Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2013

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 Ian Rose 10:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Lanny McDonald

Nominator(s): Resolute 02:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lanny is a local hero, a hometown star who came home to the Calgary Flames to lead them to their only Stanley Cup Championship in 1989. Hockey Hall of Famer, patron of the Special Olympics, and in my completely objective and totally non-biased opinion, the greatest moustache in sports. The article was brought to GA standard and run through peer review a little over a year ago, but I placed it on the back burner to focus on FA runs for two other topics approaching major milestones. Since hockey never really stops in Canada however, I felt the dog days of summer was a prime time to bring this article before the community. All comments and suggestions welcomed! Thanks, Resolute 02:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• Toronto Maple Leafs: "The patience the Maple Leafs had shown McDonald in his first two seasons was rewarded in 1975–76 when rediscovered his offensive touch". Needs "he" after "when".
• Calgary Flames: Contraction should be fixed in "after which McDonald remarked that he hadn't had so much fun playing the game in a long time."
• "He watched from the bench as his teammates' unsuccessfully attempted...". Apostrophe should be removed.
• Personal life: "for which the publisher made a donation of $10,000 to Special Olympics." Should "the" be added before Special Olympics? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, thanks! I slightly reworded the second point since "had not had" felt sloppy. regards, Resolute 22:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Support – The article was in good shape when I read it, and I'm confident that it meets the FA criteria. Nice job on this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with comments - This looks really good and was a nice read. I made a few changes, and have a few comments:

• This is a bit unclear. Was he the all-star team's MVP, or the league MVP? "He was named to the AJHL's Second All-Star team, and voted its most valuable player."
• Jargon: "acquired McDonald's rights"
• I don't quite understand this: "Angered at first, he viewed the deal as an insult, that the worst team in the NHL had rejected him." You haven't established anywhere that the Rockies were the worst team in the NHL. Is that what you're suggesting?
• "At 36 years old and approaching the end of his career, the 1989 Stanley Cup playoffs was potentially his last chance at a championship." At an NHL championship... :)
• "and Calgary won the game 4–2 to win" I couldn't think of a way to reword this, but it's redundant.
• "He had also previously served as a vice president of the NHLPA." This seems to be hanging out in the wrong section, chronologically. When in his career as a player did this occur? --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review and support! I have attempted to clarify or address your comments. Cheers! Resolute 23:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great article, well written, comprehensive. Concur on the stache. Thank you for your hard work. Rejectwater (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm a bit later than I'd like on this one, sorry about that! I peer reviewed this article last year, and it was in excellent shape then. With further improvements and other eyes on it, I'm confident it meets the criteria, with the qualification that I am far from a hockey expert. Just a few nit-picks which do not affect my support. Incidentally, I must take issue with "the greatest moustache in sports". Search for some images of Merv Hughes... Sarastro1 (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "McDonald finished the season with a modest improvement over his rookie campaign: 17 goals and 44 points": I don't think he finished with an improvement, rather "McDonald's [record?] at the end of the season was a modest improvement…" or similar.
• "The Maple Leafs were viewed as being underdogs": Redundancy?
• "…five back of Gretzky's 71": Sounds a little unencyclopedic to me.
• 7th paragraph of the Calgary section: close repetition of "elimated/eliminating".
• Playing style section: A little heavy on using "he was", perhaps. Maybe some of them could be reworded? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hughes had a fine 'stache, certainly. But add a playoff beard, and Lanny wins easily.  ;) Anyway, thanks for the support, and I've tried to address the points you brought up! Resolute 23:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check all OK (Flickr CC, own work). Sources and authors provided.

• Background checks for Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK.
• Small logos in some images meet Commons:Commons:De minimis guideline - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

• Did I miss where the material in the "Regular season and playoffs" table is cited?
• Fair few duplicate links -- you can use
  this tool
  to locate the repeats.
• Still after a source review form someone, as listed at
  WT:FAC
  a while back -- I can see a Harv error for a start at the very top of the General references (source not cited by the look of it).

  Hi Ian, thanks for the comments. Your first and third point are related. The first reference in the general references is the cite for McDonald's career statistics. I've personally never liked adding things like "Source: [3]" to the end of a table like that. I find it ugly, so usually do it as a general ref (e.g. at Brad McCrimmon). Thanks for the pointer the duplicate links tool! I removed the links duplicated within the body of the article. Cheers! Resolute 14:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN24: don't italicize place
• Don't mix {{
  cite
  }} templates
• Why spell out CBC? Why spell out SI on second occurrence but not first?
• Internet Hockey Database or The Internet Hockey Database? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  All fixed. And personally, I think "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" looks better than "CBC". Especially since I often include TSN (The Sports Network) links in many of the same articles, and got into the habit of spelling it out for the sake of consistency. Cheers! Resolute 03:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 10:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Tosa-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel_66, Parsecboy, and The ed17

These class of battleships was one of the first Japanese responses to an enormous buildup in the US Navy announced by President Woodrow Wilson after the end of World War I that started a naval arms race between Japan, Great Britain and the United States. The enormously expensive ships involved caused the US to call a conference among the major powers to forestall the arms race that caused most of the ships already begun to be scrapped. The Tosa-class ships were among the casualties and one was used as a target ship to evaluate the effectiveness of her armor scheme and the other was converted into an aircraft carrier. This ship was one of those that attacked US forces at Pearl Harbor and Allied forces at Darwin, Australia before she was sunk at the Battle of Midway in 1942. This article had a MilHist A-class review four years ago, but has been substantially overhauled recently.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is a
  talk) 00:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "One revised version of the Nagato design, known as Design A-114, was accepted on 28 October by the Navy Minister, but was not proceeded with.": If nothing ever came of it, what's important enough about this particular design to single it out? - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not especially; I just thought it was interesting that they were already considering revising the design.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The IJN began reevaluating the Nagato design in light of lessons learned from the Battle of Jutland ...", "Hiraga's design for the ship reflected the lessons from the Battle of Jutland ...": If possible, it would be better not to say it twice.
  • Rephrased.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "they were raised in height": If you know how many feet or meters they were raised, that might be a better way to put it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrased. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox (for example, the successor) are unsourced
  • Predecessor and successor classes have never been specifically sourced.
• Evans and Peattie or just Peattie?
  • Good catch, two different books, one of which was missing.
• Be consistent in how you notate short citations with multiple authors
• FN18: should use endash
• No citations to Jentschura et al
• Be consistent in when you include states
• Lengerer 2010: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-published, sort of. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

• The three of you got together on a warship project, and the world didn't implode? I'm disappointed, I had expected this much awesomeness to have reached critical mass.

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Image review

File:41cm-45 3rd Year Type naval gun outside the Yamato Museum during October 2008.jpg - Fine.

File:Model of battleship Kaga port view.jpg - Fine.

File:Japanese battleship Tosa.jpg - Fine.

File:Japanese Navy Aircraft Carrier Kaga 1928.jpg - Very blown out, but copyright-wise fine.

File:Japanese Navy Aircraft Carrier Kaga.jpg - Fine (a little grainy, but no problem there)

Support on prose and images, very good work everyone! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The body looks pretty good, but the lead is not written very well.

• "The ships were larger versions of the preceding Nagato class, and mounted an additional 41-centimeter (16.1 in) twin-gun turret." The ships mounted turrets? Is that normal vernacular (as opposed to the turrets being mounted on the ships)?

• How about "and carried..."? Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The design for the class also served as a basis for the Amagi-class battlecruisers." The "also" implies you have already written something about the design was doing.

• Removed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "took part in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the invasion of Rabaul in the Southwest Pacific in January 1942" As written, suggests both of those actions occurred in January 1942.

• Added the date for Pearl Harbor. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I keep seeing this problem in ship articles (persisting still in HMS Warrior). "This was the genesis of the Eight-Eight Fleet Program" Avoid the ambiguous "this" in reference to previous subjects.

• This one might need Sturm - I don't have Evans & Peattie handy. It looks as though the "this" in question refers to the 1907 Imperial Defense Policy. If that's correct, it would be best to state that explicitly. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I gotta say that I don't regard "this" as ambiguous as the entire previous sentence was about the rationale for the 8-8 fleet program. Nonetheless, I've added "policy" to the second sentence to clarify things. Thanks for looking it over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I know you don't. ;) It's not a dealbreaker really, but it's not ideal writing. ESL readers in particular have trouble with that construction. --Laser brain (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty close to ready. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, Laser brain. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• Prose-wise, copyedited so pls let me know if you disagree with anything. It's a bit difficult to write about 'might have been' things, so there's an understandable preponderance of "would have had" when describing design, etc -- the only thing I'd suggest here is perhaps varying this occasionally with "was/were to have" or some such.
• Structure, coverage and referencing seem fine.
• Image-wise, agree with Crisco that licensing looks okay except that I'd expect File:Japanese Navy Aircraft Carrier Kaga.jpg to have a US PD tag like the others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a very solid article on this design. I have the following comments:

• The first sentence's statement that these ships were "built as part of the "Eight-Eight" fleet" seems inaccurate given that neither was completed (and, from memory, the eight-eight fleet was not achieved) - 'built' is the problematic word here
  • Changed to "ordered". Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Diet authorized three more dreadnoughts in response the following year: Mutsu, Tosa and Kaga" - was it planned to build the 2nd and 3rd of these ships as an updated design at this time? It might also be worth noting here that Mutsu was a follow-on from Nagato.
  • I'll let Sturm address the specifics of the authorization, but I've added the bit about Mutsu. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two Tosas were already a separate design. I think that Parsec's change clarifies things well enough.
• Can the specific influence of the various factors in the paragraph starting "The IJN began reevaluating the Nagato design in light of lessons learned" be identified?
  • Explicated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What position did Captain Yuzuru Hiraga hold?
  • Expanded.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd suggest removing the para which starts with "By World War II, the guns used Type 91 armor-piercing, capped shells" as its not really all that relevant to this cancelled design
  • I always like to give gun performance data in a class article. If I remove it here I'll have to remove it for all the other guns that the design would have used. I did remove the "by WW2" bit as that's unnecessarily precise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Did the Washington Naval Treaty really mandate "the cancellation of all naval ships being built"? I thought that smaller ships were OK (I could be totally wrong).
  • No, you're right, it was just a holiday on capital ship construction. Everything from cruisers on down was essentially unrestricted (incidentally, limitations on cruiser building were put into effect in 1930 with the London Naval Treaty). Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The sentence which begins with "Kaga was originally planned to be scrapped" is a bit over-complex - I'd suggest splitting this into a couple of sentences
  • See how it reads now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The last para should note the date Kaga was sunk
  • Added. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Can the publishing details to Lengerer, Hans (June 2010) be fleshed out? It's unclear what Contributions to the History of Imperial Japanese Warships (Special Paper I) is - is it a book? Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an internet-only journal that requires a subscription. I've added that template, but it doesn't list a publisher.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide a URL? At present it's not clear how readers could actually access this publication. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Aside from the minor issue immediately above, my comments are addressed and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I'd love to, but you have to email the editor and he'll send you the issue(s), once you've paid.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you add details of how readers could do that? (eg, his personal website, or his email address if it's public) Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • That looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Dr.

