Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2011

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

July 2011

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 13:56, 28 July 2011 [1].

James B. McCreary

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article just passed an

WP:MILHIST. Even though the bulk of the article is about McCreary's political career, I think the folks at WP:MILHIST have given the whole thing a good once-over and that it is now ready for promotion to FA. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]


Support on prose per standard disclaimer. The nominator links the A-class review above. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
    • Well, I screwed that up royally, huh? I know my alphabet; I promise! Fixed now.
  • ref 34 and similar: why "in" here?
    • There are two works in the Bibliography by the same author. I used that notation to distinguish between them.
      • Yes, but why not use comma instead of "in" given that the Bibliography entry doesn't use "In"? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't know there was a guideline on this. I've used it without issue in other FAs. If it needs to be changed, though, I can change it.
  • University Press of Kentucky or The University Press of Kentucky?
    • Technically, I think the "The" is part of the name. Fixed.
  • Burckel 1978 and McCreary 1935: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what the issue is here.
      • Dash in range shouldn't be spaced. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gotcha. I love me some dashes. Fixed.

Thanks for the review. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review The only issue I found was that the image description page for

Wha? 21:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose A reasonable amount of time has passed and the concern from the image review was not addressed. Once that's handled this oppose can be struck.

Wha? 20:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, I forgot about this note and was off-wiki most of the long weekend. I didn't upload this image, but since it's part of the Brady-Handy Collection, I assume the author must have been Mathew Brady or Levin Corbin Handy. If that's insufficient, I have uploaded some other images of Harlan to Commons myself and could speak more authoritatively to their origins. One of them could be switched out for this one. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. In all honesty, I thought that people would be watching their FACs all the time, as most concerns raised at this page get handled within hours. Getting nothing but static was surprising. It didn't occour to me that you might be gone. I'm sorry for that.
Wha? 04:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
No problem. With an eight-month-old at home, sometimes I'm "gone" even when I'm not gone! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don't worry, it'll all get better... in seventeen and a half years or so. :D
Wha? 04:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments: I'm surprised that this has been lacking in reviews, so I took a look over it. Here's what I found:

  • It's not really clear when he joins the confederate army. The article jumps from him passing the bar to the regiment being built in 1862. There may not be much on his joining other than the fact that he did, but if there is anything on a why/when it would be a nice addition.
    • I think some of the ambiguity came from an edit made as a result of the peer review. I've tried to clean that up now.
  • There's a few single-digit numbers out there (6 percent, 8 percent) that can be written out per mosnum.
    • I think I got them all. I'm inclined to leave "2 percent" just before the "Construction of the new governor's mansion" section because of it's proximity to "8,718 votes", which clearly has to be expressed in numerals.

Those were the only couple things I noticed; upon them being fixed I would be happy to support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Let me know if there are other issues or if I missed anything. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have no further issues with the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Nineteenth century Kentucky is very much out of my comfort zone, but this is second from bottom and we seem to be lacking in reviewers, so I'll give it a once over. Actually, I enjoyed reading it more than I thought I would. It's very well written and strikes a good balance between comprehensiveness and over-detail. I do have a few comments, which I've posted below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • MOS:BIO
    suggests that nationality is what should be mentioned at the very beginning (it doesn't say anything pro or con about sub-national entities like US States). I would suggest adding "was an American lawyer and politician..." and possibly mentioning Kentucky a little later in the first paragraph if it's relevant to his notability.
  • Do we really need to state that Kentucky is a US state and, if so, do we need to link to the article on the states?
    • To both points ... sorry I'm not following, what are you saying is wrong with the first sentence? "James Bennett McCreary (July 8, 1838 – October 8, 1918) was a lawyer and politician from the U.S. state of Kentucky." - Dank (push to talk)
      • Well, why not just say "...from Kentucky". Most people know that Kentucky is a US state, and the few of my compatriots who think it's part of the Empire have the link to Kentucky. And if we are going to say that it's a US sate, do we really need to link to the article U.S. state? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • We could reword so that it's a little tighter, something like "He was a US lawyer and politician, the first governor of Kentucky." That at least implies Kentucky is a state, and as you say, they could follow the link. I disagree that we can assume the reader is familiar with Kentucky, because I've seen estimates of a billion people who speak or read English worldwide. When I was in Austria a while back, just about nobody I asked was familiar with North Carolina. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've adopted this "was a ___ from the U.S. state of Kentucky" first sentence for most of the politician articles that I've worked on after getting several comments that not all English speakers will know that Kentucky is a U.S. state. It seems to have flown well in other GAC and FAC nominations. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It seems a little unnecessary to me, since the article is about McCreary, not Kentucky. Those who don't know that Kentucky is a US state (and are interested) can click the link to Kentucky. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • both houses is certainly overlinking. If it was an article specifically pertaining to the US Congress, you could get away with it, but linking to the generic article, especially when the very next link is to United States Congress
    , is unnecessary and doesn't add any encyclopaedic value.
  • Is it unusual for Kentucky Governors to serve two non-consecutive terms?
    • Only four men have done it: McCreary, Isaac Shelby, John L. Helm, and A. B. "Happy" Chandler. However, from 1799 until 1992, the governor was forbidden by the state constitution from succeeding himself in office, so serving two non-consecutive terms was the only way to serve two terms at all for most of the office's history. James Garrard served two consecutive terms prior to the constitutional prohibition. Paul E. Patton served two consecutive terms after the prohibition was abolished. J. C. W. Beckham ascended to the governorship after the assassination of William Goebel and was then re-elected; his eligibilty was challenged in court, but the court upheld it. As you can see, serving two terms as Kentucky governor is a rare thing period. :) Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is graduating law school (as opposed to graduating from law school) American English, or does it sound as odd there as it does to a Brit?
  • Ditto was twice chosen Speaker of the House.
  • Is 11th Kentucky Cavalry likely to turn blue? This article spent a month prominently advertised within MilHist, so I'm surprised, if it's notable, that nobody there (where you're most likely to find interest in a military subject) took the initiative to create an article.
    • At one time, Spacini was creating articles for all of the Kentucky Confederate infantry units, but I don't know if he was planning to do the cavalry as well. I suspect somebody somewhere might create it, but I do politics, not military history, most of the time. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A snippet in the lead about how he moved from law to politics might help to make the sentence a little less abrupt—it currently sounds like being elected was a natural progression from his legal practice.
    • I didn't really find much on that, but I've reworded the sentence to make it seem less like one is connected to the other. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps split the third paragraph of the lead? either into a fourth, or by making the second a little longer, but it seems quite big (and is longer than the first two put together)
    • I've done some re-arranging of paragraphs; see what you think.
  • Is Bennett his mother's maiden name? It's common practice (though I don't know if it's codified anywhere) to indicate this with "
    née
    ".
    • Nay. Most Americans don't know the word (sadly, but we play the hand we're dealt). - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm one of the Americans who does know the word, but the parentheses notation is most common in the sources I've consulted on this and several other articles. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did he pay for his commission? I know this was common in British and European armed forces of the day, I don't know about the other side of the Atlantic.
    • Again, military history isn't my gig, but I'm pretty sure that was not and is not common practice in the U.S. military. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did Breckinridge come to know him?
    • The sources don't give an exact connection, but both men were Kentucky politicians, although Breckinridge was seventeen years older. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did he do anything notable as a lawyer? He can;t have been bad at it, given that he kept returning to it every time politics didn't work out...
    • Well, law was his profession and what he was trained for, so I don't think it was that surprising that he would return to it between tenures in office. I didn't find anything notable about his legal career. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • and his well-established political machine doesn't strike me a particularly neutral. I'd remove the phrase altogether personally, I don't think it adds much.
    • It is pretty well-established the Beckham was a political boss who controlled a political machine. This is the term that even modern sources use. I'm inclined to leave it in some form because the lack of support from Beckham's political machine explains how a sitting two-time governor could do so poorly in a Senate primary later in the article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last question: did he ever consider running for president? It is, after all, the ultimate elected position in the US, and if he considered it, or had a reason for not considering it, that would make an interesting addition tot he article.
    • I can't find anything that says either way. His Confederate service, which was ironically a boon to most candidates for office in Kentucky, probably would have hurt him in a run for president, but that's speculation on my part. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there are one or two of my edits (indicated in the edit summaries) that you may want to double-check (I'm a Brit, so I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of American English). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great copyediting and comments, thanks. ACDixon, I hope I'm not intruding, I thought offering a few replies might be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem at all. I'm always glad for the help, especially with a little one at home now. I'm not on-wiki nearly as much as I used to be. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Let me know if there are further issues. It may be Monday before I'm back on-wiki, as I'm expecting a busy weekend. Your patience will be appreciated. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All comments but a minor point addressed; seems to meet the criteria. Thanks for the fixes. Ucucha 01:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]

  • "He was the first governor to reside in the state's second (and current) governor's mansion and is the only governor to inhabit both the old and new mansions." This seems rather trivial to me, and the second fact is almost implied by the first; do you really need it in the lead?
    • It's a rather interesting factoid, but maybe too prominent in the lead. I've moved it down a bit. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Opinions differ, I guess; I'd consider it trivial. Why not put this with the sentence about his being part of the committee to design the new mansion? Ucucha 01:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraphing of the lead is a little odd; perhaps you should split the very long third paragraph.
  • The first paragraph of "Early life" has a lot of short, choppy sentences, some of which may be better off merged.
  • "During his tenure, McCreary represented Kentucky's agricultural interests, introducing a bill to create the United States Department of Agriculture."—was this bill successful?
    • Apparently, this one wasn't, but one based on it was. Added.

Some of my comments are minor and may reflect my personal preferences rather than real problems with the article; feel free to disregard them. Ucucha 12:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've addressed these comments as best I can. See my note to HJ Mitchell above; I may be off-wiki all weekend, but I'll try to respond to any further comments on Monday at the latest. Thanks for your review. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 13:56, 28 July 2011 [2].

Kennet and Avon Canal

Nominator(s): — Rod talk 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The

Malleus Fatuorum. If there are any outstanding issues identified I will attempt to address them in a timely manner.— Rod talk 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Avon flows through the artificial New Cut, reducing currents and silting in the harbour and preventing flooding." - source?
  • "When canal boats were still pulled by horses, the boatmen had to haul boats through the tunnel by hand, pulling on chains that ran along the inside walls." - source?
  • Hadfield or Hadfields? David and Charles or David & Charles? Check for consistency
    • I've changed Hadfields to Hadfield & David and Charles to David & Charles (as that's what it says on the books). Hope I've got them all.— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not include both authors for Halse?
  • Location for Haslam?
  • Are all locations listed in the UK?
    • Yes & I've added these in.— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
  • Combine identical refs - ex 15 and 16
  • What is SSSI?
  • Is this site authored by staff of the museum?
  • Compare formatting of refs 43 and 44
  • Ref 102: publisher?
  • Is this page entirely copied from the listed source, or does it only derive the numerical list from there?
    • I'm sorry I don't understand that question.— Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The page says "These seven wonders of the waterways are as listed by Robert Aickman" - I wondered whether Aickman is the source of all the material on that page (including the description of each "wonder"), or whether he only listed the wonders (ie. 1. Devizes Locks, 2. Pontcysyllte Aqueduct...) and the descriptions were created by Jim Shead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a high-quality
    reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Bath to Devizes section
  • I have noted a number of queries on the article talk page. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Issues (hopefully) responded to on the talk page.— Rod talk 16:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
spotchecks on sources, paraphrasing, verifiability
  1. ref #1 length verified
  2. ref #3 dangers of sea voyages and construction of mills verified
  3. ref #4 first cargo verified
  4. ref #6 caen hill locks, final task verified
  5. ref #14 pillboxes and their survival; defence line verified
  6. ref #16 restoration start, odonata verified
  7. ref #20 "the canal was reopened from the thames to hungerford wharf in july 1974", lottery funding verified
  8. ref #21 repuddling, polythene lining and concrete cradle verified
  9. ref #26 lottery funding verified
  10. ref #28 - no mention of prince charles or 2003
  11. ref #29 - just a front page of a web site, no specific support for the statement
  12. ref #30 bradford lock wharves and dundas aqueduct statements verified
  13. ref #32 bath limestone verified
  14. ref #33 cruiseway information verified
  15. ref #34, 35, 36, 37, 38 cumulatively confirm the information but the calculation may be
    wp:syn
  16. ref #39 coal mine closure verfified
  17. ref #40 tidal status verified
  18. ref #41 bath aspargus status verified
  19. ref #42 geology verified
  20. ref #43 water mills and lock destruction verified
  21. ref #44 glaciation history explanation verified
  22. ref #45 dutch island verified
  23. ref #46 does not support the statement: "bath bottom lock marks the divergence of the river avon and the canal, 766 yards (700 m) south of pulteney bridge."
  24. ref #47 support pumping station, but not the detail
  25. ref #48 does not support the detail, just the existence of the lock
  26. ref #49 statement verified
  27. ref #50 location supported by os ref
  28. ref #51 location supported by os ref
  29. ref #52 location supported by os ref
  30. ref #53, 54 location supported by os ref
  31. ref #56 listed status and history verified
  32. ref #57-62 listed status verified
  33. ref #63 species verified
  34. ref #66 tree species verified
  35. ref #67 naming verified
  36. ref #70 information verified
  37. ref #71 tithe barn verified
  38. ref #72 information verified
  39. ref #73 aqueduct collapse verified
  40. ref #74 wilts & berks verified
  41. ref #75 lock details verified
  42. ref #76 information verified, should robert aickman be credited in the cite
  43. ref #77 information verified
  44. ref #78 information verified
  45. ref #81 race history verified
  46. ref #82 information verified
  47. ref #84 information verified
  48. ref #85 information verified, but exact copy of text - use as a quote " to serve Honey Street wharf in Alton parish, which refused to have drinking houses."
  49. ref #86 information verified
  50. ref #87 information verified
  51. ref #91 information verified
  52. ref #92, 93 information verified
  53. ref #94 information verified
  54. ref #95 information verified
  55. ref #97 information verified
  56. ref #98 information verified
  57. ref #99 information verified, should state msword format
  58. ref #100 information verified
  59. ref #101 page 133 refers to dorset and purbeck, i think the page ref is wrong
  60. ref #102 information verified
  61. ref #103 information verified
  62. ref #104 information verified
  63. ref #105 information verified
  64. ref #106 nothing about a wooden bridge here
  65. ref #107 but this does have the wooden bridge
  66. ref #110 information verified
  67. ref #111 information verified
  68. ref #112 information verified
  69. ref #113 information verified
  70. ref #114 information verified
  71. ref #115 information verified
  72. ref #116 information verified
  73. ref #117 site has changed, dead link
  74. ref #118 information verified
  75. ref #119 information verified
  76. ref #120 information verified
  77. ref #123 "led to reading's importance as a river port in the middle ages." is a direct quote and should be rendered as such
  78. ref #124 information verified
  79. ref #125 information verified
  80. ref #126 information verified
  81. ref #127 information verified
  82. ref #128 information verified
  83. ref #129 information verified
  84. ref #130-134 information verified
  85. ref #136 information verified
  86. ref #137 information verified
  87. ref #139 information verified
  88. ref #141 information verified
  89. ref #142 information verified

