-language sources if the title is in the original language, see "[14]". {{
    [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Be consistent in how journal sources are punctuated - for example, compare Martins and Livermore
  • [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Not what I'm looking at - "3, no. 27 (2007): 74–77." vs "16: no. 1 (1944), 31–44.". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, my bad, sorry! I've fixed this now.
        [majestic titan] 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Check ordering of References
  • Well now, that was silly of me. Fixed.
    [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Check punctuation for Poggio
  • Changed comma to period.
    [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• "U.S. Government Printing Office" or just "Government Printing Office"? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter, see
    [majestic titan] 17:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]