• Can you give some description of its physical attributes in the lead? I know the infobox has the facts, but to effectively summarize the article I feel it needs some of the basic information in prose in the lead.
  • I never put physical characteristics in the lede as I believe that that's not summarizing, but merely duplicating info presented in fuller detail in the description section.

Fair enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you write Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) instead of IJN in the first instance in the background section and then use IJN ?
  • I gave the abbreviation in the lede and used it first in the background section, only two paragraphs later. The reader shouldn't have any problem following the usage.
• As I see you are using digits for numbers like 16 and 20, number above nine should be in digits too, ten and eleven.
  • I generally do so, but the exceptions involve the 2nd and 3rd bullets from
    WP:Numeral
    :
    • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.
    • Adjacent quantities that are not comparable should usually be in different formats: twelve 90-minute volumes or 12 ninety-minute volumes is more readable than 12 90-minute volumes or twelve ninety-minute volumes.
• "The ships' secondary armament of twenty 50-caliber 14-centimeter guns would have been mounted in casemates, 12 on the upper sides of the hull and eight in the superstructure. The 3rd Year Type guns". -Can you link 3rd Year Type in the first instance here or say 14-centimeter 3rd Year Type guns as it had be wondering what 3rd Year Type was.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch, done. Appreciate you're taking the time to review this nom.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This looks great; no grammar nitpicks or anything. One question though: since neither was technically scrapped, why does the infobox say "1 scrapped"? Maralia (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the closest to what actually happened among the available options of scrapped, preserved, or lost.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support once fixed Attack on Pearl Harbor is linked to twice. The second time it's via redirect. The second link should be unlinked. Redirs shouldn't be in there at all and we only need to link to something once. Consider as support once this is fixed. PumpkinSky talk 02:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Fixed, and thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ucucha (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 10:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Peasants' Revolt

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it covers a turning point in English history, complete with a cast of thousands, dramatic events, bureaucratic incompetence and revenge... It has been through an A-class review over at MilHist, and I believe it now meets the standards for a Featured Article. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. No changes in prose since I reviewed this for A-class. Lively, clear writing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check: I moved one image to the Commons and cleaned up the licensing a bit on several of the images. Most of the images are legitimately in the public domain, and those that aren't are freely licensed. The images are all used appropriately, with informative captions. Be careful: captions that are sentence fragments should not have a period at the end, but captions that are complete sentences (e.g. "Richard II meets the rebels...") or that contain complete a complete sentence (e.g. "...the King is represented twice...") should end in a period. I think "An illustration from Vox Clamantis by John Gower, a poem describing the revolt" has the wrong punctuation or should be reworded. Would "14th century rural scene of reeve directing serfs, Queen Mary's psalter" be improved with a "from the"? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed, I think. Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• How are you ordering works by the same author in Bibliography?

• Should be by year; have corrected one mistake. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Caught one and corrected. Thanks Nikki! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell

This article is excellent. The prose is truly among the best Wikipedia has no offer; it brings the subject to life and makes it intereresting, without doing injustice to the sources. The organization is just right, the amount of background material is balanced, the footnote usage is carefully thought out, the lede is a great summary, etc. The concise "aftermath" is particularly good. I just have a few questions and suggestions for improvement.

• As stated in the image check, there are a few captions that could be improved or standardized.

• I've made some changes as per the above - let me know if there are others. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "...has interested Marxist historians and writers alike..." All Marxist historians I'm familiar with are also writers. A rewrite would make this clearer.

• Good point! Have changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The central elite had not intervened in this way before, or allied itself with the local landowners in quite such an obvious or unpopular way." This is a very strong statement, and I'd love to check the source, but page 285 is not available for preview. Does the source (and the weight of other, related sources) support such a sweeping assessment?

• The original runs: "...the government was intervening in the economy in a new way. Before the Black Death, the state had an interest in maintaining law and order.... After the Black Death the ruling groups temporarily closed ranks, and used the power of the state to defend the interests of the rich in a blatant manner... The ranks of society below the gentry felt that the state was losing any claim to impartiality as it became so closely identified with the landed interest.". Dyer's one of the best economic historians for this period, but similar views include Alan Harding, who notes "the major fact of 14th century society was the growth of an aristocratic county community embracing both magnates and gentry", using the legal processes to deal with what they perceived as "a rebellious servant class". Miri Rubin discusses how employers "mobilised their influence in Parliament" to produce a "royal reaction to their plight" through the legal processes, integrating this into the local gentry systems, and producing "a byword for unjust oppression". Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Edward III should probably be introduces as "Edward III of England" at first mention (first sentence of "War and finance"), since he's introduced in the context of France.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The taxes in this section say things like "levied at the rate of four pence on every person". Is that a one-time tax, or annually, or what? The previous statement "Taxes in the 14th century were raised on an ad hoc basis" make me think these were one-time requirements for money, but one-time taxes are such a foreign concept to modern audiences that perhaps this could be more explicit.

• It was still a one-off tax. I've tweaked the text slightly to reinforce this, see if it works... Hchc2009 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The rebels rejected the proposals of the Bishop of Rochester"... what proposals? Did he just propose that they go home and stop complaining, or did he offer something more substantive? (Do me know?)

• We don't have 100% visibility, but they included the peasants returning home - I've added this in. I suspect it was a "go home and we won't take the matter any further" kind of offer. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Frequently the rebels required the signing of charters -- St Albans' abbey surrendered its rights, and the University of Cambridge gave up its royal privileges. You mention that later, discussing the charter that ended Feudalism, that "the royal charters signed under duress during the rising were formally revoked", but does that include these other charters as well?

• I don't think I've seen anything on the fate of the local charters, but will check. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This feels a littly clumsy: "...and although there are dangers in relying on these records excessively, the earlier perception that that the rebels were only constituted of unfree serfs is now rejected." Also, would [nb 13] fit better after "excessively"?

• Edited - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph of Historiography states that contemporary chroniclers were biased against the rebels, and no sympathic accounts survive. This is not hard to believe, but it also needs to be well-supported by secondary sources. Unfortunately I can't see Strohm or Jones, and I can't find support for Walsingham's bias in Dunn. Can you confirm that the claims of bias are adequately supported?

• Strohm notes that there are no surviving accounts "favourable to the motives of its participants" and that "even those chronicle accounts that sound sympathetic to modern ears... were presented by their original authors as self-evident exposure of the folly of the insurgents". Jones notes that Walsingham was "hysterically biased against the rebels"; I wouldn't use Jones for contentious statements, but this was reflected in the other main sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are four separate sources backing up the statements about Hilton's 1973 Marxist account, but I'm surprised to see that Hilton (1973) is not one of them. Is there a reason for that?

• It was deliberate. If memory serves, I was keen not to stray into OR, and Hilton's book doesn't explicitly state his sympathies or interest in the rebel cause in a way I could find a cite for; similarly, drawing out that it particularly sets itself in the context of wider peasant revolts felt close to original commentary (albeit fairly low-risk OR!). In the end I went for other authors' statements about Hilton etc., thus the four sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Nun's Priest's Tale should probably be linked.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotchecks: I examined the sources for references 6, 8, 20, 43, 59, 70, 99, 178, 226, and 285. In all cases, the statement in the article was fully supported by the sources listed. Further, the information in the sources was extremely well-synthesized, summarizing the points made without any hint of plagiarism.

All in all the article is very strong, and I look forward to supporting when these issues are addressed. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this fulfills all the requirements of a Featured Article. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I was the reviewer at GAN, when I did a reasonable amount of copyediting, and subsequently supported at MilHist ACR on prose, structure, coverage/neutrality, referencing and image licensing. Having checked alterations since I last reviewed, I see no reason why it shouldn't be Featured as well. Double-checked for dab links and found none. John Gower is duplicated, but at each end of the article so doesn't fuss me particularly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wiklinking fixed. Thanks Ian. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fine article, and with a bit of polishing of the prose will, I am confident, meet the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments I hope I have time for a full review, but in the meantime:
• I can't see that the effects of the Revolt, as given, include the effect on the young Richard. It may be speculative, but historians normally give some of the explanation for his very exalted, and finally fatal, idea of kingship to his experiences then.

• I don't disagree, but I'm drawing a blank for a citation. I've tried Saul, Rubin and a few others. I'll keep looking. It may be one of those really obvious historical points that no-one ever spells out! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Several picture captions are below FA standard and have been neglected. I have made some changes but more are needed. The
  Burne-Jones and so on. Whether that can be called the "main gate" of Bury St Edmunds Abbey I'm not sure; the other big gatehouse is older and taller. If you have a picture of a picture, is it necessary to say in the caption it is a picture? There seems room for this Death of Wat Tyler from Froissart. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Main gate caption fixed; this was the main entrance into the town, and had just been built a couple of years before the uprising, if memory serves. Various changes made - see what you think. On my screen I can't see an easy way to fit an additional image into the article without letter boxing etc., but all screens look different etc. and I may be in a minority. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• Lead:
  • Is it really correct to link "radical" in the lead to "far-left politics"? I note that our article on John Ball links to Christian radicalism... which is probably a better fit. Certainly, "far-left politics" is utterly about modern politics, not medieval radicalism.

• Agree - a much better link. Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • "and Richard's party cut Tyler down" ... a bit unencylopedic? I'm of two minds on this - it's an accurate description of what happened, but it does read a bit like a tabloid account.

• I struggled for an alternative that either wasn't bland, or captured the action without carrying additional implications. I've simplified - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why "Unrest continued until the intervention of the Bishop of Norwich, Henry le Despenser, who defeated" giving name and title here but not "executing the Lord Chancellor and the Lord High Treasurer, whom they found inside" earlier?

• Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Economics:
  • Link "manors"?

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Dyer 2009 does say 50 percent mortality from the Black Death, but he's careful to qualify it as an estimate. I think we need to be clearer that it's all estimates, not quite as cut and dried as folks may think reading what's here in the article. Prestwich, in Plantagenet England (2005) p. 545 states "The overall death toll in England may well have been not far short of 50 per cent." It's worth noting that these two works don't cite their sources for these guesses, and that most larger scale works on the period usually give a death rate of a third for the whole of Europe. The subject of the Black Death is undergoing a lot of new research and it's in considerable flux - it's probably best to qualify this a bit more to avoid the impression that a 50 percent figure is solid.

• Changed to stress the estimate. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The central elite had not intervened" do not like the phrase "central elite" here - "royal government" would be much better. Dyer, the source for this, calls it the "government", I'll note.

• The anthropologist coming out in me...! Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Saul Richard II pp. 60-61 discusses the resentment of the serfs at the attempts of the landlords to enforce manorial customs and exactions as another contributing factor in the revolt. It's obliquely mentioned, but not explicitly stated as a cause.