A few points above, a number of references are duplicated and could be combined, but I have not done so in order to keep the current numbering. The prose is good. I can support if these few points are addressed. I have only been able to check Allsopp and Nicholson of the off-line references. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this checking.
  • Refs 28 & 29 - I've added another ref for Prince Charles visit & removed the one which just pointed to a front page
  • Ref 46 I've taken out the detail (766 yards (700 m)) which was not supported by the reference
  • Refs 47 & 48 I've reused an existing ref (Allsop p21) which does support the claim re the pump
  • Ref 76 I've added a quote to the reference saying based on Aikman's book
  • Ref 99 format=word added
  • Ref 101 the page number is correct, but it is the last item in the table on that page & goes over to p134 so I've added that in.
  • Refs 106 & 107 I have reworded the sentence about the wooden bridge so the reference supports the statement
  • Ref 117 I have removed the claim re the purchase price which was in the deadlink - the rest of the sentence is supported by Ref 118 (now 117)
  • Ref 123 (now 122) I have reworded this to overcome the copyvio of a whole (long) sentence.
I've looked for duplicates but the ones I can see are for different page nos etc. If there are others let me know & I will combine them.— Rod talk 15:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good, just ref 85, now ref 84. My mistake about the duplicates, I can't see any now. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added speech marks for the text about Honey Street - can reword if required.— Rod talk 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images

All appear to be licensed and captioned correctly. File:Devizeslockspreresotoration.jpg is of rather poor resolution and I wonder if it is really necessary? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only image we have (with appropriate license etc) which shows the state of dereliction and indicates the restoration effort needed. The poor quality probably relates to camera technology in the 1970s and/or scanning from a film based system. I am not aware of any suitable alternatives.— Rod talk 15:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have managed to sharpen this image up a little. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, my concerns have been addressed, I believe that the article meets the criteria, so am happy to support. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the moment, with regretComment: I peer-reviewed the early parts of this article, and some of my concerns were addressed then, but frankly, the prose and punctuation are not yet up to FA standard. Here are a few points I have picked up on my most recent reading, to the midpoint of the Restoration section. Note also that I have carried out numerous copyedits on my way through:-

  • Be consistent as between "Kennet navigation" and "Kennet Navigation". The latter seems the more correct
  • Overdetailing italicised (by me): "The purchase from Frederick Page cost £100,000, of which £70,000 was paid in cash with the balance paid back over a period of time. Information not really relevant to this article. Maybe check for other instances in the article of unnecessary detail.
  • This additional detail was added in response to a comment at a previous stage of review, although it could be removed.— Rod talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...annual revenue of around £45,000 a year." Last two words redundant.
  • The information about WW2 "pillboxes"; where were they built in relation to the canal?
  • More info added.— Rod talk 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be useful to know who formed the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust. Likewise, you refer to the "newly-formed" British Waterways; who formed it, and what were its responsibilities?
  • Info added on both.— Rod talk 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overcomplicated and confusing sentence: "Other work included a new bridge at Bridge Street in Reading to overcome a long standing obstruction caused by strengthening girders added to the underside of the bridge which had reduced the navigable headroom from 8 feet 6 inches (2.59 m) to 4 feet 6 inches (1.37 m)".
  • The concept of the canal's "summit" needs to be explained at first mention.
  • Another messy sentence: "In 1988 the restoration of Woolhampton Lock was completed however it could not be used by boats as, on one side, Frounds Bridge could not be opened and on the other the restoration of Midgham Lock had not been finished, although these were completed the following year."

A glance through the later parts of the article indicates similar problems with prose and punctuation. However, I believe that these are readily resolvable within the constraints of this FAC, if someone is prepared to give the article a full copyedit. When this has been done I will be more than willing to reconsider my oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments (and the copy editing you have done). I will attempt to add and remove detail as you suggest in your comments and I have asked for help with copy editing.— Rod talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I note that Malleus is on the copyediting case, which bodes well. Perhaps you or he would ping me when the job is done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: You have attended to my initial concerns, and the copyediting has improved the prose, so I have struck my original oppose. I don't have time to complete a full review, but could you comment on one or two points?

  • "The River Avon was navigable from Bristol to Bath during the early years of the 13th century, until the construction of mills on the river forced its closure." Why would the construction of mills cause the closure of the river's navigation?
  • Clew doesn't give more info, just that it was restricted by the construction of mills, however this says that weirs were constructed across the river (presumably to hold back a head of water to provide power for the mills) which would have meant that craft could not pass them.— Rod talk 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found it quite hard to relate the text in the "route" sections to the charts alongside. Take the first one: Bristol to Bath. There is no mention in the chart of the "Floating Harbour"; in the text there is no mention of "Cumberland Basin" which seems to be a major feature. From the chart the river appears to have two channels, which is not explained in the text. I think it important that there is clear consistency between what's in the text and what's in the charts.
  • New Cut (Bristol) constructed to carry the river water (and tidal flows) away from the harbour. This was added to the route diagram for exactly the consistency you are asking for and, if it is not included in the text could be removed from the diagram. I can add the relevant text (or a revised version) back into the article if needed?— Rod talk 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The level of detail in the "route" sections is impressive, but possibly more suited to a guidebook than a summary encyclopedia article? Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there specifics which you feel should be removed?— Rod talk 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a wish to provide a commentary for the routemaps. This formed the bulk of the article before this year's push towards GA/FA was started and other information provided. Finding the right level of detail is tricky -- we don't mention every lock for example -- but we do in some places, and the Bristol/Bath end is covered much more completely. The text has tended to be tailored to match the length of the accompanying map (to avoid whitespace on a standard 1280x1024 monitor). -- EdJogg (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I appreciate that efforts have been made to meet my concerns, and I have no qualms now about supporting the article's promotion. A very sound piece of work on which much effort has been expended. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jaguar:
  • "The idea of an east to west waterway link across southern England was first mentioned in Elizabethan times, to take advantage of the proximity of the rivers Avon and Thames, only 3 miles (4.8 km) apart at their closest. Around 1626 Henry Briggs made a survey of the two rivers" - bad sentence. It says that Henry Briggs made the survey in Elizabethen times in 1626. But the Elizabethen era ended in 1603.
  • There is a full stop between the sentence about Elizabethan plans and the separate information about the 1626 survey, so I don't quite see the problem.— Rod talk 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand the problem. This actually reads like there was this one plan, by Briggs -- in 1626/Elizabethan times -- whereas I think we are wanting to say there was a plan earlier than Briggs. Part of the problem is we assume that the reader is aware that Elizabethan times finished in 1603. I must admit that I assumed that 1626 was in Elizabethan times. Perhaps the problem is we don't elaborate on exactly when the original idea was mooted (OK, maybe we don't know) since that might clarify matters. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I think I get it now. Clew doesn't give any further details of the earliest plans but I have added the dates for the Elizabethan era & "Later" for the 1626 survey. Hopefully this makes it clearer.— Rod talk 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final engineering task was the completion of the Caen Hill Locks at Devizes." It already said in the paragraph that the canal was completed in 1810, but this sentence makes out that the locks at Devizes took longer. When was this completed?
  • The previous sentence explains that the final section Caen Hill Locks at Devizes was completed in 1810, which was the final bit to be completed, so again I'm not sure what the problem is with this.— Rod talk 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1963 the newly formed British Waterways, which was created by the Transport Act 1962" - question: Wouldn't it be good if the link to the Transport Act 1962 be renamed to 'Transport Act'? It says that the British Waterways was founded in 1963, so the Act set up in 1962 might confuse the reader. I have also done this to an act that was set up in the 40s in the same paragraph.
  • I have reworded this to try to remove any confusion over the dates.— Rod talk 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lock number one on the Kennet and Avon Canal is Hanham Lock, first opened in 1727" - wait. The canal opened in 1810? Or is this to do with the River Avon and not the canal?

The list is not complete yet. I will find more sentences that will need check in the mean time. I have already found a few sentences that will need some copy editing, but most of them I have done a few myself. Jaguar (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Restoration work involved a collaboration between staff from British Waterways and volunteer labour." - It would be better if the sentence could explain what type of volunteer work it was, eg. was it local? I'm sure this sentence is no big deal, don't worry!
  • "Monkey Marsh Lock at Thatcham is one of only two remaining working examples of turf-sided locks on the canal today." - This is interesting. But could have a reference to Garston Lock in this sentence? (it is the other turf-sided lock on the canal).
  • Thanks for your copy edits & comments. The volunteer labour varied at different points along the canal (according to Lindley-Jones) so would probably be too much specific detail to include. Garston Lock being the other turf sided lock is mentioned a couple of paragraphs further down (as it is a few miles east). Do you think it would be useful to duplicate this or rearrange the sentences to bring them together?— Rod talk 14:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rearranging the sentences would make more sense as the two turf-sides locks should be mentioned together (for example, 'there are only two remaining turf-sided locks on the canal, such as Monkey Marsh and Garston). Don't worry too much about the volunteer labour stuff; the thing to avoid is too much detail! Jaguar (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support As all of my issues have been addressed and with all the copy editing stuff done, I will be very happy to give my full support for this article and I wish it good luck passing the FAC. Jaguar (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Reaper Eternal
  • Bristol to Bath
    • "A public house has been built on the island between Keynsham Lock and the weir. The weir side of the island is also the mouth of the River Chew." - This is unreferenced.
    • "Many of the bridges over the canal are listed buildings.[60][61][62][63][64][65]" - Since these citations are all used here and only here, consider bundling per
      WP:CITEBUNDLE
      .
    • "The canal turns south into a valley between Bathampton Wood and Bathford Hill which includes Brown's Folly a 99-acre (40 ha) biological and geological Site of Special Scientific Interest." - Needs a source.
    • "...and a 14th-century Grade II* listed tithe barn, 180 feet (55 m) long and 30 feet (9 m) wide,[74] on its way into Bradford on Avon." - If ref #74 covers the whole paragraph sentence, it should be at the end.
      • Still not fixed. Ref has now changed number to #71, though.
    • "...but full restoration will be a long process." - Unsourced, so who says this?
  • Devizes to Newbury
    • "Heading east from Devizes the canal passes through the Wiltshire countryside and a series of locks and swing bridges before another flight of locks at Crofton." - This is unsourced. A {{cite map}} would probably work well here.
    • "...but for day-to-day operation electric pumps are used, automatically controlled by the water level in the summit pound." - This is unsourced.
  • Newbury to Reading
    • "The River Kennet is navigable from Newbury downstream to the confluence with the River Thames at Kennet Mouth, in Reading." - If ref #112 covers this, there should be a citation at the end of this paragraph.
    • "Today the Brewery Gut is a major feature of Reading's The Oracle shopping centre." - Who says this?
    • "The Horseshoe Bridge at Kennet Mouth, a timber-clad iron-truss structure, was built in 1891 to enable horses towing barges to cross the river." - This needs to be sourced.
  • Overall, the writeup looks good, and a {{cite map}} could probably be used for many of these citations. After this is cleaned up, I will go over the prose. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for spotting these. I have added or adjusted references as suggested above.— Rod talk 16:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for resolving these issues, but one has not been fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source/copyvio spotchecks by Reaper Eternal
  • Ref #74: Does not appear to support information in question. This is probably since it is linked to a blog frontpage, and the information is continually replaced. You will want to link to the exact article that supports this information.
  • Ref #81: Only seems to support the last sentence in its paragraph.
  • Ref #104: No close paraphrasing found. However, it does not support this claim: "Hungerford Marsh Lock is unique on the Kennet and Avon Canal in that it has a swing bridge directly over the centre of the lock that must be opened before the lock may be used."
  • Ref #118: No close paraphrasing found.
  • Other quick copyvio checks turned up nothing, so probably no issues there.
  • Would you mind checking your major online sources more carefully, as it seems some of them do not support their material? Once this is resolved, I think I can support this article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope I've dealt with the specifics you have identified by changing or adding the references. I've also looked at some of the other online sources and haven't identified any other problems, but of course if you do please let me know.— Rod talk 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good. I can now support this article. Thank you for cleaning these issues! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator Rodw will be away and have no internet access between 29 July and 8 August. Others have kindly agreed to respond to reviewers comments. In case of problems I will respond on my return.— Rod talk 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have indicated my willingness to try and respond to comments, Will take look tomorrow. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 13:56, 28 July 2011 [4].

Homicide: Life on the Street (season 2)

Nominator(s): Hunter Kahn 01:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The

good topic, and has undergone a peer review, the recommendations from which have been implemented into the article. I am ready and eager to respond to any comments here at the FAC. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Quick comment about references In anticipation of this question, I wanted to point out that the Star-Ledger off-line sources do not have page numbers. This is because I got those sources off of the Newsbank database and the pages were not included with them. I've tried Googling and searching Lexis Nexis to find those page numbers, but have had no luck. Also, most of these sources were off-line, but I have searched for online links and added the URLs wherever possible, so the ones that have links now are the only ones that I've found. If any reviewer wants to take a look at any particular off-line source, let me know and I can copy-and-paste the content into an e-mail and send it to you. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 01:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ranges should use endashes
    • I think I've got them all now, but if I missed any please let me know. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 50: page?
    • I just went back into Lexis Nexis and found that this one, too, did not have a page number listed (same as the Star-Ledger sources). It's frustrating, but I'm not sure we can do anything about it. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • References to audio/video sources should have times when sourcing quotes or specific claims (ex. ref 52). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added times for both the "Anatomy of a Homicide" reference you refer to, as well as a Tom Fontana audio commentary ref (#51). — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Opark 77 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well written, comprehensive, extensively referenced appears to meet all FA criteria.--Opark 77 (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by Ruhrfisch - I was involved in a pretty detailed peer review of this article and find that it now meets the FA criteria. Nice job, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - don't really have much to say other than it's a well written and comprehensive article and seems to comfortably meet all of the FA criteria. Coolug (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for a spotcheck for accurate representation of sources and close paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No concerns based on my spot-check, and no cause for concern otherwise. Juliancolton (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 13:56, 28 July 2011 [5].