• I've pulled it out slightly more clearly - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• War:
  • "Edward died in 1377, leaving the throne to his grandson, Richard II, then only ten years old." uncited.

• Cite added. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The raising of these taxes had affected the members of the Commons much more than the Lords." awkward sentence - perhaps lose the "had"?

• Agree - an end to unnecessary pluperfects! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Entry:
  • Saul Richard II p. 64 and footnote 35 disagrees that Tonge is proven to have opened the city up to the rebels. Also he notes that two other aldermen were also indicted on similar charges of opening gates to the city ... this should probably be covered.

• I've clarified - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • "On the north side of London, the rebels approached Smithfield and Clerkenwell Priory, the headquarters of the Knights Hospitaller, headed by Hales." The way this is written, it implies that Hales led the rebels...

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • "and one of the men on the rebel's execution list, had a narrow escape when the crowds " .. passive. Suggest "and one of the men on the rebel's execution list, narrowly escaped when the crowds "

• Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking:
  • Saul discusses the trip to the meeting on 14 June as being "eventful" and mentions that the group was accousted a couple of times. Might bear mentioning.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Picky but important "Lady Joan and Joan Holland, Richard's sister" Joan Holland was Richard's half-sister. So it's not quite true later that "the royal pair" - Joan Holland wasn't royal.

• Changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Saul mentions a death toll of about 150 or 160 foreigners on the day of 14 June, including 35 Flemings who were dragged from St Martin in Vintry and beheaded.

• I've added the church killings, which appear in several secondary sources; the 150 stat isn't used widely elsewhere, though and the source (Walsingham) is questioned on this one elsewhere, I think. 19:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Smithfield:
  • Saul states that Tyler demanded the disendowment of the church, the ending of the practice of outlawing, and the equality of men except for the king. This should probably be mentioned?
  • Saul also points out that the various accounts of the chroniclers differ in some details and describes these differences - in regards to the death of Tyler. Probably needs explicating. Also Saul points out that the historians who've studied the issue also differ in why it happened, with some thinking Tyler provoked the episode, and others putting it down to an accident or to the instigation of the king.

• I'll work through the rest, but I think some of this is captured in footnote 11 of the article - do you think it needs expanding further? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Would probably be better to have more of this in the body of the article - the differences are enough to make it a good idea to explicate them in the body of the article, especially as Saul makes a pretty hefty point of their differences. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Will take a look. I'd gone for the minimal "consensus" agreed account in the main text, as per Dunn, but will see what else can be done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppression:
  • "the King dispatched Thomas Holland, the Earl of Kent, and" Holland was the king's half brother also.

• Added. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • "20 June, Thomas of Woodstock, the Earl of Buckingham, and" Thomas is also a younger brother of John of Gaunt and uncle to Richard.

• Added. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Earlier you say that Jack Straw is not sure to have existed, but now it's "Jack Straw was captured in London and executed"? Inconsistent.

• Clarified. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally I'd chastise anyone using John Robinson's Born in Blood or The Templar Revelation as sources, but these are used properly to point out the fringe viewpoint - not as sources for the actual article content.

• :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Except for the few concerns above, the article is well sourced and comprehensive. I forsee little problem supporting after the above is taken care of. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ealdgyth and Johnbod, having spent ages searching through my slightly disorganised house (or "library", as my partner likes to term it...) I've drawn a blank on finding my original copy of Saul, and have put another one on order through Amazon this morning. I'm travelling with work this week armed only with an iPhone - which isn't great for editing on - due back next Saturday, so will make the other suggested changes then, and then crack on with the Saul bits then. My apologies for the delay. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, finally back home following a day's driving. Nigel Saul's book has arrived in my absence, will get to work! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose

• Add an infobox
• The section headings names vary between places and events - e.g. Essex and Kent vs. March on London or Events in London
• Move a few more images to the left to balance the pages.
• Do we really need that See Also section?
• Notes usually arise from editorial differences but 12 seems like too many to me which probably could be better dealt just with wikilinks.
• 130+ references out of 297 to one book (Dunn 2002) is a high percentage considering the size of the bibliography. Kirk (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to give outside opinions here on two of the points you raise. The notes were very valuable to me as a reader, and I don't think they could be effectively converted to wikilinks without sacrificing quality. And I don't believe the addition of an infobox would add anything to the quality of this article. These are just my opinions, so feel free to ignore, but I hope they are helpful. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not have an infobox. The notes are fine, & I don't agree that "Notes usually arise from editorial differences" - they are mostly used for things that are worth adding or explaining, but not in the main text. If there is one top modern source, I don't think c. 45% of the refs being to it is in itself a problem. Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in every particular with Johnbod's comment, above. Tim riley (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On an infobox, I'm not convinced that one would add much to this particular article. Happy to be convinced otherwise though!

• I think the one I added is helpful; the names could use a little attention, thanks!

Kirk, on Essex, Kent, London etc. I'm not certain I can see the problem - could you explain what the issue is that you'd like fixed?

• Maybe for the sections that don't have a defined location you can add a map? The March on London might be Middlesex as a location - is that the terminology Dunn uses?

On See Also, they're not linked in the main article and seem fine to me (NB: I don't think I personally added them in, but they seem reasonable enough). Was there a particular concern with them?

• Could you explain why the reader should see also
  Jack Cade? These articles don't seem interconnected and they don't share many links; also, the style these days is to put them in the sections where they are appropriate instead of at the end. Let me know if I can help figure this out! Kirk (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm not sure that I agree with you about 12 footnotes being excessive, given the size of the topic.

In terms of the referencing, I believe that the article meets the criterion of being "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." Dunn gives a reasonably up-to-date, comprehensive and neutral review of the subject, which is why I've used him for the standard "narrative" referencing. If there's particular concern about individual cites, where perhaps you think that a different author/source would be more appropriate, I'm happy to examine them of course. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider my note suggestions below; the citations are ok since a lot are doubled up with others. Its a very well sourced article! Kirk (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What were the dates of the rebellion, location(s) including battles, end result, who was fighting who, and who were the major persons involved? Put that in an infobox and I'll strike my oppose.

• Mmm, not sure this'd be classed as an actionable objection unless there's a rule stating that all historical incidents require infoboxes (I tend to work with military bios and units, where they're a given). I say this simply as another reviewer, since I've commented (and supported) earlier and therefore recused myself from FAC delegate duties here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ian, assuming infoboxes fall under 3. Media, and I'm arguing this article would benefit from a summary so the reader can get basic information about this conflict without having to slog through the whole article so its missing a key media item. Media itself is pretty vague but I think its actionable. Kirk (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, specifically the leaders of the rebellion are not in the lead other than Wat Tyler, and you only find out later John Ball was a leader; I think this article would benefit from a concise summary of the facts. Kirk (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Added infobox; the leader's names need some work. Kirk (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The sections would make more sense if you were consistent with how you named them, that's all I'm saying. Where is a "March to London" on a map? Was it in Essex and Kent?
• The first See Also wasn't really very helpful and the second could either be mentioned in the article prose, or cut if its has no connection. I didn't see the connection between the two.
• Aiming for NPOV you want other views, so its nice to have more sources incorporated in the article. This article has a lot of sources, but one that has a majority of citations so you should be able to adjust the ratio. Surprised this wasn't addressed at A review.
• You should always aim for zero notes in a FA article - I don't think I should have to tell you which ones you should cut or incorporate in the prose; give it a shot and I'll review it. Kirk (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My suggestions...

note 1: its impossible, then you give a comparison so I'd either go with sentence 1 or 2 or cut.

note 2 merge with #1 or cut

note 3 Marshalsea Court is linked so cut.

note 4 keep

note 5 keep or merge, old swords and old bows kind of leans toward historian #2's opinion.

note 6 merge into body

note 7 put a range in the body with the citations for each.

note 8 merge into body

note 9 If Law of Winchester is a thing it probably should be linked; the way that sentence is written 'It is unclear...' but the note clarifies it so I would rewrite this.

note 10 cut

note 11 cut

note 12 merge into body

note 13 cut. I don't think readers care about earlier perception and the actual note doesn't make sense to me, might want to check the paraphrasing...

note 14 merger makes more sense to me in a 2 sentence paragraph. Maybe link Magne societatis?

This gets us to 3-5 notes. Kirk (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Outside opinion) I strongly disagree with these note suggestions. I think the notes are well-written and very valuable. Why do you feel that we "should always aim for zero notes in a FA article"? I don't find this idea in the MoS, and looking through the existing FAs shows that this has not been a problem for other FAs. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Its basic Readability - if you have a article like this with a bunch of notes, every time you encounter one you have to stop reading, click, read, hopefully the note was worth the effort then find your way back. It would be nice if there was better MOS guidance from MilHist on when to choose a note for additional commentary vs. putting the fact in the article vs. leaving it out since we're aiming for summary style. It would also be nice if historians could agree on facts so we didn't need notes! Kirk (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tim riley and myself have objected above to many of these points, and I also don't agree that "You should always aim for zero notes in a FA article", certainly at the expense of cramming everything into the main text. If anything the reverse - most FAs have notes in some form. While it may come under the scope of Milhist, this is essentially a subject from political history, and treating it as though it were a German battleship is not proving productive. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect my opinions - I'm just trying to improve this article. Consider

WP:SS w/note #3 - there's a perfectly good article linked, so we don't need a paragraph explaining it in note. Quadell mentioned he liked reading the notes but personally I don't find the opinions of historians make an article better and in this case some I didn't find very useful to me. Kirk (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ucucha (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 10:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RAAF's fighter conversion unit, which originated in World War II, disbanded in 1947, and was revived in the middle of the Korean War, when the Air Force realised there was a significant gap in its training program. Since then it's converted pilots to all of Australia's front-line fighters -- Sabre, Mirage, and F/A-18 Hornet. This is by no means my first article on an RAAF unit, but the first I've felt was FA material in all departments. Thanks to Dank for reviewing at GAN, Nick-D for some additional info and images, everyone who commented at the article's recent MilHist A-Class Review, and of course -- in advance -- all reviewers here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I reviewed the changes at A-class a few days ago, so I'll take it on faith that it hasn't gone all to hell since then :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and me both... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN6: page formatting
• FN22: is xiii meant to be another page number?
• FN47: check title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a high quality article and covers the breadth of the topic well. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many tks, Hc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (fair-use, own-work, PD-US Air force, PD-Australia, PD-author Australian government). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Joe! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed at ACR and have checked the changes since then. I only have one minor point:

• "nighttime" --> "night-time"? (according to my Macquarie dictionary anyway). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, tks for reviewing, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've added some material to this article over the last few months, but don't think that this is sufficient to prevent me reviewing the article. I've just read through it, and think that the FA criteria are met. My only comment is that the sentence "Jeffrey had recently established two of the first three fighter units that the RAAF had brought on line to help defend Australia's north as the Japanese advanced towards New Guinea, Nos. 75 and 76 Squadrons" is a bit convoluted - could this be trimmed? (eg, to something like "Jeffrey had recently established Nos. 75 and 76 Squadrons, which were two of the first three fighter units raised to help defend northern Australia as the Japanese advanced towards New Guinea"). Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked a bit but essentially used what you said above -- tks again for additions, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ucucha (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Pacific Swift

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since these swifts are constantly in flight, even when asleep, the 160-mile drive and three-mile walk to see one of these in Suffolk was a bit nerve-wracking. However, despite the fuss, I parked nicely, saw the bird and didn't get arrested. This is a short FAC because it's nothing like as well studied as its American or European relatives. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Some thoughts-

• The opening line doesn't quite grab the reader as much as I'd hope- do we need to jump straight into taxonomic controversies?