Valston Hancock

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This nom follows on naturally from the recently successful John McCauley FAC, i.e. similar subject matter, style and sourcing. From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a remarkable series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of the Royal Military College, Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force. They were Air Marshals McCauley, Scherger, Hancock and Murdoch. McCauley and Scherger have been through FAC, and now it’s time for the other two, starting with Hancock, whose article has recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews. Murdoch, also GA/A, will follow (you've been warned)... ;-) Thanks in advance for any input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 2: cited in References under Commonwealth of Australia
  • FN 44: check italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "extended for an additional twelve months beyond its original three years": Hard call for me here because it doesn't sound wrong to my ear, but logically, with three words giving the same sense (extended, additional, original), it ought to be possible to delete something ... how about "an additional"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're quite right, "additional" is not needed in there.
    • Re. Though fastidious in appearance and a strict teetotaller, he was known for his enthusiasm in meeting staff and as "an indefatigable participant in mess functions and games", the contrast I was implying with "though" reflected the way it was presented in the source, no doubt because the more raucous mess activities generally involve(d) a lot of drinking and could become quite, well, messy -- so I'd rather keep it there unless you can suggest another way to put it (preferably without using "however", which is a bit common, or "nevertheless", which is in the source)... ;-) Tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review - Everything checks out.

Wha? 12:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Tks for that, Sven. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments after reading through the article a few times. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Updated: 23:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Language is a bit stilted at times. I know "the award was promulgated" is technically correct, but when you see other instances of formal language, such as "none eventuated" and "His name is borne by", it starts to add up. The writing level could be dropped a few notches to improve readability.
    • I'll have another read through and see about taking the odd thing down a notch or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence in the lead feels too long and the 'however' feels misplaced: "His administrative training at Duntroon saw him primarily occupy staff posts, however, including Deputy Director of Operations and Intelligence at RAAF Headquarters from 1931 to 1935, and Director of Works and Buildings from 1937 to 1939." - I would just drop 'however'.
    • The "however" was there because although trained as a pilot he occupied mostly desk jobs from an early point in his RAAF career, but I don't mind losing it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does feel slightly redundant. As you are talking about 'administrative training', you would expect that to lead to desk roles, wouldn't you? Maybe you mean "Due to his administrative training ... he primarily occupied staff posts"? But maybe your sources aren't that explicit. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When 'Aitape–Wewak campaign' is mentioned in the lead, not many will know where that is, so maybe throw in a "Pacific Theatre" or "New Guinea" in there somewhere?
    • Should be able to do something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of 'RAF Malaya' in the lead threw me a bit, as it switches from RAAF to RAF with no explanation. I know there is little room in the lead to do this, but it be made clearer why this would happen? Maybe borrow the 'Commonwealth air forces' wording from the main body of the article?
  • In the text of the lead (i.e. not the postnomials bit, but later in the lead) You mention his KBE, but not his CB. Is there a reason one honour is mentioned and not the other?
    • Heh, no reason I guess... ;-) It'll mean spliting the list beginning with DCAS and ending with AOC OPCOM but I can probably get the CB in somehow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing about his mother and father in the early life section. Was he an only child? I presume this is covered in his autobiography, which you have in the 'Further Reading' section. It's not essential, but if someone got hold of a copy of that book and added further details, would you object, or do you think this is unnecessary detail?
    • I tend to leave the autobiographies to further reading when a) the seems sufficient info on the subject from other sources and b) the autobiography is cited by those sources, which means we get some benefit from it but it's filtered through the eyes of a professional historian. Both those are true in this case (Alan Stephens employs Challenge a fair bit) so I didn't think it was worth breaking consistency with my usual approach for say the name of his parents -- that said, I'd be more than happy to check on that in his Who's Who entry if you'd like to see that in particular. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Different historians take different approaches. A military historian will naturally focus on the military elements. A personal biographer (or someone writing an autobiography) will include the personal aspects. I've never managed to work out whether Wikipedia is consistent or not with this, whether Wikipedia should try and follow the approach taken by the major and most reliable sources, or pack as much variety in as possible, drawing on a multitude of source types, and try and strike the right balance. A good guiding principle would be whether the family members get mentioned later in other sources. The cousin did. Presumably the other family members didn't get mentioned as much or at all. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1937 he was posted to Britain to attend the RAF Staff College, Andover" - is it possible to briefly mention here what the relationship was at the time between the RAAF and the RAF? And between Australia and the UK? And how this changed over the years? Not everyone reading this article will be aware of these matters. The bit about attending the Imperial Defence College in 1949 and the Australian Joint Services Staff ties into this as well.
    • I generally try to 'contextualise' things anyway so happy to see if I can add something short, sweet and cited along those lines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "surveying and developing a military aerodrome at Evans Head" - you pipe the link to
    easter egg
    . It would be better to pipe to whatever the name was at the time, and to delink Evans Head (as there is no need to link to that, as people can get to that article from the more specific one on the aerodrome).
  • Pedantic point - 'World War II' is only mentioned in the section header, not in the text of the section. Ideally, you would make clear in the text of the section that World War II has broken out, rather than rely on readers deducing it from the section header.
  • Should the OBE and CBE be mentioned in the lead or infobox, or does the KBE supersede them? (Well, I know it supercedes them, but should they be mentioned?)
    • General rule is only the highest award of a particular order is mentioned in the infobox. No rule against mentioning them at the appropriate spot in the lead, just thought it was a bit excessive (though I agree that CB, as a whole 'nother order, should be in the lead)
  • "Fastidious in appearance and a strict teetotaller, he was known for his enthusiasm in meeting staff and as "an indefatigable participant in mess functions and games"." This bit is good, but it comes a bit late in the article. Would be nice to have it earlier. Is there a reason it is where it is?
    • While I don't doubt these were general characteristics, Stephens specifically mentions them when discussing his Malayan service. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the KBE due to being appointed CAS? The timing seems to imply this, but is a reason given anywhere for his KBE (the article is silent on this)?
    • The gong pretty well went with the job in those days, but no-one specifically mentions it re. Hancock so I didn't either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following month he urged pre-emptive strikes against Indonesian air bases using RAAF Canberras from Butterworth in retaliation against incursions into West Malaysia but Britain, which had initially requested Australia's involvement, held back on action." - is a comma needed after 'Malaysia'? Maybe bracket the commas after 'bases' and 'Malaysia'? It is a long sentence and does seem to need a few more commas.
    • Just as a thought, how does this look? "The following month he urged using RAAF Canberras from Butterworth to make pre-emptive strikes against Indonesian air bases, in retaliation for incursions into West Malaysia, but Britain, which had initially requested Australia's involvement, held back on action." I could split into two sentences but probably would need a "however" in the there somewhere... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventually worked out what 'north Western Australia' refers to, but it is an awkward construction. Can you not say 'the northern part of Western Australia' to avoid people stumbling and thinking you mean north-western Australia?
    • Heh, I thought what I said was the same as "the northern part of Western Australia" but don't mind changing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those points, looks to be a well-written article. One question on one of the sources:

  • You cite "Dennis et al, Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, p. 254" 15 times. Is this a single-page biography of Hancock in that publication? The way you've cited it doesn't make this clear. I presume that 'Oxford Companion to Australian Military History' does have sub-headers or chapters or alphabetical entries. Could you make clearer what exactly you are referencing here?
    • It's a specific entry titled Hancock, Air Marshal Sir Valston Eldridge -- would you like that mentioned in the reference, treated like a chapter title? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it should be mentioned, yes. Most citation styles and templates accommodate that sort of thing, or they should. And it is the title of the work you are citing, just as you would cite a paper title when published within a journal. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looked over the other sources as well, and couldn't see any problems with the citation styles or layout. Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to review, Carcharoth! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I've only responded to the points above I thought needed responses. I certainly don't see anything to oppose over. I'll check back (hopefully before the end of the weekend) and see if anything comes up in a second read-through, but it all looks good. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'm a bit pressed for time for a few more days so I may not get to altering much till mid-next week -- we'll see how we go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, having started on 2 weeks' leave and finally taught our new modem who's boss, I'm now back on the air and can start looking at these over the weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage I believe I've addressed in one form or another all but points 1 and 7, which will take some more time, so the article should remain stable for a bit if you want to check the updates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All looks good. Am happy to support, and will indicate that above at the start of my comments. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many tks, actually I ended up having a go at 1 and 7 as well but must've forgotten to hit the save button when mentioning it here -- you gathered they were addressed anyway so no harm done... ;-) Cheers, Ian
  • Suppport Great work as normal Ian. I do have two minor comments though:
    • "Hancock was responsible for surveying and developing a military aerodrome at Evans Head, near the Queensland and New South Wales border" - was this while he was the head of the Directorate of Works and Buildings (during which time I imagine that he oversaw the development of many new airfields by the men under this command) or a separate post?
    • "In March 1957, Hancock was one of three candidates, along with Air Vice Marshals Frederick Scherger and Allan Walters, touted as possible successors to Air Marshal Sir John McCauley as Chief of the Air Staff (CAS), the RAAF's senior position. " - there's a bit too much going on in this sentence, and it might be best to split it (eg, to something like "In March 1957, Hancock was one of the candidates touted as possible successors to Air Marshal Sir John McCauley as Chief of the Air Staff (CAS), the RAAF's senior position. The other two officers considered for this post were Air Vice Marshals Frederick Scherger and Allan Walters." Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tks mate, will try to get to those over the w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 13:56, 28 July 2011 [6].

Joppenbergh Mountain

Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After several months of locating sources, I feel this article is now comprehensive enough to be a FA. This often-misspelled mountain was blasted apart in the 19th century, skied on in the 20th, and could very well become public property in the 21st. Gyrobo (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 16: is this a typo?
  • Are page numbers or weblinks available for print newspaper articles?
  • Ref 6: retrieval date?
  • I seem to recall discussing this with you before, but remind me: why do some newspaper refs include publishers and others not?
  • Check for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Genero title should use endash, not hyphen
  • Don't use UCH as both author and publisher
  • Genero appears to be self-published - could you provide a brief description of his background and qualifications? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16 was a typo, fixed.
  • There were some page numbers listed for the NYT refs, but half of them appeared to be server errors so I thought it best not to include them.
  • I was actually working from a hard copy, the online version is behind a paywall.
  • There were two New Paltz newspapers with the same name, so I started adding publishers where I could find them. Most of the print articles I read were clippings in the Rosendale Library's archive, and did not include page numbers.
  • The Genero ref was being given a double period due to the citation template, fixed.
  • I changed to an en dash in the Genero and Ulster County Historians refs.
  • The UCH book and all references to it say the UCH were both the author and publisher.
  • The Genero book is featured in this 2005 newsletter from the Century House Historical Society in Rosendale, and it's also on the New Paltz-based Huguenot Historical Society site. I can't find much on Genero himself, but if the local historical societies find no faults with the book (and since it doesn't make any controversial claims), I feel it's reliable here. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, it is uncontroversial, so I guess that's fine. Sourcing looks better now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous comments RedWolf (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No reference is given for the coordinates in the infobox (there is a coordinates_ref parameter for this).
  • No prominence is given. This might help to sway the argument for/against it being called a mountain. Given it's meager elevation, I might be inclined to call it a hill.
  • A USGS GNIS search does not find anything for either "Joppenbergh Mountain" or "Joppenbergh". Perhaps USGS does not consider it a topographical feature deserving of mountain status? Or is there any other known official name?
  • I have a waymarking source with coordinates, but those are really for the sign at the base of the mountain. I could probably reference the topo map, but it doesn't explicitly identify Joppenbergh.
  • I haven't been able to find a ref for Joppenbergh's prominence, just that it's 495 feet (151 m) tall.
  • All the sources I've found refer to it as a mountain. If there was a USGS, or any other geologic source that said something along the lines of Joppenbergh being technically a hill, I'd definitely include the misnomer in the Name section. I was hoping that with the whole OSI purchase going on, there would be more information available on Joppenbergh's geology and topography.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not having this feature named on a topo map definitely makes it more of a challenge. The coordinates are usually given for the summit and not for the base. I guess one could take a GPS reading themselves although this is not something that is normally done. As for the name, how does one go from Jacob Rutsen to Joppenbergh? I don't quite follow the transformation. RedWolf (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it's a Dutch transliteration, and I'm going to try and get to the Rosendale Library today to review one of the references that may say exactly that. It's been a few months since I've been there, so maybe the librarians have turned up something new (or rather, very old). --Gyrobo (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the ref on microfiche at the New Paltz Library, and while it contained a great deal of information on Jacob Rutsen, it didn't mention Joppenbergh beyond the fact that it was named after him. However, I found this stereoscope on Commons that may be of Joppenbergh, because it's grouped with several Rosendale-area photos. The name probably started with "Job" as a shorthand of Jacob (hence the old reference to a Jobsenbright) and the Dutch word for mountain, "berg". --Gyrobo (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – From the Name section: "Joppenburgh is named after Colonel Jacob Rutsen. Rutsen...". Try not to have this repetition from one sentence to another. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, I tweaked the wording slightly. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Came back to check this and saw "Rutsen" and "Rusten" here. One of them obviously needs fixing. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Found this article while working on my own nomination and saw that it needed comments, so here's my review.
  • There was a large cave-in on December 19, 1899, that destroyed mining equipment and collapsed shafts within Joppenbergh. - This sentence kind of just appears out of the blue, and it makes for an abrupt change of gears. Also, what caused the cave-in?
  • outside, eating. - Does that comma need to be there? It seems a little heavy, but then it doesn't sound right without it either.
  • Linking is good in the lead, but I don't think you need to link parking lot.
  • I think you need to go through the whole article and look for excess usage of commas. Here, for example: and the son of a Dutch immigrant, from Albany
  • I believe the commas that exist in the article are needed to prevent confusion. In this instance, "the son of a Dutch immigrant from Albany" might make people think that his father was a Dutch immigrant who also lived in Albany. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did mining stop? What happened between 1899 and 1930?
  • None of the sources I could find said exactly when mining stopped on the mountain, however, during my research for
    Rosendale Village, New York, I found that only one cement plant operated in the town between 1920 and 1971, when it closed. The problem is that there isn't a very good record from this period. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • between the spring and autumn - why "the spring" but just "autumn"?
  • The Rosendale Township Association, founded in 1934 to encourage tourism in the town,[22] "decided to fill the remaining months by promoting winter sports". - I don't think the quote adds anything... I would suggest just paraphrasing into something less forced.
  • wore a helmet and performed in the summer tournament. - is there anything special about his wearing of a helmet?
  • Removed, I thought it was important because they mentioned it explicitly, but now that I think about it, everyone who skies probably uses a helmet. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the detailed narration of the skiing events, but Parking was provided for 500 cars. seems a little trivial to me...
  • "wooden tower slide" - I don't really know what this is, and again, the quote seems a little out of place.
  • I used a direct quote because it also didn't really mean anything to me, but it's probably a ramp. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many jumpers [to enter] military service" - again; very little paraphrasing would eliminate the need for quotation marks.
  • Periodic rockfalls continue to happen on the mountain. - This is kind of basic wording; something a little more engaging would be good.
  • Any reason why Cellular One didn't build the tower?