• Rejigged, is it better? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The two or three white eggs are incubated for about 17 days to hatching, the chicks then having a long and variable period in the nest before they are fully fledged." How about "The two or three white eggs are incubated for about 17 days to hatching. Subsequently, the chicks have a long but variable period in the nest before they are fully fledged."?

• Amended as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Like all swifts, Pacific feeds" How about "Like all members of its family, the Pacific Swift..."

• Amended as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really like the way you refer to it as "Pacific", rather than "the Pacific Swift". Is this something done regularly in the sources?

• Mainly done to reduce repetitions of "swift", all written in full now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Check your punctuation in the paragraph on parasites.

• Aaaargh!. How did I miss those? Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Its population is unknown, and but it is" Needs cleaning

• Or that... done. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Common Swift, a close relative of Pacific, has been recorded as reaching 21 years old.[29]" So we can assume these live to about the same age? Or would that be original research?

• I can't find a maximum age for the Pacific Swift, but the claim of longevity for the family as a whole is sourced and the Common Swift data is to illustrate that. It would be a reasonable assumption that one of the Common Swift's closest relatives might live to a similar age, but obviously I can't say that. If you think that even the implication is OR, I'll take it out, but I think it's better to give the information rather than omit it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally strong. I made a few tweaks. J Milburn (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for comments and tweaks, all done now I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, assuming the source check comes back OK. I'm happy. I will, however, keep an eye on this page in case I missed something! J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

• huge breeding area - is "huge" encyclopedic?

• I think several million square miles could reasonably be described as a huge area. I can't see an obvious alternative other than "very large" but I already have "large" in the sentence. Massive is worse than huge. Any thoughts? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Extensive? J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (15 mm against the nominate form's 20 mm) - Worth including conversions?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• on the wintering grounds, - on or in?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Pacific Swift can be distinguished with care by its deeper tail fork, - Feels like you're missing a definite article

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Orchid Island - missing a definite article?

• I don't understand why it should be the Orchid Island. I wouldn't say "the Japan" or "the Taiwan", so I'm not sure why this is different Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• D'oh, stet. I thought I saw Islands, my bad. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are 13 European records as of 2013, from Denmark (two), Spain, Sweden (four) and the UK (seven). It is possible that this overstates the true number of visiting birds due to wandering or returning individuals; all the listed countries had a sighting on different dates in summer 2013, and the four English records since 2005 all involved birds that were seen at least at Spurn, East Yorkshire. - How many of these sightings were in 2013, and how many of that list was from 2013? I'm confused here.

• expanded to clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• bees, wasps, termites and moths. - What's with the odd termite out?

• Just thought it might be less familiar, now unlinked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Any other information available, perhaps something about their saliva which allows it to act as glue? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is pretty well all I could find, including locating a secondary source for material in Chinese and behind a pay wall. The Common Swift and the NAm species are well-studied, but not their Asian relatives. I looked for more on saliva, but it just seems to be stated as a fact that it is used as a cement. There is a bit more for the
  Edible-nest Swiftlet, whose whole nest is made of saliva, but mainly as a means of detecting additives. These are in a different species, so nothing transferable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Images all look okay, although I wish we had some solid pictures. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Me too, I could only find one, but another user got a Flickr user to release the other two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose and images. Very good, easy read, easy to access. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth. Another solid-looking article, - just a few comments on the prose:

• "The Pacific Swift (Apus pacificus) is a swift which breeds in eastern Asia." - I know it's difficult, but can you avoid saying a swift is a swift?

• I've move the first occurrence of "swift" to the next sentence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It has occurred as far afield as the US and New Zealand" - as you have said it winters in Australia, it doesn't seem particularly surprising that it has been seen in New Zealand.

• Far fewer migrants reach NZ; it's not only about 1400 miles mainland to mainland, but, more importantly, there is no long chain of islands to link the two, whereas Indonesia connects SE Asia to Australia. Even powerful migrants like the large swifts rarely make the jump. I'd rather keep the phrase unless you strongly object. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. New Zealand is only a few centimetres from Australia on my map! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "... the Common Swift, from which it is distinguished by a white rump band and scaly underparts." - It doesn't really have scaly underparts, only the appearance of scales.

• "heavily marked" since details follow in description Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The White-rumped Swift is the most similar to Pacific Swift, but its slender body and long, deeply forked tail make it appear quite different from its powerfully built relative" - I would add the word "more" to this sentence and I think the first part is awkwardly phrased.

• removed "the most", added "more" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "... larger white throat patch and scaly underparts" - Scaly underparts again!

• "patterned" this time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "They are softer and less wheezy than for Common Swift" - This sentence seems awkward.

• Rephrased Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In the second paragraph of "Breeding", are you referring to swifts in general or this particular species?

• Clarified that it's all swifts, this is background for the fledging times of Pacific Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You mention nine biological orders, but can you be more specific on the prey insects?

• I can only read the abstract. The main article is in Chinese and behind a Chinese-language pay wall, so I don't know any more than that. Should I remove this sentence? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "a wide variety of insect prey" would be an acceptable alternative, I would have thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "... although in Australia introduced cats may take some birds." - This seems a curious remark.

• Yes, gone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "... but the high survival rates mean that swifts are generally long-lived." - seems a non-sequiter (if I have spelt that right) to me!

• I'm not sure that it is a non-sequitur, since if you survive you are likely to live longer, but rephrased to avoid causality anyway now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Otherwise, very nice. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for comments, all done now I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now Supporting this article's candidacy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aa77zz

• I find the explanation of the range map a little confusing. What is meant by Winter visitor in Australia? Is this the northern hemisphere winter or the southern hemisphere winter?

• Changed to breeding/non-breeding visitor in legend Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The authority is given as Latham 1802. It should be 1801 - see original publication cited in article (or HBW).

Aa77zz (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't sure which was correct, fixed in taxobox and text now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• Taxonomy: A. salimalii should be A. salimali.

• Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Range map: I have difficulty with the dark green area labelled "Range of resident former subspecies"? Which former subspecies (singular or plural)? I cannot access Leader (2011). My guess is A. leuconyx and A. salimali but I'm a little surprised that they are resident - it gets cold in winter in Nepal and on the Tibetan Plateau. HBW has a very similar map with a green area but also includes a yellow summer visitor area in southern India. The HBW text indicates A. p. leuconyx winters in India (as does Clements) but A. salimali isn't mentioned. The Clements Checklist update states that the winter range for A. salimali isn't known. Perhaps the article should either provide more info in the key or not include the dark green area.

• changed to breeding range for the three ssp. The yellow in HBW and Chantler I've omitted since it's not pacificus and the winter ranges of the former ssp are either unknown or close to the breeding areas, so would only add an extra layer of complexity. The dark green was in the original map (not created by me) and it seemed easier to leave it than guess where pacificus breeding range ended in the south. Leader sent by email Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Range map key: More precise but more clumsy would be: "Breeding visitor during northern hemisphere summer" and " Non-breeding visitor during northern hemisphere winter". Aa77zz (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• After a former reviewer objected to the original summer/winter being northern hemi-centric, I considered that version, but it's clunky, and I prefer the current version which is actually accurate if uninspiring Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is an excellent article that fully meets the FA criteria. Aa77zz (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for review, support and kind words Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Did I miss a source review above? If so, rub my nose in it; if not, pls place a request at WT:FAC, or perhaps one of the earlier reviewers would be kind enough... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources all appear to be suitably reliable and there are no obvious formatting problems. Aa77zz (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for source review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012

Nominator(s): William S. Saturn (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article chronicles a failed presidential campaign of a colorful Congressman, which ends with the Congressman writing a TV pilot to "get over" the failure, and then having to resign his Congressional seat amid a fraud investigation. I created the article two years ago, and have worked on it since. It was promoted to GA status last year. I believe it meets the FA requirements, but it recently failed an FAC due to a lack of reviews. To account for this, this time I am seeking reviews from editors involved in similar articles. William S. Saturn (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems pretty close, just a few comments.

Lede

• "was first speculated as a potential presidential candidate" I am uncertain you can use "speculated" that way. Possibly "suggested"? or "mentioned"?

Changed to mentioned.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "and failure to participate in any presidential debates" Well, he was willing, so it wasn't a "failure". He wasn't invited. Suggest a rephrase.

Changed to "lack of any invitation"--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "To cope with the loss," The causation here seems a little dicey since it is only McCotter who says this, and given the circumstances, his word might not be taken at face value.

Changed to "thereafter", and changed "After" to "Following" in the previous sentence to avoid repetition.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wayne County, Michigan Commission. That's not its formal name. Perhaps "Wayne County (Michigan) Commission"?

Changed as suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "a reputation as a leading House opponent of pork barrel spending" Normally, "pork barrel" would get a POV objection but I suppose it is barely saved by the fact that it is his reputation.

"Pork barrel" is used in a technical sense as described in the article linked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• frequently/frequenter. Too close together, suggest changing the first to "often".

Changed as suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "and soon he would make a decision" "and he would soon make a decision"

Changed to "affirmed that he would soon make a decision."--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "McCotter attacked Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney during a visit to Detroit. " A bit ambiguous who was visiting Detroit. Perhaps "Mc Cotter, visiting detroit, attacked …"

It was Romney visiting Detroit so I changed it to, "McCotter attacked Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney as Romney visited Detroit."

• "he received two votes". A percentage, or out of how many, would be helpful here.

I added the number of votes cast.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign events

• I would consider shrinking the image of Cupp, perhaps by adding an upright field to the image template.

Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "requirements for banks to keep at least twenty percent of assets available as capital" Perhaps a pipe to reserve requirement?

Added.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "foreign policy is not discussed enough" was not being discussed enough

Changed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "foreign policy discussion ceased" had ceased

Changed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

• Do the campaign funding totals include what he may have transferred from his congressional account?

I'll have to look at the FEC form before I can answer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now looked at the form, and it does include this.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "because of their position on manufacturing" ambiguous "their". Splitting the sentence after "Democrats" and restating "Republicans" in the second sentence would be one solution

I changed "their" to Republicans'.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "A month later, he resigned from Congress in order to fully assist with the petition fraud investigation, and to find a new job." Glancing at the source, this is coming from McCotter and should be taken with a grain of salt and inline attribution.