Overall, I like the article, but I do think it needs a little work. I think the use of quotes is a little excessive for only a few-words-long phrases in the middle of sentences. It makes for choppy reading IMO. Also, I would avoid footnotes in the middle of sentences, since they make me feel like I need to mentally pause when I'm reading just the same as a period. Content-wise, I think you might go into a little too much detail on certain things, but I wouldn't worry about it since overall the detail provides a very in-depth and interesting narration. I'm wondering why there isn't more info on the geography of the mountain, like what range it's part of, what formed it, some more dimensions, and a brief description of its layout (maybe flora/fauna would be a little silly for such a localized mountain, but I would still ask if there is any info on animals or plants that especially like this hill. Nice work! Juliancolton (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some places where the refs break up the sentences slightly, but many of the references are used multiple times, making it pretty hard to group them. And if I put them all at the end of sentences, it wouldn't be clear which parts of the sentence were sourced to which ref. The main problem with describing Joppenbergh's ecology and geology is that it simply hasn't been studied. My refs for the age of its rock are talking about the rock of the town, not Joppenbergh specifically, and the only reason its height is known is because Gilchrist read a USGS map of the town and identified the mountain in her work. The USGS itself doesn't seem to have any info on it. The only sourced info I have on fauna are the JMC's lawyer saying something about rattlesnakes, but it's not clear from that if the snakes live on the mountain or just next to it. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - alright, I think you've addressed all of my concerns at this point. Happy to support a very nice article on a local landmark(?). Juliancolton (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support. Comments. The article looks in good shape to me; I've made a couple of minor copyedits -- please revert if I messed up anything. I have some minor points below:

  • I see above that you have no sources to explain how Jacob's name became "Joppenbergh". Since the difference is surprising to the reader (it took me aback) how about adding a parenthetical "(despite the apparent difference in the form of the name)" or something along those lines?
    • I'm not sure how to add something like that without it being original research. None of the sources explained the etymological evolution of "Joppenbergh"; it's mainly been just a retelling of this blurb, which is CC-licensed and can be added to the article if need be. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      If you want to leave it as is, that's OK, but I don't think you would need additional sources -- you would just be confirming to the reader that this is the case. It would function like a "[sic]" in a quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The collapse rendered the canal and nearby road impassable, and also caused a boiler explosion that shook the nearby Rosendale trestle. The costly cave-in destroyed mining shafts and caused between $20,000 and $25,000 in damage." Starting the second sentence with "costly cave-in" doesn't really add anything since you give the exact damage figure. How about combining both sentences and shortening as follows: "The collapse rendered the canal and nearby road impassable, caused a boiler explosion that shook the nearby Rosendale trestle, and destroyed mining shafts, causing between $20,000 and $25,000 in damage." Though in fact you might not even need "destroyed mining shafts" since that's already been mentioned.
    • Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Much improved. I agree with Ceranthor below that it would be helpful to say if this in 1899 or 2011 dollars: presumably the former, in which case a conversion to present day value would be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warren Sammons is first mentioned as owner in the 1930s; prior to that time is it known who owned it?
    • The cement companies that operated on the mountain are mentioned, but I haven't seen any records of private ownership. A lot of the old village records were lost during some pretty severe floods in the 1950s. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regardless of whether or not the town decides to accept the deal, the OSI will purchase Joppenbergh": perhaps better as "the OSI intends to purchase" since we are talking about intentions rather than predictions.
    • Done, I thought it looked off. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Shawangunk Ridge linked in the see also section? It doesn't seem like something a reader would particularly want to follow up on after reading about Joppenbergh, unless Joppenbergh is part of that ridge in which case the link should be in the article.
    • I have no data to indicate that Joppenbergh is part of the Shawangunk Ridge, but I included it because it passes through Rosendale and I figured that someone reading about a mountain in Rosendale might want to read about another mountain in Rosendale. I have no opinion on the removal of this item. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      OK -- I won't strike it in case another reviewer has an opinion, but that's fine with me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about giving the date (1704) of the deed referring to the mountain as "Jobsenbright"?
    • I think giving "early 18th century" is better here, because the Name section should have a sense of approximation, in contrast to the History section, where I tried to be as specific as possible in terms of dates and details. If there were multiple deeds from this time period, it would warrant a subsection in History, but as it stands, the fact that the deed was created in 1704 doesn't seem to be as relevant as the general time period. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe it's my OCD but I hate to have data that I don't put in the article. I see your point though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spotchecked a few sources, and have a couple of concerns:
    • The 7 March 1938 tournament was still in the future at the time the source was published; it does give that date but given that at least one tournament was cancelled I don't think you can assume that this occurred.
      • Fixed, Good catch, I believe one of the other sources said that a March tournament occurred, but the wording is much more accurate now. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If you find that other source, it would be better to be definite, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This source does not appear to support the statement it is cited for, and in any case just appears to be a letter in the paper -- it could be used to cite that certain opinions were expressed, but not much more than that.
      • The source does say that "...the municipal parking and Willow Kiln Park... is a lease", so I don't believe I've misrepresented it. The point about it being a personal letter is valid, though, so I'm going to replace it with this, which mentions "the parking lot and the pocket lot of the park". This ref also mentions the defunct cement kilns of the park, would that all be acceptable, given that there are photos of this area? --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it does say that; sorry, didn't mean to imply you were mis-using the source deliberately. Yes, the proposed replacement seems fine. As for the cement kilns, I'm not sure I understand the question -- are you planning to add the Shawangunk Journal cite as another reference, for a different sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched to support above; the remaining points are minor, except the pending removal of the letter used as a source. An interesting and well-written article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Struck as the source is now removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Ultimately a well-written article that seems plenty comprehensive. My only niggles are the usage of

dolostone -- not sure if you are aware, but the term itself is sort of iffy -- and this bit from the mining section: "The total cost of the damage was estimated to be between $20,000 and $25,000.[16]". Is that current value, or historical value? If it's the former, an estimate of current amounts could be useful for comprehension. ceranthor 20:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I will address these issues tonight; at the moment, I'm in Rosendale, taking some photos and looking through old newspaper articles at the Rosendale Library to make sure I haven't missed anything. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've now addressed the remaining points you and Mike Christie raised. I didn't add a conversion to modern currency because there have been past discussions at FAC about the validity of the inflationary value of capital goods. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's totally understandable, as it was just a suggestion after all. ceranthor 15:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media Review - Everything checks out. I would like to mention that the picture of the parking lot really dosen't do anything for me, though. It's just a parking lot. I'd personally drop it, but it's your choice.
    Wha? 01:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:50, 21 July 2011 [7].

Tropical Storm Nicole (2010)

Nominator(s): ★ Auree talk 23:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Nicole was a short-lived and asymmetric, yet devastating storm that killed thirteen and caused extensive damage in Jamaica. I've been working on the article for a while now, and I believe it has greatly improved since its creation, both qua structure/prose and information. It has also received a peer review prior to this nomination, and any additional comments are greatly appreciated. ★ Auree talk 23:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Newspapers should be italicized
  • Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
  • Watch for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • FN 22: Chipley Paper is work, not author
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers, and if you do how this is notated
  • Be consistent in whether newswire services like Reuters or Associated Press are listed as authors or publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed all these issues. Not entirely sure about the fifth point, but I think it's alright like this. Thanks for the source review! ★ Auree talk 07:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review - Yeah, it all checks out.

Wha? 20:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks! ★ Auree talk 22:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - a few cosmetic things I noticed right off the bat.
  • The first ref should have first names in the author info, since the rest seem to have them.
Good point. Added first names. ★ Auree talk 17:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a source to this soon. ★ Auree talk 17:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Visually, I think you should try to stagger the position of the images... currently, there's a wall of graphics adjoining a wall of text.
All right, though I'm not sure what the best way to do this would be. How does it look now? ★ Auree talk 17:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through the article soon and review it from a more in-depth point of view. Juliancolton (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall a well-written article but it would be best if you checked around for some more recent info. There is information that was added into the TCR not mentioned in the article, namely the 37.42 inches of rain recorded in Belleisle, Jamaica. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the rainfall total. I'll check around for more recent info as well. ★ Auree talk 19:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to present the subject matter as well as can be expected. A few quibbles:

Lede
  • "the final of a record" I would say "the last".
Fixed.
Met. history
  • "focus for scattered thunderstorm activity—or convection". If you are saying that convection is an alternative term for what is before the dash, then I would suggest using parentheses instead.
Tried something a bit different. This looks better as well
  • "amidst" Given that this is US speech patterns, I guess, judging by the dates being month first, wouldn't "amid" be better? I'm not certain on this one.
Good point.
  • "Over the subsequent day" I'm unsure if you are referring to the 27th or 28th. It isn't helped that not much further down you say "the same day". Make the timeline clearer, please.
I added a date with its formation.
  • "Despite the asymmetry," I'm not sure about your use of the word "despite"; after all, symmetry mediates neither for or against the attainment of tropical storm status, this one is simply atypical.
The asymmetry is explained in the preceding sentence, namely the disassociation of the convection and the storm center. This could often inhibit tropical development, that's why I mentioned it.
Preparations
  • " to remain closed the next morning" I would say "the next day" to eliminate questions about whether they reopened later in the day.
Done.
Impact
  • "Widespread flooding" I would strike the word widespread. The previous sentence establishes that fact adequately.
Alright.
  • " from seven different parishes." I would say in, not from.
Yeah, I agree.
  • "were performed ". Suggest "had been performed".
Fixed.
  • "rendered beyond repair" Strike "rendered".
Fixed.
  • "Associated monetary losses" Strike "Associated"
Fixed.
  • "hospitalizing four locals in the process" Strike "in the process" and I would call them residents. Can't we just say they were injured? "Hospitalized", I wonder about that term.
Hospitalized is a legit term (the source also states it explicitly). Besides, just saying they were injured could also mean they sustained minor bruises and cuts, which is not something you get hospitalized for. I tweaked the rest, though.
  • "extensive damage to several roads, making them impassable to traffic" Aren't you saying virtually the same thing twice?
Yeah, in a sense. Fixed.
  • "Despite initial threats " You are stuffing too much into this sentence; please split it.
Bah, bloated sentence. Split.
  • " flood waters reached about 1 ft (0.3 m) in one local residence." Is what happened to one house really significant or representative?
Changed it to "significant flooding was only reported to one local residence" to indicate there was limited damage.
  • " carried forth " Unless this is a customary term in storm talk, I'd strike the word "forth". Forgive me if it is my ignorance.
No, you're right; that wording was awkward overall.
  • " heavy rainfall of locally up to 8 inches " Surely there is a more pleasing way to phrase this?
Is this better?
  • "due to the effects of severe flooding." Shorten to "due to flooding' as no one dies from mild flooding.
Haha, very true.
  • " these areas." What areas? I hope it is not southern New England, because I am having difficulty squaring "devastation" and $10,000.
Added the area mentioned in the source.
  • "as well as fuel". Does the $50K pay for the fuel, or is that extra? The article is not clear.
Is this any better?
Aftermath
  • " in order to engage in the planting operation" Shorten considerably. And what kind of plants were they planting? As this is Jamaica, I'm not sure if I ought to ask.
Shortened and clarified.
  • "life supplies" It's not clear what these are.
The source doesn't clarify, though I think it's fairly clear nonetheless.
  • "voluntarily raised" strike voluntarily.
Done.
  • "local farm chickens" It strikes me that "local" and "farm" are unneeded here.
Struck local, kept farm as just chickens is a bit vague. ★ Auree talk 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. The prose seems a bit heavy, but it could be a relatively dull subject matter. I'll give it another read when these are done, please drop me a line on my talk page. Look for unnecessarily wordy constructions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive comments. Hopefully the issues have been addressed satisfactorily. ★ Auree talk 18:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All that looks good. The prose seems stiff to me but that could be the subject matter. Allow me a bit of time to compare with FA weather articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the prose seems stiff but it is not dissimilar from that in other weather articles and I'm impressed by something Ling Nut said at WT:FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review and the support ★ Auree talk 22:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, a full article review...

  • its remnants contributed to a large coastal storm for the East Coast of the United States. - "for" seems like an odd connecting word.
  • remnant monsoonal moisture from Tropical Storm Matthew - I don't think "monsoonal" is accurate here if the moisture was really derived from post-TS Matthew.
  • thunderstorm activity, otherwise known as convection. - "convection" and "thunderstorms" aren't really interchangeable, even though we usually present them as such. I would change "otherwise known as" to "a product of". I'm also not sure if you have to link thunderstorm, but that's your decision.
    • I just changed it to convection to avoid further confusion.★ Auree talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over the subsequent day - I'm the first one to make use of big words, but I think "next" would suffice.
    • I think that's up to personal preference, and I prefer subsequent in this context. ★ Auree talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • regional surface pressures began to drop as sustained winds increased to near tropical storm-force. - TS force winds developed along the trough? Or had a closed low formed by this point? This sentence seems to be a bit out of context.
    • The source does mention a low, so I changed that. ★ Auree talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link Atmospheric circulation, which covers large-scale (global) circulation features, to refer to a low-level LP center. Is there a more applicable link to use?
  • officials braced for more rain. - Was there previous rain?
  • As Nicole unexpectedly diverged from its projected path, the warnings and watch were discontinued the next day - two things. First, I don't remember seeing anything like that in the MH, so I'm left confused as to when/where the storm diverged from its forecast track. Also, "as" at the beginning of the sentence could have two meanings ("because", "or "while"), and I'd like to see that clarified.
    • Thanks for noticing this, because it did not make any sense. Nowhere does it mentioned an unexpected diversion, so I changed this ★ Auree talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • another inhabitant was caught in flood waters - did he/she die?
    • Unspecified in recent sources. Latest sources mention them as missing. ★ Auree talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'J$20 billion (US$235.4 million) worth of damage - this seems like really forced wording). Why not just "J$20 billion in damage"?
  • with moderate showers,[43] with localized maximum

That's it. Juliancolton (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in-depth review! ★ Auree talk 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, everything looks good with those points. I do, however, have a few more concerns that I had overlooked before. In this paragraph:

Multiple schools in New Hanover and Pender County opted to remain closed the next day due to heightened storm conditions associated with the successive weather system.[25] At the threat of prolonged rainfall, authorities in Kent County, Maryland, issued a flood watch from September 30 to October 1. Also in the area, both a temporary coastal flood advisory and wind advisory were declared on September 30, according to the National Weather Service.

–there are several things I find a bit weird. First, "heightened storm conditions" seems like unusual wording, unless the city perpetually experiences storm conditions and Nicole enhanced them. Also, I'm not sure what "successive weather system" means. That said, authorities don't issue flood watches (well, maybe they do, but then they wouldn't be notable enough to document in the article); instead, the local NWS office does. "Temporary" is weird in the next sentence, since I don't know of any severe weather alert that's permanent. Juliancolton (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked all of it a bit. Hopefully it looks better now ★ Auree talk 00:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have one main comment. How come the storm's structure was so asymmetric? You say how diffluence provided focus for the convection, but that's it on the why. Could you elaborate on that in the article? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thanks for addressing that. Here are some more comments before I support (which I am close to doing).
    • In the lede, you say how the rain fell over the western Caribbean, and then you say that epic damage happened on Jamaica. I think it wouldn't hurt to say that the 28ish inches of rainfall occurred in Jamaica in the lede, since that's an impressive total.
    • "with another 54 reported to be destroyed" - the "reported to be" is unnecessary. Watch out for redundancies in your writing.
    • "Albeit upgraded to tropical storm status, the broad system retained an area of relatively weak winds around its core" - you've said that a few times. Try finding a better lead off for the 3rd paragraph.
    • "At the threat of thundershowers" - weird wording
    • Could you give an example of a "shattered" rainfall record?
    • I like the vivid descriptions of the deaths. Nice!

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all of those, except for the "Albeit upgraded [...]" one. There just isn't much else to say about Nicole, so I don't know what to do about it. Plus, I mentioned it to indicate that it was still an ambiguous system, even after being upgraded. ★ Auree talk 01:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment, mostly points about the lede and meteorological history section being too technical:
    • Tropical Storm Nicole was a short-lived and asymmetric tropical cyclone that caused copious damage in Jamaica during the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season — "copious" sounds rather weird here. I suggest "extensive" or another synonym.
      • Tweaked, even though since it's just a synonym it wasn't really necessary. ★ Auree talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • as well as the last of a record eight tropical storms in September 2010.[1] — this makes it sound like all the storms in September were tropical storms, which is not correct.
      • How about "a record eight storms to attain tropical storm status"? ★ Auree talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It maintained an unusual structure as it tracked northeastward, with a poorly defined circulation and little convection near the center. — too technical; see
      WP:WPTC/J
      for some auxiliary links that might be useful.
      • Tweaked a bit for less technicalities in the lede.
    • Due to the asymmetric structure of Nicole, the strongest thundershowers were well-removed from its center, — should well-removed be hyphenated?
    • Heavy precipitation of up to 37.42 inches (940 mm) and consequent floodwaters affected a total of 474 houses and destroyed 54 others. — by having "a total", you indicate that all the houses that were completely destroyed are included in that total, but then when you add "54 others" it seems that this is not the case. Please reword this so it's not so contradictory.
    • Elsewhere, the storm produced minor flooding in Havana, Cuba, — is "Cuba" necessary? Havana is a rather large and well-known city, and this is like saying that Moscow is in Russia.
    • Over the subsequent day, regional surface pressures began to drop as sustained winds increased to near tropical storm-force.[5] — hyphenation again, but more importantly, you probably want to indicate that the sustained winds around the low pressure area began to increase, as non-expert readers could be confused by being introduced to TS winds all of a sudden.
    • However, post-analytic estimates indicate the system had reached tropical storm status three hours earlier. — post-analytic? Why can't you say "estimates made after the hurricane season"? And this sentence also doesn't indicate why this is important: Nicole was a tropical storm 27 hours before it was originally thought to have reached that intensity.
      • It's essential data, albeit an addition. I tweaked it a bit though. ★ Auree talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Saint Andrew Parish, a house succumbed to the effects of the storm next to a street gutter; — what is this even trying to say?
      • That a house succumbed to the effects of the storm next to a street gutter? ★ Auree talk 04:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Was the storm located right next to the street gutter?
          cool stuff) 05:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]
    • Monetary losses totaled J$274.3 million (US$3.2 million), of which an estimated J$75.6 million (US$890,000) was required to replace destroyed units.[29] — units = housing units?
    • Some buildings lost their roofs when a waterspout hit Westmoreland Parish's capital of Savanna-la-Mar during the passage of the storm, — link waterspout
    • The extratropical remnants of Nicole retained extreme precipitation volumes, — extremely technical; what's wrong with saying that they retained plenty of moisture?
    cool stuff) 04:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:50, 21 July 2011 [8].

Canoe River train crash

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. For some reason, even though there were articles about lesser Canadian rail disasters, there was none on this one, which not only gained intense publicity at the time, but six and a half years later, helped make John Diefenbaker prime minister of Canada. It's been through a GA and a very detailed PR. The fourth in my series on postwar Canadian politics.Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh...Wehwalt!" Just kidding. I went over it pretty hard at Peer Review and copyediting, so know it well. I am positive on the article. Interesting incident that will play well for the Wikians and general public that likes reading about train wrecks and also has a good higher level political tie-in Major outstanding concern I have is the Rescue section still needs better logical organization. (Chronology of events is not clear, we discuss weather in two separate paras, lack of supplies mentioned at beginning makes less sense than down where we talk about the doctor's work, etc.) There were a few other changes I recced that you did not agree with, which is fine. Article needs a decisive captain. You've won me over on the politician prominence at the end. At least the troops get a nice final touch in the lead, and then in aftermath we've got them at first para prominence instead of second (and I guess the chronologicy sort of works if we think of the Korean War deaths as the start of that para). TCO (reviews needed) 13:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does it look now to you?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. TCO (reviews needed) 13:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that answer! Thank you for the most thorough peer review and copyedit, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure. You contribute a huge amount to Wiki.TCO (reviews needed) 01:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how locations are notated for newspapers that don't include them in the title, and what information is included (for example, Windsor vs Windson (Ont.))
  • 2nd Regiment or Second Regiment?
  • Don't include cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are done. I tried to make a judgment about which cities are big enough that people will have heard of them, but obviously was inconsistent in one case!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media: I'm having a tough time with File:Canoerivertrainwreck.svg. Could this please be explained? If it's not suitable for Commons... Was File:Johndiefenbaker.jpg under Crown Copyright? Is it definitely PD in the US? J Milburn (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know on the .svg. I will ask. I've swapped the other image for one of Dief in 1940 that is unquestionably PD. Since Dief was in opposition, pre-1957 shots of him that are Crown copyright are unusual.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(discussion re: File:Canoerivertrainwreck.svg has moved to the talk page)
I gather the discussion re the .svg has concluded satisfactorily. J Milburn, can you give images your blessing, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out, as per discussion on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to every one for taking the time to get it right.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Straightforward account, tightly written, with just a handful of issues:

  • You say in the nom statement that the disaster "helped make John Diefenbaker prime minister of Canada", but this line isn't really illustrated in the article. I would expect to see a sentence or two in the Aftermath section, emphasising the publicity surrounding the case and the boost to Dief's career resulting from his victory.
  • The map: the railway lines as depicted don't suggest a direct east-west configuration, and I'm a bit uncertain about the directions the two trains were travelling in. Is it possible to add information to the map - some arrows would be helpful? I'm also a bit concerned that the source information in the file description begins: "Based on description in Canoe River train crash and..."
She is probably referring to [File:Canoe River railway map.png this image], which TCO took out, but which shows the various sidings and stations pretty clearly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Based on description in Canoe River train crash..." refers to how I placed the location of the crash itself, which is described in the article. File:Canoe River railway map.png and maps made available by the Canadian government were used to locate political borders, railroads, cities, etc. -MissMJ (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rescue section: prose in the first paragraph is somewhat repetitive, with "troop cars ... troop cars" in close proximity, then "troop train ... troop train". Some rephrasing advised.

Otherwise all well. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, they were going more or less north and south, the tracks in this region follow the rivers except where they blast through the mountains. I will ask MissMJ and see if she can add one of those little compass indicators.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Added an arrow per map conventions to show that up is, indeed, North. -MissMJ (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left my image query unstruck, awaiting the outcome of the greater debate, above. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dana Boomer - Just a few minor comments, which don't change my support:

  • In the lead you say the trains were westbound and eastbound, but from the lead map it looks like they were travelling north and south. I see you've discussed this a bit above, but I'm still not clear. Could you explain further?
  • Prosecution, the story about Diefenbaker's bar exam is quite interesting. Do we know the reason behind this obvious reduction in testing? Was it even legal?

Otherwise, looks good! Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - Checked several of the references and found no indication of close paraphrasing or copyvios; all references backed up what they were supposed to. Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say "westbound" and "eastbound" so I don't have to confuse the issue by noting that at that particular point, it was actually north and south. Train tracks in the Rockies follow river valleys, and at this point, they run north south quite a bit. That is why I use the terms "eastbound" and "westbound". The interested reader can see that from the maps in the infobox. Regarding the bar exam, again it is speculation on my part, but I did find an article reaming the bar association for charging Dief so much money so he could take a case in which he was known not to be charging a fee. I think they were giving in with good grace. That way they got Dief's money, had little risk of embarrassment (Dief was a very competent lawyer and KC), and did not start a precedent of letting people in the bar for free if they had a good enough reason. Win-win. If it wasn't legal, it was never challenged, as Dief took another BC case just before he became Opposition Leader, which did not go as well for him and which he did not write about in his memoirs (basically, in this murder case, which he lost, he demonstrated his theory of how the murder took place and wound up addressing the court from under the defence table. The judge, who wrote about it in his memoirs, stated, "Mr. Diefenbaker, if you come out from under there, I shall be able to hear you much better.") Thanks for the support and the checks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome story! On the westbound/eastbound - I guess my confusion is that it looks like the entire route (between Valemount and Blue River) runs approximately north/south. So that makes me wonder why east/westbound even enters the picture. If the train was headed from Jasper to Red Pass, I could see using these directions, even if the trains were temporarily facing north/south, but when the primary route runs north/south... It's also quite possible that I'm just missing something completely obvious... :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the trains weren't stopping in the mountains, they were following the transcontinental routing, From their point of origin (Shilo, Manitoba for the troop train, Vancouver for the passenger train) to their intended destinations (Fort Lewis, on Puget Sound for the trooper, Montreal for the passenger train), they were, for the most part, traveling east-west, so it makes more sense to say "eastbound" and "westbound" even though for that forty miles or so, it was mostly north-south. I am open to other ways of doing things.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now! I was thinking of it only in terms of that section (I think because that's what's shown on the map), instead of the entire route. Makes more sense now. Dana boomer (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I noticed this while working on my own FAC. Personally, I think it's a very engaging article, though I have a few minor remarks:

  • "Twenty-one people were killed: 17 Canadian soldiers being deployed in the Korean War and the two-man locomotive crew of each train." – In my opinion, "being" is redundant in this sentence, as deployed on its own conveys the same meaning just as well. Overall, I think the prose in this sentence is a bit odd and terse.
  • "(Cedarside and Gosnell were sidings where trains could wait to allow opposing traffic to clear)." – The period needs to be added into the parenthesis as they contain a complete sentence, rather than a mere fragment.
  • "The leading cars of each train were derailed. Those which had been part of the troop train were demolished by the crash." – Nothing wrong here, though "The leading cars of each train were derailed, while those which had been part of the troop train were demolished by the crash" might be preferable qua flow.
  • "A 17th soldier died on December 9, bringing the death toll to 21." – How did he pass away all of a sudden? Is there any information on the extent of the injuries he suffered or the cause of death? Maybe you can find out if he was hospitalized prior to his death. Any elaboration would help clarify, really.
  • "He also testified to a brief gap in communications several days previously," – Previously? As in, prior to the accident or...?
  • "$127,000,000" → $127 million reads better. And I assume this is in 1950
    USD
    ; this inclusion would be nice.
As no special discussion of the figure occurs in the source, I took it to read Canadian dollars. As this is an article about an event in Canada, the use of Canadian dollars requires no special notation, surely?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people just assume currency depending on where they are. A Canadian reader will most surely see it as Canadian dollars, but as a reader on the U.S., when I see $, I just assume USD, even though I know the article is about Canada. Someone from Australia would probably see it as Australian dollars. It'd just be a small clarification to add which currency it is. -MissMJ (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph of the Inquiry section, there are three consecutive sentences starting with "It". I think this could be switched up a bit.
  • "Instead she wired him asking him to meet her in Vancouver." → "Instead she wired him, requesting that he meet her in Vancouver" for less repetitiveness.
  • I'm unfamiliar with the expression "pass the hat". Could it be reworded to exclude possible confusion? ★ Auree talk 22:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and the comments. Those issues have been addressed, except for the one commented just above.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An interesting article, and it looks like it's just waiting for its star, but I do have a few small suggestions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You might consider re-wording Twenty-one people were killed to "The collision killed 21 people" or similar to avoid starting a sentence with a number and to avoid having "Twenty-one" and "17" in close succession.
  • Edmonton is mentioned several times but not linked in the body
  • The Crown might be worth a link for those unfamiliar with the Commonwealth legal system
Those things are done. Thanks for coming aboard!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. There was very little to criticise, but I'm glad my suggestions were useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on the comments below. While doing this review, I read the article several times and some of its sources, plus the Good Article (GA) review and the peer review (PR). Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Striking oppose, as concerns addressed, will need to read through entire article again later today before deciding whether to support or not, but that shouldn't hold up this nomination. Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page history. Technical point first: the page history is borked. The earliest version of this page appears to be a draft for a different article. Presumably something went wrong when transferring from a userspace sandbox? The revisions that relate to other content appear to be from the first version on 1 December 2010 to the version on 6 June 2011. The article started to be written on 10 June 2011, as can be seen from this diff and was moved later the same day. While only a technicality, the article history really needs to be cleaner than this for featured articles, for a variety of reasons, one being that the page history is currently misleading as to when the article was started. One of the reasons problems haven't been ironed out is because it has only been around for just over a month and not enough people outside of the review process have seen it.
    Can I use devrel to hide the things or is there some other process you would recommend?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would ask at
    WP:HISTMERGE#History splitting sounds ideal. But I've never done that myself. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I've sorted this (it's fairly simple: delete, partial undelete, move, undelete the rest) and moved the old revisions elsewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undue weight. The major concern I have with the article is what I see as
    undue weight
    on the Diefenbaker part of the story (mentioned 3 times in the lead and around 30 times in the article). This appears to be because the article was started as "series on postwar Canadian politics" to quote the nominator at the start of this FAC review, rather than started as an article on a train crash, or an article on Canadian military history. The parts of the article on Diefenbaker are (unsurprisingly) excellent, but what was really needed here was reviews from those more attuned to other aspects, to help get the balance right.
The subsequent editing has subtly shifted the balance and addressed most of my concern here, so striking this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing information. Outside of the Diefenbaker aspects of the article, there are several key points missing, which reinforces my impression that this article has been written as an offshoot of the main Diefenbaker article (presumably to include material for which there wasn't room in the main article), and currently lacks the research that should have been done to ensure the non-Diefenbaker parts of the article were comprehensive. Examples of missing information are below.
    Well, actually, you are mistaken. I wrote this out of annoyance that there was no article on this. My work on the main Diefenbaker article concluded I think in March 2010, though I did some work on it in September.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not take what I say in a nom statement too seriously. It's designed to attract clicks and reviewers, and to give the signpost something to write about if it is promoted.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try and remember that in future. I've now struck what I said above, as the missing information was added or addressed, and I think the article has refocused somewhat. I accept that you didn't write it as an offshoot of the Diefenbaker article, but I do think that the differences in the sources used (newspaper reports versus book sources) may have contributed to you writing more on the trial section that might have been the case if it had been written as a crash/military article first and then had the trial bit added later. Sometimes the starting point can influence the endpoint, if that makes sense. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a third memorial that is not mentioned, in Brookside Cemetery in Winnipeg. See here. This is different from the memorial cenotaph at CFB Shilo and the one near the accident site, both of which are pictured here. You also fail to mention when the Camp Shilo monument was erected. The whole memorial business seems rather confused. I would be wary of saying that there is a definitive number, but it would be good to know which memorials these 17 are named on and which they are not named on. Are they on the Korean War Memorial Wall (Canada), for example (it would be worth mentioning if they are not)? Are they on the online Virtual Memorial site that Canadian authorities maintain? This article could be as much about the memorial aspect as about the trial and political aspects, but currently the article lacks the material on the memorials, even though the sources are out there.
    • Deadlock in Korea: Canadians at war, 1950-1953 - this source is in the article, but you fail to use the other mentions from that source, such as the mention on page 302 about the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal (that it was not issued to the 17 that died in the train crash).
    • Korea volunteer: an oral history from those who were there also has extra material. In particular, it quotes from the book RCHA - Right of the Line (the regimental history, by a Major G. D. Mitchell), and appears to give a different perspective to the one currently in the article (which is based mainly on contemporary news reports). It is easy to find online excerpts, such as here, that give the dedication and unveiling date of the Camp Shilo memorial as 21 November 1952. It is stuff like this that is missing from the article. There are also hints of confusion over memorials and dates, with 1987 mentioned in some places, and 1998 in other places. It all needs sorting out and more careful examination.
      That sounds interesting. I'll look into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the 1998 roadside marker is something else, it is not the same as the 1987 cairn. I've given up on numbering the memorials, but will add what I can from them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Canadian nurse, Volume 48 (1952) - an interesting fragment here, though unfortunately all that can be seen from the Google search page is "The behavior of the Jasper nurses at the Canoe River train wreck..." Might not be that relevant, but could be. There are other scattered fragments, and official government debates and accident commission reports coming up as well.
      You surprise me. I did look on google books fairly thoroughly looking for accident commission reports. Can you supply a link? I also checked the Vancouver Bar Association website for their law library.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      There is a mention in Canadian railway and transport cases, Volume 67, but whether that is a preliminary note or the full case, I can't tell. The trick seems to be to search using the term "accident" or "collision" rather than "wreck" (or omit that search term altogether), and use dates to focus on the relevant "canoe river" material. Brief mention in 1952 from Journals of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, Volume 94 (page 174). I also found a more recent mention from 2002 in this journal if that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah yes, I did see that, and I did the same trick you did. I could not obtain a copy of the railway decision/inquiry report/whatever it is. Railway law is not big these days. The thing is, these are primary sources, not without value no doubt, but primary sources. I did include a secondary source which mentioned what the inquiry report said.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure. The report must still exist somewhere! Hopefully the non-primary source (from 2002) will be of use. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      It isn't. If you search for "on a hillside", you can see the start of the Canoe River discussion and if you search for "worst ever", you can see the end of it. I plan on adding something on the medals matter; I've ordered the Barris book. Anyhow, I've made a start on the section you mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Pity about the 2002 mention. Glad the nursing one was useful and that you have obtained a copy of the Barris book. I do have a few more suggestions, but will put those on the article talk page. Please don't worry too much about the crash report - that was only an offhand comment I made when I saw references to it in my various searches. Your report of the conclusions in the newspaper report are enough for me, though I'm sure the report itself (well, the conclusions) would be worth a look. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the peer review, this newspaper article (from 2010) was pointed out, but the information was never added to the article.
      I did read it at the time of the peer review, it was not just ignored, and I just read it again. It's interesting, but the fact that the guy hopes to have the dead honoured by the Korean government isn't presently too helpful. And nothing in that article about the history is terribly novel. There is, by the way, a subsequent article, they got back some letters of thanks from Korea. I did not think it worth the mentioning. It's all very slapdash and unofficial.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for responding on this point. You've convinced me that it is not official enough to mention. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The medal issue is also mentioned here (this source is in the article, but the medal issue is not mentioned in the article): "Five of their next-of-kin are being presented with the Memorial Cross. The remaining next-of-kin will receive the Memorial Cross at a later date." This should be mentioned in the article.
      Noting that this was added to the article. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor ending. The current ending of the article is not good, again because of the undue emphasis on Diefenbaker. This should be an article about the train crash and those who died in it, but the article ends by telling the reader when Diefenbaker became Prime Minister of Canada. It feels like the whole article was leading up to that point, and feels dismissive of the real human tragedy that took place here. The article should end with details of the memorials and commemorations. That would shift the closing focus from being on Diefenbaker to being on those who died in the crash.
    Actually, I am aware of many of these, such as the Senate commemoration. A long list of commemorations strikes me as texually difficult, but I will see what I can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The new section has shifted the focus, which allays my main concern. Thanks. Comments on the new section, I'll place on the article talk page (there are a few more dates that could be added, and more context added, as you do in the Diefenbaker sections, to make more of a narrative and less of a piecemeal listing). Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor points. Set of minor points also noted in this review.
    • The Royal Canadian Horse Artillery are not special forces, but someone has linked to that term. Looking at the sources, I think you meant to refer to the 'Korea Special Force' being assembled by Canada at the time. The formal name for this was the Canadian Army Special Force (CASF). See here for details. This is a basic error in military terminology that should have been picked up earlier, and probably would have been if you had submitted this for review at something like the Military History WikiProject. There may be more errors like this elsewhere in the article.
      Possibly, I'll ask a military project reviewer to have a look.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I see the editor you asked has looked. Thanks for doing this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your first source (Chase, Sean. "Gunners of 2RCHA suffered a tragic day at Canoe River" The Daily Observer) lacks a publication date. I can see the website doesn't provide one, but something is needed.
      Can you suggest a good way of getting something in there?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on 'Posted 1 year ago', I would put the publication year as "2010" and leave it at that. It just needs to be clear whether it is a 1950s news report, or a more recent one. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Read it. It's modern.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I had read it. And it was a more readable account of the accident than the one currently in the Wikipedia article. Admittedly, that author was writing for a newspaper audience, not aiming for an encyclopedic treatment of the topic, so that will account for most of the difference, but (from memory) that account mentions the eye-witnesses who saw the accident, and one of them attempting to warn the trains that they were about to collide. I realise you can't include everything mentioned in the news reports, from there are some omissions which seem odd. Did you only mention stuff that was in more than one source, or something like that (which would help explain omissions)? Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I tried to steer a middle course so as to avoid dubious claims. The oil fire was one concern, I was convinced by a 1950 source over an offhand, more modern source that it happened after the soldiers were gone. If there was an oil fire, I decided, there would have been some way of staying warm. The 1950 reference was specific enough to convince me. I will be honest, Carcharoth. I believe legend, both from Diefenbaker and the regiment, displaced some of the truth on this incident. I think you felt I was rather slapdash in putting this article together. Not in the least. I had to make value judgments about specific claims and I hope I got them right. There are definite errors in the Chase article, to my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I noticed some of the contradictions and possible errors as well, both in the 1950s newspaper articles and in more modern sources (as far as staying warm goes, the nursing journal article says something about that). This is the reason I haven't supported yet, and is why I said below that I would need to read through the article and its sources again. Making value judgments like this when writing part of an article based mostly on newspaper reports is not easy, and I would normally have expected some discussion on this matter (e.g. on the talk page), but as this article is mostly a single-author work, that discussion doesn't seem to have happened. I would then look for evidence that other reviewers have picked up on this and asked about it, but I'm not seeing that either. Which is why I've been laying out my concerns here (slowly, because I was having trouble pinpointing what was troubling me). Carcharoth (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from the above, and to be clear, I absolutely agree that editors have to judge things like this (sometimes it is unavoidable), but I would be more comfortable if it had been made clearer either in the article, on the article's talk page, or in the nomination statement, that certain sources had been considered and rejected, and certain elements from some sources omitted because of uncertainty about the reliability of the sources. I know it is not possible to document every example of such editorial judgment on an article, but if it is not documented at all, then time is wasted as people say "what about this source that you haven't used" and "what about those eyewitnesses you don't mention in this source you have used". I'm sure there are perfectly valid reasons for including some material and excluding others, but reviewers and readers (who may go and read the sources you used and read other sources as well) are not mind-readers and I and they have no way of knowing whether something was excluded because you thought it trivial or excess detail, or because you thought it was an error. I think it is reasonable to ask how much editorial judgment you had to exercise when bringing together the narrative of the crash from various sources, and whether that is a valid point of discussion in this review. Carcharoth (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid point. I think few sources were utterly excluded for that reason, but you have to sift and judge on points such as the oil fire. In that case, the fact that the nurses don't mention it is pretty strong evidence, since they mention heating. I do not think these are exceptional things; they are routine when article writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is going to be an expectation that where people are choosing among sources which are not entirely consistent, that they document that somewhere, that is something that perhaps should be discussed at WT:FAC to ensure it gets the full discussion it deserves.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • continuing after unindentation
    • Block signal link needs re-anchoring or the destination anchor reconfigured/extended to make it work again.
      Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects such as 'Canoe River accident' are needed (this is a term used by some of the sources).
      Done. I did "disaster" too, and I already had done "train wreck".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictures exist online of the wreck scene and of the memorials, and these can be legitimately linked to in the external links (i.e. you wouldn't be linking to copyvios). Such linking should be done, as the current pictures do nothing but flag up to the reader that the obvious pictures that you would expect to see are not present (and you can't expect readers to rummage around in the sources to find pictures - it is a courtesy to point the readers to where pictures exist).
      Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I may tweak the one to the online museum exhibit, as that is good enough (and has several pictures) that it is worth pointing to the start of that and annotating the external link to say that the exhibit includes pictures of the crash. Also, before I forget, there is an actual picture of the Continental locomotive online, you could see where that came from and try and obtain it under a suitable license. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I found a ref that says that the only photos from the scene were taken by a specific soldier. Even if it's PD-Canada because of Crown Copyright expired, by January 1, 2001 when Crown copyright ran out, Canada had entered the Berne Convention, which means it is not PD in the United States. That is if he took it as part of his official duties "Glugtatch! You're good with a camera, go take pictures of the wreck, the railway officials will want to see them." If he took it on his own volition, then it is a more difficult question as to judge. Glugtach may own the copyright, which I believe would be subject to a life plus 70 rule, which of course would not have expired.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I was unclear. I meant a picture of one of the actual locomotives, but taken a few years before the crash. This would seem preferable to the generic picture you currently have. I've given details on the article talk page (along with a few other notes). It is probably not possible to obtain that picture under a free license, but I thought it worth pointing it out, as it is not possible to know what others have seen and silently rejected in the source of their own searches. Carcharoth (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if there are photos of the specific locomotives, I'm somewhat dubious that it would pass NFCC against an actual image of an identical loco, but with a different number. Do you remember which ref it was in? Or was it elsewhere?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link to the Henderson source is not the best, better would be this link (or a link to the page from where the quote is taken. It would also be best to add the chapter title and pages: 'We Never Broke A Window', pp. 15-23.

I've yet to read all the sources used, but may have more to say after reading through them. Overall, I'm opposing based on the above concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See preliminary comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs)
I am very hesitant to add chapter and chapter pages, because if I do that, I'll have to do it for every other book. Why do you feel it would be helpful? I do not mind investing work but I fear it would be work that would give the reader no advantage.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is more the link that concerns me. You should either link to the Google Books page for the book, or to the start of the chapter in question. Currently you dump the reader on page 23, which presumably is where you were when you copied the link from your browser window. The thing about chapters is more a desire for precision on my part. I think chapter titles help when the rest of the book is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and you are really only using that chapter as a source, but maybe that is just me. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to a few. Hopefully it will all come out in the wash. I'll check back tomorrow or when you get the chance to look at more of this. I do think you should try and get some military history people to have a look, and there is
Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster Management that might rustle up people who have worked on train disaster accidents before. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I did find a full text of the nurses, and it does look very helpful, yes, please stop back and reassess in a day or two. I will probably not get the Barris book until Friday. I've done much of the work, as indicated. I will do more tomorrow, and then complete when I get the book on Friday. I will poke around further for that report, but I feel comfortable that the secondary source discussing its release should be sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got the Barris book and added stuff from it. Look, there are many anecdotes of heroism and tragedy in the section on the rescue efforts, I could add more, but I think the reader is clued in on the terrible situation it was. I have addressed the remainder of Carcharoth's comments. I have looked at all the sources, except the one in the law books, it will most likely have to wait until the next time I am in Canada and have time to visit a law library. I'm going to call the one in Vancouver and see if I can get them to copy it for me, but I am dubious that they will be willing to copy 80 pages from a book in copyright (although the report itself would be out of copyright, at least in Canada. I think I've addressed most of what was wanted, and will drop a line on Carcharoth's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Barris book arrived within 7 hours? That's impressive. In fact, I see it arrived around two hours ([9], [10]) after you said above that it would arrive on Friday. I need access to a service as fast as that! Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I found it at the library ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I find this to be an excellent article. I have no major problems with the page.
    talk) 20:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:50, 21 July 2011 [11].