I added "claiming" --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Notably, " why?

Unnecessary word removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "while he smoked" How is this relevant, unless it was not tobacco?

Removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Did any of the other candidates ever discuss him, or was he beneath their notice.

I'll have to do more research to answer that question.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking back in, let me know (my talk, preferably) when you are ready for me to take a second look.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked and I cannot find any other candidates who mentioned him.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Image check All images appear to have acceptable free licenses.

That's all I've got.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hamiltonstone

• "McCotter participated in the first-ever Twitter debate..." This makes it sound as though it was the first time Twitter was used for a political debate. In any case, it isn't what the source says: it says "The first-ever Twitter presidential debate" (emphasis added). hamiltonstone (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed as suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He was the only presidential candidate to approve the bill in Congress since both Bachmann and Ron Paul voted against it". I don't get this. The previous paragraph listed a whole bunch of presidential candidates, whereas this sentence only refers to two who opposed this bill. That being the case, how can he have been the only one who supported it? Where were all the others?? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good otherwise. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul and Bachmann were the only fellow members of the House of Representatives. I now see the ambiguity of the phrase. I will insert "in the House of Representatives" after "candidate" and then add "fellow members" after "both" to make this clearer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Links inside quotations are generally best avoided, per
  WP:LINKSTYLE. A link to Conservatism in the United States
  somewhere in the article is a good idea, but not underneath "the Detroit Free Press described him as a 'conservative's conservative'" because we have no idea if what the newspaper writer was thinking of matches what the WP article says. In the case of "The Detroit News asked McCotter whether he enjoyed his presidential campaign, he replied, 'No. It was the worst 15 minutes of my life.'", we really don't know if this is a reference to the Warhol phrase, since in actuality he didn't get any fame out of his run. Just leave the 15 minutes unlinked and the reader can decide for themselves. Other instances of links inside quotes include "running mates", "American Dream", "Beijing", and "Communist". Some of these are common terms or places and don't need to be linked, and the rest can be fixed with reshaping the text or paraphrasing the quote.

Removed some links and paraphrased some quotes to avoid linking in quotes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If he had five core principles, and if we list all five, why not say "These were:" instead of "These included:"?

Changed as suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Reportedly, after the announcement, he moved campaign funds of about $480,000 from his congressional to his presidential campaign account." – aren't things like this part of the FEC public record? Why do we need the "reportedly" weasel word here, as if we're not really sure this happened or not?

Fixed. It turns out the $480,000 was available to use in the Congressional account, but only about $468,000 was actually transferred during the course of the campaign, as noted in the Aftermath section.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "he received media attention for his hometown newspaper's reaction to his run." – needs a cite that there was media attention.

Added three.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The overlink of "Reserve requirement" should say that, not just "requirements".

Changed as suggested, also cut down on the wordiness in that sentence.

• Partial links like "Seacoast Young Republicans" are ugly - rewording is best.

Changed to Young Republicans of Seacoast.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Campaign spokesman Randall Thompson commented that ..." – "stated" would be better.

Changed as suggested.

• "McCotter answered, "Obama's ... – you've got two opening quote marks and only one closing mark. Moreover, this is a pretty commonplace stance – is this really the most memorable thing McCotter said during this debate?

Not much memorable in the transcript. I added it the Israel bit to show his foreign policy views. For more on this, I added his response to the Libya intervention question.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He finished last among ten candidates, receiving 35 votes or 0.21 percent." – needs a cite (not clear that the next statement cite covers this).

Cited.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "and discussed such issues as 'drinking, sex, race, flatulence, puking, and women's anatomy.'" – who is this quote from? The script, McCotter, the Detroit News writer? Why not just paraphrase?

Paraphrased as, "such risqué topics as sex, race, and bodily functions." --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "In one scene, S.E. Cupp guest stars" – I think it's worth changing this to "In one scene in the script, ..." to make clear that Cupp herself was not involved in any pilot.

Changed as suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Overall, he raised $512,644.22, spent $511,135.38, and had a debt of $105,367.24." If he spent slightly less than he raised, how did he end up with a significant debt?

I do not know the answer to this question. I can only post what is on the FEC document. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured this out now. The debt is what was owed but had not yet been paid. So it's not listed as having been spent. See [7] starting at p. 125 is a list of debts and obligations.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, was the debt ever paid off? It's approaching two years since when his campaign ended, so the article wouldn't quite be complete if there is outstanding info. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This still makes no sense to me. If he had sufficient funds to pay off his obligations, why would he intentionally delay payments so as to run a debt on almost 20 percent of the amount, and still be in debt two years later? Failed presidential candidates usually are ecstatic to be able to exit a campaign without debt looming over them. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, unless I read the report wrong, but I don't believe I did.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I misunderstood what you were saying - maybe the problem is the word "spent". He really spent $651K, in terms of acquiring goods and services for the campaign, but could only pay for $541K, leaving the campaign $110K in debt. Is that it? If so, you should reword it to make this clear. Also, I'm not sure these ultra-precise amounts with eight significant digits are necessary. Maybe round off with statements like "He raised about $549,000 ..."? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I did this, I would have to repeat the word "about" five times in the first paragraph of "Aftermath". To me, that wouldn't sound good. I changed "spent ..." to "paid ... on expenses". Hopefully that clears up any confusion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. But how about dropping the cents? Also note "$110,5367.24" has an extra digit in it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I rounded to the nearest dollar on the figures and removed the extra digit. It turns out the figure was actually $105,367.24.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He initially hoped to wage a write-in campaign, but decided against it, finding that he could not run the campaign while cooperating with the investigation and serving the remainder of his term in Congress." – What investigation? You need to briefly say who was investigating him and for what.

After the first sentence in the paragraph, I added, "An investigation of the campaign by the office of the Michigan Attorney General ensued." --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The infobox has a date "(2012-6-30)". All the other dates in the article are mdy format, why is this one different?

No reason. I have changed it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Does FAC still require the use of non-breaking spaces, per
  MOS:NBSP? The article is lacking them. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Did the Pew Research Center include him in any of the analyses of newspaper space/media time each candidate receives that they do?

No. See [8], "some longshot candidates, like Thaddeus McCotter, were not measured."

• Are there any analyses of why McCotter didn't get a moment in the sun, like some of the other almost equally unknown 2012 Republican no-chancers did (Bachmann, Cain, Santorum)?

I have found some, which I will add.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this was added, I'm not seeing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning I split "Campaign speculation" from "Background." In "Background," I added a paragraph explaining his public perception. He was a "celebrity" on Red Eye, but according to Businessweek, this was no more than a "tiny cult following of insomniac conservatives." This directly relates to the last sentence I added to "Withdrawal," which summarizes the entire campaign as "a cautionary tale about what can go wrong when your average backbench member of Congress becomes a minor cable news celebrity and mistakes it for having a genuine national following." The reader can understand, he had only a small following, which he believed to be much larger. He appealed only to this small following, which was not large enough to push him forward.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, but it wasn't what I was looking for (although it did help satisfy the need for humor that I mentioned). What you say could also be said of Santorum and Gingrich and especially Bachmann and really especially Cain - yet they all managed to have sudden surges of popularity. What I'm getting at is that this was a campaign cycle in which no-hope long-shots often prospered, as the Republican electorate was searching for an alternative to Mitt, but McCotter was not one of them. That deserves a mention. For context, it would also help to mention Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson as the two other 'name' candidates (governors or members of Congress) who had trouble gaining any traction. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My personal analysis: Because Cain is black and Bachmann female, they were novelties for the GOP. As for Santorum, Senators are always given a special prestige (unless it's Gravel '08 since he had been out of office for so long). And Gingrich has always had a national following. I don't think any of these are comparable to McCotter's situation.

As my personal analysis, none of the above matters. I highly doubt there is a source arguing what I wrote above, altogether, and in relation to McCotter. Throughout the McCotter campaign, I received weekly g-news updates, and I do not remember anything of the sort. In addition, I cannot think of how I can fit Roemer and Johnson into the article. Any suggestions?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the "Three days after the straw poll ..." paragraph, you could mention Roemer and Johnson as two other candidates with significant officeholding backgrounds who struggled to get included in debates. The "Three White House candidates didn't make cut for GOP debate" story is one source for that. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added. I introduced Gary Johnson during the Twitter debate (and added a title to each candidate). And I mentioned that Johnson was excluded from the debates mentioned and that like McCotter, Roemer was excluded from all.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Was the signature failure fiasco a side effect of the campaign at all? I once read somewhere that someone thought it was, but I don't recall the exact linkage.

Yes. I found an editorial, which I will add. But the fraud had been going on for several election cycles so I don't think it was a consequence--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article needs more humor, which is as you pointed out on your talk page is pretty much the only compelling thing about this campaign. I know that's hard to do in WP, but a few good quotes here and there beyond what you already have might help. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what you've done, you could include that he only polled at 5 percent in his home state (per this Booth Newspapers piece). And regarding his withdrawal, this LAT story that you already use has this good quote: "What's that? You've never heard of Thaddeus McCotter? Well, that's the main reason he's now a former candidate." Wasted Time R (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged some things in the paragraph about the straw poll debate and included the five percent bit in the second and third sentences of it. I've tried fiddling with the "Withdrawal" section to include the quote, but I can't seem to make it sound right.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it in the way I envisioned it, see what you think. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In the cites, some of the publishers that should be in regular font, are in italics. These include Congress.org, Project Vote Smart, Fox News, Republican Leadership Conference 2011, Federal Election Commission, CBS News, WMUR-TV, and so on. Basically, if the WP article on the publisher is in italics, the cite should be, and if not, the cite should not be. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newsmax should not be italics. Also, what you call "CBS Detroit" should be WWJ-TV. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed CBS Detroit, but in the article

Newsmax Media, Newsmax appears in italics.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I removed the extra space. I am unfamiliar with non-breaking spaces. When are they required? For dates? Italicized works?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See

MOS:NBSP for guidelines. Usage varies, but at the least you can put them between numbers and units, for things like "1,542 votes" and "92 percent". If you look at some existing FA articles you'll see them in use. For example, John McCain has a bunch that use the   method. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I added it for the usages you suggested and a few other places it might be necessary. I used nowrap because I am more familiar with that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The links in footnotes 17, 33, and 47 have all gone bad (Des Moines Register).

Linked to versions in the internet archive.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• One person is variously referred to as Eric Appleman, Eric C. Appleman, and Eric M. Appleman.

All changed to Eric M. Appleman since that is how he is referred to on the site.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has some curly punctuation that needs to be straightened (e.g. ‘). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I stumbled here from my FAC, and had to comment, since I'm probably one of a few people who actually remember that campaign.

• Is there any reason you capitalize Rock in Rock music?

No reason. I have changed it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The next month" - since you refer to dates several times in the 2nd paragraph of "Speculation" (which I think should be retitled to "Speculation of a campaign" or something), you should clarify the date here. Or at least when you say "Later that month". My rule of thumbs is to re-clarify the date at the beginning of new paragraphs.

Changed as suggested. Changed the section title to "Campaign speculation"--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just curious, did anyone get less than two votes at the Republican Leadership Conference?

No. He was in last place.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add that? IDK, optional. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "aides said McCotter remained undecided about a run" - something seems slightly off. Personally, I'd love it written as "McCotter remained undecided about a run, according to his aides" to clarify whose aides they are.

Changed as suggested.

• " though, he reportedly paid $18,000 for a prime spot at the August 13 Ames Straw Poll" - did he actually do this? If so, don't include "reportedly"

Changed as suggested.

• You should say something before you just link Politico, like what it is.

Added "newspaper" before it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For people who know nothing about US politics, you should include why Iowa is important. This is a featured article candidate for all of Wikipedia. It was crucial for him to go to Iowa, but someone from Australia might have no idea why they should care. You do well with New Hampshire, although I'd like a link to the New Hampshire primary.

Added "Iowa, the first caucus state," and linked to New Hampshire Primary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " that included Senator Bill Frist's former chief of staff Eric Uelind - I think you have the order mixed up. It should say "former Senator Bill Frist..." - since Frist wasn't a senator at the time.

Changed as suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Before the poll in Ames" - is this literally right before the poll? If so, maybe say "at the poll"? Or something. It took me a few sentences to figure out what was going on.

Changed to "In Ames, just before the vote," --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " By any measure, we did that..." - why the dot dot dot?

The quote ended with "this weekend" which I didn't think necessary to include. I have now added a period outside the quote.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " Social Security Reform plan," - why is reform capitalized?

No reason. I have changed it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per above, I wish you could figure out how the math adds up for his campaign costs/debt, whatnot.

I am not an accountant, but I will try to see what is going on with the numbers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured this out now as I posted above under Wasted Time R's comments.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ""somebody either panicked or it was sabotage...My gut" - add spacing
• Was his congressional campaign ever found out to have been sabotaged?

I don't know if it was sabotaged or not, but four aides were charged and convicted of crimes related to it, which I have now added to the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Did any other presidential candidate have any thoughts on McCotter? Did he ever get any endorsements? I know the campaign was low-key, but the article seems especially so.

I can't seem to find any endorsements of McCotter or statements from other candidates, but I am still in the process of searching.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found an endorsement from former Congressman

Lincoln Diaz-Balart, but there seems to be no news reports on it, just this YouTube video.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the research, no prob. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, pretty good account of it. I loved the quote - "a cautionary tale about what can go wrong when your average backbench member of Congress becomes a minor cable news celebrity and mistakes it for having a genuine national following." Good way to end the campaign section. Just those comments from me. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost ready to support, but the info about the debt prevents me from doing so. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the latest FEC report, ending June 30, there is still a debt of $105,636.24. I have added this to the article. I also added that his finish at the Leadership Conference was last among those considered.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the update. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, comprehensiveness, and images; sources not examined. Seems to meet the criteria per my above review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

• Why does ref 1 not use the url and archiveurl parameters, while other refs using archive.org do? Need consistency.

Fixed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Most refs are missing publishers.

That is common practice for news sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea to omit publishers, especially for less well-known news sources. Listing publishers helps provide more information to the reader about who is behind these sources. However, this is just my opinion. --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my short response above. As you can see at

WP:REF#What information to include, publisher information is not needed for web or newspaper sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

So it is. Seems like I've been asked for them on web and news sources in the past, and I just assumed it was in the guideline. --Laser brain (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 38 is fairly confusing. The site was 140townhall.com, but it reads "The Tea Party.net" at the top. Who actually put on this debate? Who was behind these organizations? We need a bit more information.

I can't answer this question. I can only post what is there.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't know who was running a site or who was responsible for the content (especially a site that seems to have disappeared after the election season), how can we trust the content? --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears 140townhall was a Twitter consultant group that produced the debate. TheTeaParty.net was the sponsor. TheTeaParty.net is not archived in the wayback machine so I cannot find what was posted there. But 140townhall did post it to the linked archived website. If there are concerns about reliability, one can search for @140townhall on Twitter and see all the same tweets listed on the archived page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. --Laser brain (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes Democracy in Action a reliable source? I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight or a fact-checking process.

The site republishes press releases and other primary material. It is run by an expert in presidential elections.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Laser brain (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Interstate 75 in Michigan

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 06:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think this is ready. I-75 is Michigan's Main Street, the longest highway in the state of any kind, and the only highway to run on both of Michigan's peninsulas. If any highway in the state is worthy of consideration for FA status, it is this one. Imzadi 1979 → 06:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I reviewed this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 75 in Michigan and believe it meets the criteria. --Rschen7754 06:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the same reason as Rschen7754. I also reviewed this at ACR. TCN7JM 09:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I also reviewed this at ACR and believe that it meets all the criteria. I also did a source spotcheck at the ACR and determined that the sources check out fine. Dough4872 00:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK mostly OK (most of the images have been checked during ACR), 2 issues:

• File:I-75_(MI)_map.svg - probably trivial for a road expert, but the image summary should name the used base map and where the road data was taken from.
• File:WalterChrysler.jpg - buying an image does usually not transfer copyright. This image should be replaced (or clarified by the uploader). I marked it for further checking on Commons. (replaced, likely will get deleted on Commons).
• Other images are OK, as noted during ACR. GermanJoe (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map creator (25or6to4) updated the source information on the map. I'm looking into options on the other photo. I should have something uploaded from the Library of Congress in a moment. Imzadi 1979 → 21:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Walter P. Chrysler at White House (cropped).png comes from a collection of photos donated to the Library of Congress and there are no use restrictions. It has been substituted, which means there isn't any further issue with the images with this article. Imzadi 1979 → 21:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All points solved, thanks. Status updated. GermanJoe (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The second paragraph of the "Northern Michigan" subsection of the route description has no references. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of that section was referenced, but if you meant the third paragraph, I inserted the missed references. Imzadi 1979 → 20:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I stumbled here from my FAC, and since it's a Michigan road article, I had to comment, since they're notoriously horrible (in that they provide too much competition in the battle for who has better articles - Michigan road articles or Atlantic hurricane articles).

• "Interstate 75 (I-75) is a part of the Interstate Highway System and runs from Miami, Florida, to Sault Ste. Marie in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan." - I think "that" would work better than "and" for flow purposes, but that's just my opinion.
• "named for politicians that helped get the bridge built" - since they're people, I think "who helped" would work better.
• "between M-8 (Davison Highway) and McNichols Road" - I think you should add a location for each. McNichols doesn't have a link, so it's not that helpful. The lowest mentioning the county is useful though.
  • The above three points are addressed. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Any updated traffic count? (gotta ask)
  • MDOT does annual traffic counts, but their inclusion in the TMIS website lags about 18–24 months behind. As I recall, a different freeway had the crown temporarily in 2011 because road construction depressed traffic usage along that section of I-75, and the 2012 numbers aren't yet available. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• " for about six miles (9.7 km) " - they should both either be spelled or as numbers. Ditto later on with "five miles (8.0 km)" and "three miles (4.8 km) "
  • I disagree; even numbers under 10 are supposed to be spelled out as words, and decimals should not. These are also approximations (since I've been told it's bad to be overly precise in these cases), so unless I had a reason to be more specific, I left them rounded off to the nearest mile. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "and I-75 merges with US 23 to turn northerly to run around the west side of the city" - feel like this could be worded better
  • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a few too many usages of the term "runs" in the route description, IMO.
  • I'll look over this later and see about making some changes. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "North of the river, I-675 reconnects to I-75, and the latter freeway runs northward" - given that the article is about I-75, I think the ending could work better written as "reconnects with I-75, which continues northward"
  • Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you should clarify that "Northern Michigan" is still in the lower peninsula, since when I first saw that, I thought it was the UP.
  • I'm not sure the best way to handle this anomaly of our state's quirky geography. The region that encompasses the northernmost areas of the Lower Peninsula is called just that, and traditionally that has always excluded the UP, even though some things in the UP use the "Northern Michigan" adjective (the university in Marquette, a bank in the area, and the Episcopal Diocese). Some people do use the "Northern Lower Michigan" name, but in my personal experiences, that's not nearly as common.
• " and crosses the 45th Parallel, the halfway mark between the Equator and the North Pole by latitude." - is this properly sourced?
  • Unlike the other parallels of latitude, the 45th is drawn on MDOT's maps, and it is signed at the crossing near Gaylord. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "passing Indian River and crossing the river of the same name" - you should say "the town of Indian River" for it to make more sense.
  • Changed. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there is too much info about Mackinac Bridge in the route description, considering there is a section later on for "Monumental bridges"s
  • The Mackinac Bridge is the closest thing Michigan has to a toll road. Articles on toll roads typically include specific sections on the services provided, and the tolls assessed, by the controlling agency, in this case the Mackinac Bridge Authority. No other section of I-75 has a dedicated radio station, a special police force or the driver services, all of which would be included in a "Services" section on toll road article. Also, a toll road article would have a "Tolls" section to expound on the toll collection and assessment methods. Since there's the "Monumental bridges" section further down, I tried to keep the historical aspects of the structure there and the practical aspects like services and tolling in the "Route description" subsection. (I'll also note that the tolling information for the International Bridge is included at the very end of the RD.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Saginaw Trail ran north from Detroit to the Saginaw area where it connected with the original Mackinaw Trail that ran roughly parallel to, and west of, the modern I-75." - add a comma somewhere in the first part.
• "The system was signposted in 1919" - is that a verb?
  • Yes, definition 3 at dictionary.com lists "to provide (a place, route, etc.) with signposts." Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Do you have any more details about I-75's construction? There is a lot about the turnpike, and after the interstate act of 1956, suddenly I-75 comes into being the next year. Were they planning construction for a while, despite the issues of Ziegler? There is also nothing about the planning for the Mackinac Bridge. See below, kinda.
  • Ziegler had planned his own freeway, as the article mentions. He's quoted as saying that a parallel freeway would "reduce tolls on the turnpike 40 to 50 percent" in the section discussing the Michigan Turnpike. The corridor was studied for upgrades as far back as 1947, also as discussed in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The first sections of freeway for I-75 were opened in 1957. The southern section near the Ohio state line opened in October 1957." - if these both cover the same thing, I would merge them together. Something like "The first sections of freeway for I-75 were opened in October 1957, beginning with the southern section near the Ohio state line opened in October 1957."
  • Tweaked. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• " between Kinross and Dafter in the UP.[73] and the former segment" - I see a period there. Was that intended to be a comma, is something missing, or what?
  • Yeah, that should be a comma; fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "who founded Fisher Body later a part of General Motors" - add comma?
  • Added. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the photo of the Mackinac bridge should be more of a side angle and one during the day, since the current one is a bit tough to see. JMHO
  • I think I found a better one, an aerial photograph that still manages to convey the sheer length of the structure. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The International Bridge is nearly three miles (4.8 km) long encompassing spans" - comma

All in all, pretty good. Just the above for me. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of your points are addressed except where noted above. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And some copy editing for verb variety has been done. Imzadi 1979 → 03:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, everything looks good then! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- an awful lot of dup links, do you have the

I'll play with linking somewhat, but a lot of the links that are duplicated are located long distances apart. This has a long "Route description" (fitting for the longest highway in the state of Michigan), a long "History", and the longest "Exit list" of any highway article for Michigan. There is a minimum level of duplication needed because first mention of some items are going to be whole sections, or even several subsections, apart from the duplicates. Imzadi 1979 → 19:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, based on that tool, nothing is relinked within the "History" section. (Although that duplicates links from the "Route description", which benefits the readers given the length of text between them) There are three links repeated within the RD: "Kawkawlin" is relinked on the 7th paragraph away from the section's "mini-lead", and both "Chippewa County" and "M-48" are on the 13th paragraph away from the mini-lead.