Theobald of Bec

Nominator(s):
Fatuorum; Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's time for a much less obscure (although still obscure) personage here. Theobald is quite well known in historian circles, as he was an important figure in his time period, known for his patronage, his activities, and his own personal qualities. Most folks won't have heard of him, but they will have heard of one of his proteges - Thomas Becket, who was a member of Theobald's staff and was Theobald's successor at Canterbury. The article's had two peer reviews, and has been extensively copyedited by Malleus, who shares the nom with me (even though I know he's going to whine about it.) I promise the next nomination will be more "bad boy" than Theobald, who even when he was being bad (like when he disobeyed the king) was still doing it for a "good" reason. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nitpicking, but be consistent in how you shorten titles for citations - for example, compare FNs 19 and 40, or 9 and 42
  • Why not include both editors for Hollister?
  • Page(s) for Hayward? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ACK! I even pinged you ahead of time, hoping to manage to avoid Nikkimaria nitpicks on my FAC (I DREAM of getting the refs right on just ONE FAC..) but no... you managed to find errors! Woe is me! (Did the act work??? I'll get right on these...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, refs fixed to standardized names, pages in the Hayward full citation, but .. both editors for Hollister? My copy only has one editor. I don't list frost up in the shortened refs, because she didn't do the research on the book, she merely edited after Hollister died unexpectedly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so Hollister's the author and Frost just the editor? If so, is there some way to make this clearer in the bibliographic entry? Right now it looks (to me, at least) as if both were editors. (Sorry about missing these things on the ping!) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added "(author)" after Hollister's name. Or, alternatively, I could just eliminate Frost, if you don't like my solution. (I'm going to start working on the "ref-queen-of-nitpickers" award for you soon...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are issues with the lead prose (I've not gone through the rest yet):-

  • "He was a Norman, but his exact birth date is unknown." Conjunction inappropriate, as the two facts are unrelated.
  • "somewhat turbulent" is a bit redolent of an editorial judgement. I'd drop the "somewhat"
  • "On one occasion Stephen forbade him to attend a papal council, but Theobald defied the king and sneaked away to the council on board a fishing boat, which resulted in the confiscation of his property and temporary exile." This level of detail shouldn't be in the lead (the story is repeated almost verbatim in the text), and "sneaked away" is hardly neutral, encyclopedic language.
  • "...to have him canonised as a saint" - tautology. surely? What else can you be canonised as?

Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got most of those... except the last one. I see that as more an explanation of what the linked term means, than a tautology. Not everyone is going to realize what canonization is. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well written, but a few quick thoughts:

  • primacy is a dablink
  • "As archbishop his behaviour was moderate in comparison to that of his main rival, Henry of Blois." I don't really understand what this means
  • "on a Vita, or Life of the 12th-century mystic Christina of Markyate" Again, sorry, I don't follow
  • "Theobald had sworn fealty to Stephen, but does not appear to have been an active partisan of Stephen's, nor to have felt that his fealty to Stephen required him to recognise any claims of Stephen's heirs to the throne." Ref?
  • "Theobald was the only non-French bishop present" He was born in France?
  • "The only English bishop specifically named was Henry of Blois" When I first read this, I got the impression it was "Henry, and maybe a couple of others" but the next line implies there were many.
  • You mention Theobald consecrating Foliot twice
  • "his body was found to be uncorrupted" What does this mean?

Looking very good, and it's an important, interesting and encyclopedic topic to boot. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies
  • Theobald was indeed born in Normandy, but he was an English bishop, i.e., bishop of an English diocese. I admit though that one tripped me up too on first reading. I think we can maybe re-word that to avoid the "Huh?" effect.
    Fatuorum 00:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I'd say impossible, but heh, he was (almost) a saint! I'll leave that one for Ealdgyth.
    Fatuorum 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just a note, I'm at an art festival for the weekend, so it'll be Monday morning (my time) before I can get to these... sorry for the delay! I'm utterly bushed, but it was a day of good sales of our photographic prints so it's a good bushed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the dab. Changed the "moderate" to "less political". Removed the sentence missing a ref .. still not sure where that crept in unreffed. He was the only bishop from a non-French diocese - I cannot find this in the text now, presumably Malleus fixed it? Suspension of Henry of Blois - clarified this a bit, let me know if this is clearer to you. (it's a bit complicated, unfortunately, and hard to convey). Malleus got the Foliot bit, and the last... uncorrupted means not-decayed. Doesn't mean embalmed, but kinda mummified. And it's not as unusual as you might think - and none of my sources use "reportedly" ... the modern historians accept that the body was uncorrupted so I don't feel comfortable adding a "reportedly" here. Barlow in the ODNB says "Although a little shrunken, the archbishop's body was intact and rigid, so that some people hailed him as a saint." Saltman says ".. Theobald's body was found uncorrupted ...". Let me know if I need to clarify further. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable answers, and it's now much clearer. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An excellent article. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - compiled a list of prose points on talk page (to avoid spamming the main FAC page for delegates). If needed the points can be moved here, but the list is a bit long. Most points are not critical, but recheck the article for overly "colorful", confusing or vague phrases (especially when looking at the article from a layman's perspective). GermanJoe (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested prose improvements and clarifications per talk Done. GermanJoe (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be a pain, or anything, but does that mean you support or is there something missing you'd like to see done before you'd be willing to support the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do final check as soon as i got a bit time, looking good. GermanJoe (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See final summary below, to keep discussion in chronological order. GermanJoe (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I haven't finished reading the article yet, but it looks very good so far. I've completed to the end of the Civil War section and a few nit-picks so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Canterbury's claim to primacy over the Welsh ecclesiastics was resolved during Theobald's term of office when Pope Eugene III decided in 1148 in Canterbury's favour.": From the reading in the lead, this seems almost an aside and not directly connected with Theobald.
  • "… a number of other future bishops and archbishops served as his clerks including Roger de Pont L'Evêque, John Belmeis, John de Pageham, Bartholomew Iscanus, William de Vere, and William of Northall.": Is this level of detail necessary in the lead, or could it be cut to "a number of other future bishops and archbishops served as his clerks".
  • "Theobald died in 1161 after a long illness, following which unsuccessful efforts were made to have him canonised as a saint.": This reads as if the canonisation attempt came after his illness rather than death; could this be swapped around?
  • "and helped secure an orderly succession to the monarchy." To me, this is covered by the death of Eustace in the previous paragraph. Adding this as well suggests that Theobald was involved in a further innovation to the "rules" of succession.
  • "The modern historian Frank Barlow speculates" Is "modern" necessary? I think the later use of "contemporary" covers any medieval historians/chroniclers, and there is a possible ambiguity with a person who studies modern history in the current phrasing.
  • "The historian Avrom Saltman suggests that, if admissions were spaced regularly throughout William's abbacy, Theobald would have become a monk in about 1117, but qualifies his estimate with the statement that 1117 "seems to be rather late"." Is there any reason to suppose that the admissions would be spaced regularly? And is Saltman not undermining himself here? (I realise this is not your idea, but it seems a little odd!)
  • "over his own brother Henry, the Bishop of Winchester": Not clear on first reading if this is Stephen's brother or Theobald's brother.
  • "Stephen feared that Henry would be too powerful as archbishop, and would attempt to control the king." Odd phrasing as Stephen was the king and this makes it sound as if the king was someone else.
  • "had himself crowned": Creates a mental image of Stephen sitting placing the crown on his own head! Could this be re-phrased, for example "arranged to be crowned by X before either Theobald II…" --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First one - it was not something that Theobald pursued with great enthusiasm, but it is a vital event in Canterbury's history, so it's well worth a note in the lead. Second - cut the names. Third - done. Fourth - last bits of lead now read: "During his time as archbishop Theobald augmented the rights of his see, or bishopric. Historians of his time and later were divided on his character and he is often overlooked in the historical record, mainly because of the fame of his successor." Fifth - I really do prefer "modern" historian here ... Sixth - Saltman's doing the usual historian cover-your-ass thing here, and he devotes a good bit of space to the concept, so I do need to mention it, unfortunately. Seventh - changed to "over Stephen's own brother" Eighth - I'm afraid if I go "Stephen feared that Henry would be too powerful as archbishop, and would attempt to control Stephen." that we're getting too many Stephen's in there... there are already a lot in this paragraph. I can't really say "control royal government" as there is only a very skeletal "governmental" system in place, and royal government WAS the king, basically. Ninth - Stephen DID have himself crowned .. he didn't do the actual coronation, but he was the force behind getting the quickie coronation done - so while I'm open to suggestions on better wording, we need to retain the sense that Stephen was pushing the event forward and that it happened fast ... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments, inclined to support:

  • "Before his death, Celestine forbade Theobald "to allow any change to be made in the position of the English crown, since the transfer of it had been justly denounced, and the matter was still under dispute".[28] This became the papal policy, and was a significant change from the recognition of Stephen as king by Pope Innocent II.[29] It essentially forbade Theobald to crown any successor to Stephen, especially while Stephen was still alive.": I slightly lose it here. Did the papacy support Matilda? Celestine did not like Stephen and so the papal position switched from Innocent's support of Stephen. But then Celestine would not allow the transfer of the crown nor the appointment of a successor to Stephen, who he did not want to be king? It's very possible I'm missing something obvious.
  • "when Eugene summoned the English bishops to the Council of Rheims in April 1148, the king forbade them to attend. Instead, the king appointed three bishops...to attend" Could this be tweaked as it sounds a little odd: it says the king would not let the bishops attend, but then lists the ones he allowed to attend.
  • "but also to keep the papacy from favouring Henry Murdac..." Favouring how? Was this about the Canterbury-York primacy, or simply favouring him in the dispute over the election?
  • In the section on his first exile, it may be useful to add some dates. Presumably the pair were reconciled before the second exile as the king attended the council, but the article does not say so.
  • Very minor, minor point: Ref 33 is to English Church while all other ones are English Church 1066-1154.
  • Sourcing and coverage is excellent and spot checks of Knowles' Monsatic Order and Barlow's English Church revealed no problems. (Not that I had any doubts, I was just really happy to have one of the print sources for once!)
  • Overall, this is an excellent piece of work and I will be happy to support once these minor points are cleared up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RL is biting my butt, it'll be tomorrow before I get to these, but none of them look that difficult to deal with. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First one - I've attempted to clarify by pointing out when Innocent recognized Stephen (it was back in 1136ish) so hopefully this is clearer? Celestine never officially supported Matilda, but he basically quit supporting Stephen. (Probably so that when Stephen died the papacy could play "kingmaker" and extort concessions... but that's just my opinion). Second - changed to "...in April 1148, the king forbade the attendance of all of them." Third - clarified this a bit... let me know if this works a bit better? Fourth - added the one date I'm sure of .. the exact date of reconciliation with the king isn't in any sources I consulted. (I suspect that they kinda settled and didn't make a big deal about it.) Fifth - fixed. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An excellent article; my queries have been cleared up or explained. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nice work and thanks for addressing all concerns quickly and constructive. A few minor point and suggestions for tweaks, not withholding support:

  • link "Alberic of Ostia"? in text and infobox
  • Life at Bec: "No documents survive from Theobald's tenure as abbot" ==> past tense?
  • Civil War: "But Matilda was less sanguine, and secured the support of the Scottish king, ..." ==> i am not sure, "sanguine" is the right term here - why would she be hopeful or optimistic at all? (she just got robbed ...). Maybe "But Mathilda strived for her claim, and secured ..."?
  • Disputes with Stephen: "The king and archbishop reached a truce in August." ==> "The king and [the] archbishop ...", two persons with two distinct titles.
  • Patronage and household: worth linking "Bologna" to "University of Bologna" and Oxford to "University of Oxford"? The paragraph is about teaching and schools after all.
  • Death and legacy: "In terms of his legacy, Theobald perhaps suffered because he was overshadowed by his successor, Becket." ==> trim "Perhaps Theobald's legacy suffered because he was ...".
  • Modern historians have been kinder than his contemporaries; the historian Frank Barlow says of Theobald that he was " ==> trim "Modern historians have been kinder than his contemporaries, Frank Barlow notes that Theobald was "..."." GermanJoe (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed all of the above but the documents one - I think in this case, present is correct as we are discussing current time frame. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave the additional University links up to your judgement - they contain a little bit of background info, but are probably not essential. GermanJoe (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with further nitpicks (you can't escape!). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "as Becket's family also came from the same part of Normandy" - also+same seems a bit redundant
  • Confused: why does the fact that he was considered "old" at his death give a birth date of 1090? Would he not be old if born in 1085 or 1095?
  • "because Waleran of Meulan was lay patron of Bec, and was attempting..." -> "because Waleran of Meulan, the lay patron of Bec, was attempting"?
  • "the Empress could not be crowned because she did not hold London or Winchester" - confused again. Aren't they at Winchester at this point, and isn't she supported by the Bishop of Winchester?
  • "during the years between 1142 and 1148" -> "between 1142 and 1148"?
  • "But in September 1143, Henry's legatine powers lapsed when Pope Innocent II, who had made the legatine appointment, died. No new pope was elected until Celestine II on 26 September 1143" - if the old pope died and the pope was elected in the same month, that doesn't seem to warrant "no new pope was elected until"
  • "Theobald's presence in the country posed a threat to Stephen's authority, and Stephen quickly settled" - what does settled mean in this context?
  • What is a "primate" as regards this article?
  • "later he taught briefly at Oxford, in the 1140s" -> "in the 1140s he taught briefly at Oxford"?
  • Why is he categorized as both Anglo-Norman and Norman? The former is a subcat of the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the "also" from the Becket/Theo family bit. I have no idea, I'm just reporting what the source states ... I've reworded the second part to "...suggesting a birth date of perhaps around 1090 to one modern historian." (I hate it when my sources are not clear about WHY they make some jump in logic...). With Waleran, took your suggested wording. Oops, not sure how that Winchester snuck in there... it's really London that quashed Matilda's attempt at being crowned ... they basically hated her and she never had a hold on the city. Removed the Winchester here (the situation is slightly more complicated than this little section makes it out, but the broad outline is correct... no one needs to know HERE all about the endless debates about why Matilda did some of the stupid things she did...) Removed the "during the years". I've reworded the Celestine bit (who knows what my brain was thinking... ). Now reads "and Stephen quickly settled the differences between the two." instead of just "settled". I thought about using "Stephen quickly capitulated." which is basically what he did (Stephen was very good at talking brave and then crumpling.. if he'd faced a man or a woman not quite so handicapped as Matilda, he'd never have lasted...). I've linked to Primate (bishop) which basically sorta explains it. Took your suggestion on Vacarius. I have no idea on the cats, I removed the Anglo-Norman one... I generally ignore cats - people come in they add them, they leave, and I often can't figure out why they are switching them around... He wasn't really Anglo-Norman, his ancestry was pretty much all Norman. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good so far. Educate me on this: "The exact date of Theobald's birth is unknown; the only clue to his age is that when he died in 1161 contemporaries considered him to be an old man,[3] suggesting a birth date of perhaps around 1090 to one modern historian." I generally ask writers to put the source that backs up an opinion immediately after the opinion, so I don't have to go poking through nearby cites to figure out who said what. Do you tackle this issue in a different way? Should I know to look at the previous cite or the next cite to find out who the "modern historian" is? - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how long copy editors can keep up being fussy about the them/their distinction in "He was elected unanimously by the monks of Bec without them having consulted with the Archbishop of Rouen ...", but one thing that seems to quiet everyone down is rewording when possible. It seems to me that it's hard to misinterpret "He was elected unanimously by the monks of Bec without consultation with the Archbishop of Rouen ..." (who else would have been consulting him?), and if you agree, then that would be my advice. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whereby" (not one of my favorite words) usually means "by which". Is that what it means in this sentence? "Theobald resisted for 14 months before a compromise was reached through the intercession of Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, whereby Theobald gave a verbal profession to Hugh." - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most historians consider that Stephen arranged the election's timing to ensure Henry's absence.": I've seen this meaning of "consider"; I'm not a fan, and neither is cambridge.org, but if there's a dictionary you like that supports it, carry on. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
#1. - the immediately following cite (to the
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article is the applicable one here. #2. The monks could have also consulted with the king/duke and/or any lay patron of the monastery - and usually did. #3. Changed to "the results of which were that". #4. I think that wording was a Malleus copyedit, but I wouldn't swear to it. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
On #2, I'm not asking who else they would have consulted, I'm asking who else other than the monks could be meant by "without consultation with the Archbishop of Rouen" ... if there's no other logical candidate, then most copy editors favor my workaround here. On #3 ... let me see if I can do that with fewer words. On #4 ... if Malleus likes it, that's fine, I'll make a mental note. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't swear to it that it was my doing, but it may well have been. If memory serves I think I changed it from Ealdgyth's "Most historians feel ...". My dictionary gives "To judge, deem, or have as an opinion" as one of the meanings of "consider".
Fatuorum 15:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
On #2, given that they could have consulted with others, I'm kinda of the opinion it needs to stay this way, unless Malleus disagrees. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just hate "without consultation with". Let me look at that sentence again.
Fatuorum 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Changed to "The monks of Bec unanimously elected him to be their new abbot without first consulting the Archbishop of Rouen, Hugh de Boves, who consequently threatened to void the election."
Fatuorum 16:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:55, 19 July 2011 [12].