There are some items in the "Freeway names", "Monumental bridges" and "Related trunklines" sections that duplicate links from the RD or the "History" sections, but there a lot of text and a huge table in between reuses. Imzadi 1979 → 20:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: ping? Imzadi 1979 → 03:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it still looks like overlinking. I'd hope we can give our readers credit for a longer attention space than one screen's worth of data. The multiple links in RD don't seem necessary to me -- I don't think any section is long enough to justify dup links within the section, so pls re-review with that in mind. On a related note, linking such a huge and well-known subject as World War II even once is a bit dubious -- linking more than that seems to border on obsessive... ;-) Finally, I don't understand the linking logic re. Michigan under Monumental bridges -- why pipe the city to the state, especially when you mention the city just before? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose:, I'll remove them all then. Give me about 5 minutes. Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the linking, they are separate cities: Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, separated by their namesake river and an international border. Which one would I link under the city name? Should I list each city name separately and have the redundant language? Imzadi 1979 → 06:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I misread that bit... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Tasha Yar

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it stands up as meeting the FA criteria. Certainly it contains some of the best prose I've ever written and it fits together to become a tightly knit and complete article. I think the referencing is good, with the only question arising out of the referencing that I can see is the single instance of a TrekToday reference. It is a fan website, but one of four highlighted by the official Star Trek website. Miyagawa (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is a
  talk) 00:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comments by Cirt

1. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Three (3) redlinks at
   Robert Lewin (filmmaker), Lianne Langland, and Mart McChesney
   . Not required, but would be nice if they could be made at the very least as small sourced appropriately referenced stubs.
3. Please remove the two (2) pull-quote boxes in subsections Concept and development and Reception. I've been told in the past on multiple occasions that these are unencyclopedic.
4. Bibliography - no need for this to be small font formatting, there isn't really that many that it needs to be made small, would look better at regular size.
5. References - no need for sub-subsections within this subsection. Just have Notes and then References. That is the general standard for most articles and is used in examples at
   WP:LAYOUT
   .
6. Reception - suggest paraphrasing and/or quote-trimming some more of the quotes used in this sect.
7. Image review: File:Denise Crosby STICCon 2003.jpg = hosted at Wikimedia Commons and checks out okay. File:Marina Sertis (7271366256).jpg = hosted on Wikimedia Commons, image page there is fine. File:TashaYar.jpg = appropriate fair use rationale given on image page, hosted locally.
8. File:TashaYar.jpg - suggest removing this image from the article. It's not needed to understand the text, and perhaps could be substituted in the infobox with a different alternative free-use image. That way, the article itself would be more portable to other Wikipedias.
9. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
10. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia with this most interesting quality improvement project, — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review. The small font formatting for bibliography has been removed and the subsections in references has been dropped with it renamed to notes/references. Per the infobox image - the only real alternative would be the image of Denise Crosby used further down the article which wouldn't actually be in character and so probably wouldn't be a viable alternative for the infobox itself. There certainly isn't a free use image that I know of with Crosby in costume. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for those responses, that helps explain a bit. Unfortunately I see the pull-quote boxes are still in the article space. Those should be removed, per multiple comments in the past it seems the Wikipedia community is against pull-quote box usage. — Cirt (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There's actually another editor further down (Imzadi1979) who is supporting it. Miyagawa (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that, and I've had some editors support my use of them in the past, but I've found through repeated quality review including both GAN and FAC that it's best not to have "pull quotes" because they give a negative connotation of potential promotion and POV even when not intended. — Cirt (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that up to date on practices so take everything I say with that in mind, I'm an infrequent FAC commenter, if anything I've stated is incorrect, let me know and pay it no heed. Otherwise:

• "The character first appeared in the pilot episode of the season, "Encounter at Farpoint"." → pilot episode of the series maybe, season seems odd to put here.
• In the intro talking about the manner of her death receiving mixed reviews, you stated two negative ones I believe, I suggest swapping out the one about "naff" because it's not a well known term (at least where I'm from, and I had to look it up).
• "After her departure, archive footage of Crosby as Yar was used the episodes "The Schizoid Man" and "Shades of Gray"." → used in the
• The episode Code of Honour in paragraph two of Appearances needs to be in quotation marks.
• Think about linking the episode Encounter at Farpoint in the final paragraph of Appearances, it's only linked in the Intro currently. To add onto this, maybe think about linking all the episodes in this section, even ones previously linked. The sections are adequetly large to allow this without slamming the user too much with overlinking.
• Finally, unless I'm mistaken you're going to need alt text on your images.--Lightlowemon (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review. I've changed season to series (that was the result of overfixing "series" to "season" previously). I've changed naff to "stupid" in the lead - I think that's probably easier to understand. I've changed it to "used in the", and added the quotation marks for Code of Honor. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your most welcome, just noting (mostly for myself and any other reviewers), you decided to not relink Encounter at Farpoint, you haven't included alt text. The only other issue I kind of have is the two negative comments about her death when you've stated it was mixed? Or was the 'typical' security officers death meant to be a positive review? Good job on the fast responses too by the way. --Lightlowemon (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Encounter at Farpoint" is now linked in the article body - I haven't added alt text yet, but I will. I'm going to change "mixed" to "mostly negative" regarding the death as there was one positive comment about it from Gary Westfahl. Miyagawa (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text now added with the exception of the infobox - there isn't actually a way of inserting it as far as I can see. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - No new issues have been raised and assuming it passes the source check, I'm all for it. --Lightlowemon (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—overall, I'm inclined to support promotion, but I have a few comments to offer first. Starting with the references:

• Links are repeated unnecessarily in the various footnotes. A publisher, like "CBS Productions" in footnotes 8 and 9 only should be linked the first time it appears, not every use.
• The company that publishes a newspaper or magazine isn't necessary in citation, especially for well-known papers like The Washington Post, the Chicago Sun-Times or Entertainment Weekly.
  • • I've reduced that down and removed the AOL from AOL TV as well. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In cases like the Post-Tribune, the publication location (Gary, IN) should be indicated since it is not part of the paper's title.
  • "Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service" is a newswire; it is not a publication title itself. Either use that or "Knight Ridder" as the publisher only.
    • Shortened to just "Knight Ridder". Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italicization of website titles is handled very inconsistently in the footnotes. For example, "AOL TV" is not in italics, but "Star Trek.com" is. "Trek Today" is in italics, but "Tor.com" and "Den of Geek" are not. Either website titles are italicized (as the larger work containing component works) or they are not, but it looks unpolished to have both styles in use.
    • I hadn't realised that the website part of the citation was in italics. I've rectified it and all the websites should be un-italicized now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, they should be in italics as the composite work; really the name of a website is analogous to the title of a book or newspaper, or the name of a TV show. Books contain chapters. newspapers contain articles, TV shows contain episodes and a website contains individual webpages. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for fixing that. Miyagawa (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Normally on shortened footnotes, citations to works by two authors would be listed as "Smith & Jones" or "Smith and Jones", but citations to works by three or more authors would be displayed as "Smith, et al." It isn't a big deal, so long as you are consistent, but I thought I'd bring it up to prompt consideration of a change.

• Changed as noted (but left them as is in the Bibliography section). I'll have to roll out that formatting change to the various episode articles I've done. Quick question - should I be listing the "Reeves-Stevens" cites as simply "Reeves-Stevens" as I do now, or as "Reeves-Stevens & Reeves-Stevens" as there are two of them? Miyagawa (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Bibliography should be organized in alphabetical order by last name of the first author. The current order looks unorganized.
  • • Done. (I'd previously listed it by publication date). Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That wasn't apparent and before it was quite confusing given that most style guides say to alphabetize by the first author (or first words of a title when no author is listed.)
        • No worries - it makes far more sense now. Not sure how I got that other order stuck in my head! (Or why no one had called me out on it before, really!). :) Miyagawa (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to use access dates for online sources with publication dates, then the writer/director's guide needs one as well, for consistency with the footnotes above. If possible, I would attempt to track down publication information (location, publisher) for the guide as well, again, to format it consistently with the other citations in the article.
    • I went with a little logic here - although it was an internal document and not really published, it would have been the property of the production company which was Paramount Domestic Television. The show was developed on the Paramount lot, which is in Hollywood, CA. So I've added those to the citation. Miyagawa (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tulloch citation uses a different format to denote "subscription required", and it should be consistent with the others.
    • It looks the same code-wise. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference is ((Subscription required)) vs. {{Subscription required}}; note the difference between the parentheses vs. curly brackets. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless someone else has jumped in and fixed it in the middle, I can't see the difference in the current version of the article. I went through and pasted the first instance of the tag over all the other versions and it didn't register it as a change. Miyagawa (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding other items in the article:

• Ideally, the portal link should not be in an "External links" section. Unlike links to other websites or to our sister projects like Wikimedia Commons and Wikiquote, portals are internal to the English Wikipedia. Normally I would advise that the link should be moved to a "See also" section, and if it were the only item in such a section (which is ok), I would use *{{portal-inline}} instead of {{portal}}.
  • Done. (thanks for the code, btw) Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{
    Star Trek navbox
    }} should be removed from the bottom of this article because that navbox doesn't list this article.
    • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The prose is good, in my opinion.
• As for the categories, I believe policy is to use only the most specific category necessary. For example, Category:Starfleet lieutenants is a subcategory of both Category:Fictional lieutenants and Category:Starfleet officers. Using only the first of those three links this article to the other two through already existing links in the category tree. That other Star Trek character articles get this concept wrong is not a reason for this one to as well, if it is to be judged as part of "Wikipedia's finest work".

• I've tidied up the categories. Miyagawa (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the comments of other reviewers above me, I have the following to offer:

• File:TashaYar.jpg should be retained in the article, IMHO, unlike what Cirt has to say. The addition of some simple text describing her appearance, etc., would tie into the use of the photo as primary identification of the actress appearing in costume in her role.
• I also strongly disagree with the proposed removal of the pull quotes; unlike standard print encyclopedias of the past, Wikipedia is visually different. We're much more likely to include various media like photographs, videos or audio clips in keeping with our existence as a multimedia project born of the Internet Age. Because of copyright concerns, this article has to be limited in the media it uses, so including pull quotes, in my mind, is appropriate to help break up the text, a function that would otherwise only be served by the section headings.
  • Perhaps, to tie into the photo concerns above, the pull quote from the writer's guide could be modified to include any appropriate comments on the appearance of the Yar character.
    • I've added a line about her described appearance (prior to casting) in the main body of the article. Unfortunately it doesn't go into any great lengths, but the writers/directors guide does describe her body type and athletic ability. Miyagawa (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt text isn't actually required of FAs, but I do recommend the addition.
  • Alt text now added. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, I think these are minor fixes, and I would like to support promotion after they are made. Imzadi 1979 → 21:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Cirt recommended the removal of {{refbegin}} and {{refend}}; I also oppose that as making the references inconsistently styled between the footnotes and the bibliography. The result does make the article less polished, IMHO. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you've inserted those templates, and thanks for tidying up the citations. Whilst I've done a fair few GAs and some FLs, I've never done a FA and I'm never sure which styles are actually the "proper" ones because you see so many different ways of doing things in various articles. So its really good to know by seeing someone else's edits. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really a "proper" way to do things, other than keeping consistent within the article. It does look better if we follow standard conventions from various style manuals where our MOS is silent.

• Support—at this time, I'm willing to support promotion of the article. Any additional polishing that other reviewers may suggest would be minor, and the article meets the criteria at this time, IMHO. Imzadi 1979 → 23:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page

• Support on prose. Glad to see your recent burst of Star Trek articles is putting forth some really good ones. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've read over the comments by Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) regarding some of my points, above, and I've reconsidered them. I respect the judgment of Imzadi1979 on this content decision, and therefore there's really nothing left holding me back from supporting the article for FA promotion. Excellent efforts all around. — Cirt (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- First FAC, Miyagawa? If so, a belated welcome on behalf of the delegates... ;-) I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, which I'll request at

Well - fourth attempt. :) First two didn't really have a chance, it was a couple of years ago when I wasn't as experienced with referencing as now, and the third one was only recently which wasn't promoted due to a lack of support. However the prose on this is much better than those previous nominations and the referencing is stronger too. Miyagawa (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check:

• Ref 3a, fails verification. p. 13 of Nemecek doesn't support that the Macha Hernandez character was supposed to be "tactical officer".
• Ref 4a, OK.
• Ref 4b, OK.
• Ref 14: The article reads "forebear" which doesn't necessarily mean "grandmother". It could mean any ancestor. Are you sure this is accurate?
• Ref 15, OK.

--Laser brain (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed grandmother to ancestor which is more in line with forebear. I've seen it mentioned on enough sites that she was portraying Tasha's grandmother but I wouldn't call any of those reliable for FA purposes and so have simply rectified it to make it more in line with the generality of the source. I'm going to check the Nemecek source this evening as I've probably just cited the wrong page. Miyagawa (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I ended up checking pretty much straight away as it was bugging me. I've managed to sort it - basically the text is correct, but I'd put a cite in the wrong place. So in "Concept and development" cite 2a has been moved to the end of the sentence as that is the cite (page 15 of the Nemecek source) which shows that Hernandez was first given the position of tactical officer. For that sentence, 3a is simply citing the full name (which is on page 13, as page 15 only refers to her by her first name). Page 13 specifically lists her as the security chief which is covered by 3b. Phew. I thought I'd properly messed something up then! Miyagawa (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, thanks. I am satisfied with the sourcing. --Laser brain (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Ringo Starr

Nominator(s): GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be well-written, well-researched and comprehensive. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Cassianto

Glad to see this making the set. This will take a few visits and I will do the lede last.

• Thanks much for making the effort, Cassianto. I appreciate your input and will attempt to resolve your concerns. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

I think the lede is OK but not great. In terms of length, yes we have the four paragraphs, however I think there is too much detail in terms of his medical conditions. I think this will need to be cut to just saying "Starr was twice afflicted by life-threatening illnesses during his childhood, and as a result of prolonged hospitalisations, fell behind scholastically." I don't feel naming the conditions is particularly helpful unless it effected him and his career later in life. I also worry that we don't talk too much of his later solo career. There doesn't appear to be any later albums mentioned, or quotes from critics. I think this will need a reworking. I have made a few edits, but didn't want to do anything too heavy.

Thanks for the excellent review User:Cassianto! I've now trimmed out the excess detail regarding Starr's childhood health problems, but I'm not too certain about expanding on his solo career beyond this summary: "After their break-up in 1970, he released several successful singles and albums and recorded with each of the former Beatles." He had three significant hits (written or co-written with others) and after 1974 there isn't too much for any strong notability music wise; perhaps I'm missing something here, so please feel free to talk some sense into me if I'm wrong! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok Gabe, I have enjoyed the review. I think the lede is now fine. I think mentioning the fact he did have a solo career is the more important thing here...I must admit Ringo's solo hits don't exactly spring to mind! What do you think about the idea of adding a quote from a Beatles critic about Starr's role within the group? -- Cassianto^Talk 10:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this? The quote isn't from a music critic per se, but it is from a respected drummer and I think it speaks to the point well. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's better. I like that, nice addition. -- Cassianto^Talk 23:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

1940–1956

• Is it encyclopaedic to mention what room he was born in?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is the fact he was born a month after the Dunkirk evacuation relevent?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Within weeks, while lying in bed recuperating, Elsie heard sirens indicating that the Luftwaffe's bombing of Liverpool and the Second World War's Battle of Britain had begun." -- recuperating from what, and why is the war relevent?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "...at the local ballroom circuit" or on the local ballroom circuit?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do we link the Beatles in the lede, but not on first mention within the body? Also, is it The Beatles as the article suggests or just Beatles?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure of the term "days on end". It sounds a bit euphemistic.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 1944, in an effort to reduce their housing costs, his family moved to 10 Admiral Grove..." -- Where is that?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "...;soon after, his parents separated; they divorced within the year." Not sure of the second semi-colon. Could we do away with it in favour of a conjunction?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "He later stated that he has "no real memories" of his father, who made little effort to bond with him, visiting "Ritchie" as few as three times thereafter..." -- Starr will need to be mentioned by name as it is a new paragraph. Failing that, could this para be combined with the first, for aesthetic reasons?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redundent use of "labour".
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Where is Myrtle Street Children's hospital?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think referring to him as Starkey may become confusing. I would refer to him as his Starr from the start as it is the name he was known for.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Skipping class" →playing truant (it sounds less slangy).
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• neighbor should have the English spelling
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is ""Bedtime for Drums" a book? If so, it should be in Itals. If it isn't, we should be clearer as to what it is.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we really need to link mechanics
  ?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "...coal-fueled neighborhood" watch for American/English spelling of neighbourhood.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "After his return from the sanatorium in late 1955, Starkey entered the workforce..." -- What, at the sanatorium?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "In an effort to secure for himself some warm clothes
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "...he briefly held a position with British Rail" →"...he briefly held a position at British Rail".
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Trafford introduced Starkey to skiffle, and he quickly became a fervent admirer of the genre". Suggest redundancy of "the genre".
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this section could do with an image. How does this grab you?
  • Great idea, thanks and done! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Elsie was known for her beautiful singing voice..." -- POV unless it was quoted by somebody.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First bands

1957–1961

• "neighbor" →BritEng
  • Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "guitarist Eddie Miles" → definite article would be better as this sounds a bit tabloidy.
  • Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "took lessons at two schools" -- Dance schools?
  • Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we need to link drum kit?
  • Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Although basic and crude, the kit facilitated his progression as a musician..." -- Who, Starr or Graves?
  • Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "In November 1959 he joined Al Caldwell's Texans..." -- Introduction would be helpful here; ie, which genre did the perform in?
  • Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do we link "Liverpool Landmark" and not "Clayton Squares", bearing in mind the link takes us to Clayton Square?
  • Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "...that Graves had secured for him four years earlier... ." Redundant I'm afraid.
  • Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure about the use of the word "gig". It sounds too formal. Might I suggest "performance"?
  • Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Starr performed with them during a few stand-in engagements while in Hamburg, and on 15 October 1960 he drummed with John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison, recording with them for the first time while backing Hurricanes' singer Lu Walters on the George Gershwin aria, "Summertime". -- That's one long sentence, suggest splitting somewhere.
  • Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "During his first stay in Hamburg..." -- Who? We mention about 5 or 6 people in the previous sentence?
  • Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "...he also met Tony Sheridan, who valued Starr's drumming abilities to the point of asking him to leave the Hurricanes and join his band." Which were who?
  • Done. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the Beatles

1962–1970

• Link Pete Best
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Starr first performed as a member of the Beatles..." -- No need to repeat "the Beatles".
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Link Horticultural society
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "...Pete Best fans" -- Surname usage on second mention.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• physical safety -- Redundancy of "physical".
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "His first recording session as a member of the Beatles..." -- New paragraph, new noun.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "... for this session." -- Redundancy
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "I thought, 'That's the end, they're doing a Pete Best on me.'" - space needed between closing inverts.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "I had to join them as people [sic] as well as a drummer." -- Can you clarify that this grammatical error is in the quote?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Like his father before him..." -- Redundancy of "before him".
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "...their loudest screams." -- Redundancy of "their loudest".
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Did Lester go under the name of Dick? His article suggests otherwise.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "The extended non-speaking sequences had to be arranged by director Dick Lester due to Starr's lack of sleep the previous night, he commented:" -- Who commented, Lester or Starr?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 1964, during an interview with Playboy magazine..." -- We are already in 1964 from the previous paragraph.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "In June 1964..." -- No need to repeat the year.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Do
  we need to link Denmark, Asia and Melbourne
  ?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "...15 June 1964." -- No need to repeat the year.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "He had his tonsils removed later that year during a Christmas holiday." Redundant (unless it effected his performances).
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "In August 1964..." -- No need to repeat the year.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we need to link "cannabis cigarette"?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Starr's inability to compose new material led to his input being..."
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "At the urging of a long-time Beatles friend and collaborator, Klaus Voormann, during this time Starr worked on his guitar playing, he commented:" -- This doesn't read right: We have a leading line at the start which suggests Starr is about to do something, and then it goes onto say that he simply worked on his guitar playing. Could you elaborate?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Epstein's death in August..." -- This would be an occasion when repeating the year is helpful.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "" Starr's growing interest in cameras" or Starr's growing interest in photography?
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "program" -- BritEng variation needed.
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "Despite leaving after only ten days..." -- Redundant use of "only".
  • Fixed. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]