Voalavo

Nominator(s): Ucucha 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a small group of Malagasy rodents, discovered only in 1998. Unfortunately, the most recently discovered genera of Malagasy rodents—this one and

Monticolomys—are also among the less interesting ones, since unlike all the others they lack any conspicuous specializations, but this remains an intriguing example of unique and long-unrecognized Malagasy diversity. The articles on the two species are featured and good, respectively, and this article is also a GA thanks to a review by Rcej. Thanks for your reviews, Ucucha 00:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Sources comments: The only issue is whether it would be more consistent to use "et al." for the three-name string. Otherwise all looks in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. As for the et al., that is what the template I am using produces, and there is no actual inconsistency, since all works with more than three authors do use et al., and all those with less don't. There are, in fact, scientific journals using this same convention. Ucucha 12:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image - File:Madagascar_rivers.svg (one of the source files) cites as a source a multi-page PDF that needs page number(s) added. Also, is "records" the correct word in the caption? I would use "Recorded sightings" or something of that nature. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the page number for the multi-page PDF. If you want the description cleaned up further, just ask. – 
 talk » 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for that. Nikkimaria, "records" is a standard term in this context. It's actually places where they have been trapped; I doubt anyone has seen a Voalavo in the wild otherwise than in a trap. Ucucha 22:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose you could find an image of the little critters? That would certainly be nice.
Wha? 20:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I am trying to help Ucucha with this, but I struck out with Carleton and now I'm hoping that he will put me in touch with Goodman. Apparently Goodman is the only person who would have pictures of these species. Let's keep our fingers crossed. – 
 talk » 20:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments [from Visionholder]: As always, the article looks very good. Here are a few thing:

Support: Otherwise, the article looks really good. I'm eager to add my support. – 

 talk » 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for reviewing. Ucucha 23:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support FAC criteria are met. Sasata (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Comments — Looks very good, only minor nitpicks: Sasata (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest linking musk, taxonomy, morphology
    • Did the first two; morphology is linked in the "Taxonomy" section.
  • "These genera are more distantly related to the other nesomyine genera and then to the other subfamilies of the family Nesomyidae, which occur in mainland Africa." the "and then" part is confusing me, should this be "than"?
    • No; I've clarified this poor wording by substituting "even more distantly" for "then". Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • gloss/link laminae
  • the article mentions that subfossil remains have been found, any more information about that?
    • No, unfortunately. I guess they are still working on them. There are also allegedly multiple new species of Eliurus in that collection; we'll have to wait and see. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't remember if we've talked about this before, but isn't it odd that the IUCN citations are the only ones that don't have the publication year in parentheses?
    • Yes, I need to fix the template. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • if I really wanted to be nitpicky, I could mention that the ISBN numbers are not consistently hyphenated. But I won't.
    • But I'll fix it anyway. Thanks for the comments and for the fixes to the article. Ucucha 12:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments [from Dana boomer] - Looking very good, but a few comments/questions:

  • Description, "among other characters. In other characters," First of all, redundant. Second, this is the first time I've seen "characters" used in this way. Is this a common biological usage? IMO, "characteristics" might fit better here.
  • Description, "In other characters, Voalavo shows one of several states seen among Eliurus species." Not sure what this is trying to say. What is "states" referring to in this context?
    • I've rewritten both of those sentences. "Characters" is a term I often see in the literature, but there are alternatives. I think technically a "character" such as length of the incisive foramen can have several "states" (i.e., short, long, intermediate). For some characters, different species of Eliurus show various traits, and Voalavo has one of several traits. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribution, "have been found in Mahajanga Province". As provinces were abolished in 2009, perhaps this might be better written as "...found in what was previously Mahajanga Province" or something similar. Or find out which of the regions (Betsiboka, Boeny, Melaky or Sofia) the fossils were found in and make it more specific.
    • It's probably in Boeny, Sofia, or both, but the source is not specific. I've put in "former" and hope the future publication of this stuff will be more specific. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribution - Is there any more information that could be given in this section? Predators? Where does it live (burrows, grass nests, hollow logs)?
    • None is known as far as I am aware. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I click on the link for "Musser, G.G.; Carleton, M.D. (2005). "Superfamily Muroidea"" in the Literature cited section it takes me to the main MSW homepage. Any way this can be made more specific?
    • It could, but I don't think it's desirable. I could link it to the page on Muroidea, but the references in this article are not to the piece about Muroidea per se, but about other taxa, and linking to this particular page is not very helpful. Because the references in the article are to various accounts in Muroidea, there is no specific page that is appropriate to link to. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm confused then. When I click on the link, it takes me to the home page. Then, as a reader, how am I supposed to know what to do next to see the page that verifies what's in the article? At this point, the link is completely useless to the reader, as they don't know what they are supposed to be doing after they end up at the home page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • What would the alternative be? If I link to some subpage, the reader will still be confused about how to verify a statement that is somewhere else. Ucucha 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • How many different pages are we talking about? Perhaps a note of the sort "information can be found on website by searching for x and y"? Or perhaps piping the link through the title instead of the chapter (section?), so that it's more obvious to readers that the link is taking you to the entire book/database, instead of the page on Muroidea. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Neither of these seems feasible to me; I've just removed the link as it is not helpful for verifying the references as used in this article. Ucucha 13:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • That works too. Everything looks good, and obviously I've already changed to a support above. Thanks for the prompt responses. Dana boomer (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once these are dealt with, I look forward to supporting. Dana boomer (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck - Checked several references and found no evidence of copyright violations or close paraphrasing. Dana boomer (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the check. I try to always be on my guard against close paraphrasing, but it's good to have some independent confirmation that I'm doing well in that regard. Ucucha 02:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:55, 19 July 2011 [14].

Over There (Fringe)

Nominator(s): Ruby2010 comment! 16:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, simply put, I feel it is now ready. This is the article's second FAC; its first candidacy ended without any opposes, but one editor did make the suggestion it receive another copy edit. With this suggestion now completed, I am confident the article is up to snuff. It has already received a GA review, peer review, and two copy edits by experienced editors. Much thanks to all for your comments. Ruby2010 comment! 16:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review I did a little bit of work on

Wha? 20:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I tracked down the actual article of the screenshot, and also added to the purpose rationale. Hope it looks good. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 21:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks like you got it.
Wha? 19:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use endashes for ranges
One of the copyeditors changed the dashes, so I could just undo this edit. I'll wait to hear back before I do that though. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Looks like User:Gyrobo converted the dashes to something else. Let me know if they look alright. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 23:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23: why the doubled publisher?
Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how newspaper publishers are formatted
Do mean which template is used (news versus web cite), i.e. the work/publisher parameters? I strove to place both where possible, but had to change some of the automatic formatting (i.e. italics in the work parameter for the Digital Spy refs). Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 88: location shouldn't be italicized
Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare formatting on refs 100 and 101
Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your concern about
Charlie Anders etc), and has been frequently been used as reliable sources for other FAs (such as Blade Runner and Batman). I'll address your other concerns when I get a chance. Thanks! Ruby2010 comment! 18:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Like io9, AOL's
TV Squad contains its own editorial staff, including syndicated columnist Jane Boursaw and TV critic Maureen Ryan (who used to write for the Chicago Tribune). Ruby2010 comment! 17:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Support—It looks good to me. I reviewed the article during the previous FAC and it still appears to be in fine condition. I found no other concerns beyond the one addressed below. Good work! Regards, RJH (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The first paragraph of "Part two" seems a little disjointed; it jumps back and forth between the different characters then leaves some unanswered questions. For example, it says:

Walternate is informed of Walter's presence in the hospital, but Bell and Olivia rescue him. ... "Fauxlivia" (Torv) and "Alt-Charlie" (Kirk Acevedo) are unable to capture Walter.

Well yes, the second follows from the first. Why not something like:

When Walternate is informed of Walter's presence in the hospital, he dispatches "Fauxlivia" (Torv) and "Alt-Charlie" (Kirk Acevedo) to bring in Walter. Before they arrive, Bell and Olivia liberate Walter and escape the scene.
It then says:
Fauxlivia sees a surveillance shot of Olivia and Walter and goes to confront Walternate. Peter meets Fauxlivia, who drives him to his new apartment.

Wait, wasn't Fauxlivia on the way to meet Walternate? Did this happen? Also, why is she going to confront Walternate?—RJH (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be cleared up now. Let me know if anything else is confusing. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have read over the article again and still feel satisfied it meets the criteria, and the prose is still clear. Although it would help if the infobox image caption can tell who Olivia is and who Fauxlivia is. -- Matthew RD 14:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added (left/right) and that she is a FBI agent. Thanks for the support, Ruby2010 comment! 23:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I know you say this has been copyedited since its last appearance, but it still needs a bit of work I think. A few examples:

  • "They are the 22nd and 23rd episodes of the season, and the 42nd and 43rd episodes of the series overall. Both episodes were written by ...". That's at least one too many episodes.
  • ... each of which is in possession of various historical idiosyncrasies." How can a universe be in possession of anything?
  • The finale's narrative follows what happens when Peter (Joshua Jackson) is brought back to the Other Side by his real father". Should be "taken back", unless you're writing this from the Other Side.
  • "While Walter's team journeys to meet with William Bell (Leonard Nimoy) at Central Park, while Peter reunites with his real mother, Elizabeth (Orla Brady)."
  • "Walter's team splits up when Bell does not arrive and the alternate Fringe Division attacks them." That's inherently slightly ambiguous. Did they split up after Bell's non-arrival and the attack, or did they split up after Bell's non-arrival and were then attacked?
  • "Walter traveled into another universe twice to save him—which counts for something—Peter forgives him." It's not all clear whose opinion the parenthetical "which counts for something" is expressing. Yours?
  • Just rewatched the scene in question. The "gotta count for something" line is a direct quote, so I added quotation marks Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Olivia is revealed to actually be Fauxlivia, infiltrating our side". It seems strange to consider the name of one universe a proper noun but not the other.
  • Fixed 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "Walternate visits her, cruelly stares at her without speaking ...". How can you stare "cruelly". In whose opinion was the stare cruel?
  • Well, it was a cruel stare (i.e. not exactly benevolent!) But I removed it anyway 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • "They were originally going to have Olivia sacrifice herself to allow Peter and Walter's return to the prime universe ...". Which is the prime universe? Is that its name in the series?
  • Yes I believe that's what the series calls it. The prime universe = Our Side. The meaning was established in the lead but a Copy Editor changed it. For clarity's sake, I removed all references to a prime universe and simply changed it to "Our Side". Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article isn't consistent in whether or not it's using logical punctuation. Consider the difference between "He 'graciously agreed'." and "We were ecstatic when we figured [the cliffhanger] out." Or "... he felt that he looked 'like such a doofus holding a gun,' but changed his mind when he saw the finished production." and "The actor, the producers, and some fans have called the new character 'Scarlie', in reference to a scar on his cheek ...". (Check out where the commas are after the embedded quotes).
  • K, I'll look them over Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC) I've gone through the production's accessible sources and verified where quotations fall in relation to the original text. There are some that were taken from the audio commentary. In that case, should I leave the punctuation where it is? I'm not entirely clear on where commas, periods etc fall in those situations. Also, I have yet to go though the reception section; I'll work through it in a bit. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 01:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The parallel universe has a number of famous comic book issues from DC Comics, similar to the prime universe, but with notable differences." We've already been told this in the Writing and filming section.
  • Yes, but this section details exactly what some of those differences are (and thus qualify under cultural refs, at least in my opinion). Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there's no need to tell us again that DC Comics produced some covers, we already know that. You could, for instance, say something like "The covers produced for the series by DC comics of some of their famous issues showed notable differences from the originals."
    Fatuorum 01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It seems strange to me that about half of the Awards and nominations section is about submissions that didn't lead to nominations, much less awards.
  • I don't have a suggestion, it just seems strange to me. But if that's normal for this kind of article then fine.
    Fatuorum 01:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Fatuorum 23:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for very much for looking the article over! I hope I have made all your changes or responded back satisfactorily. Thanks again, Ruby2010 comment! 00:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article has now received two copy edits, so I'm not sure what another one would do for its significant improvement. Thanks :) Ruby2010 comment! 00:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that you ask for it to be copyedited again (my opinion of the general standard of
Fatuorum 01:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
No worries. I know FA is a tough playground. :) Ruby2010 comment! 01:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having now gone through the reception section, I believe I have now addressed your concerns with the punctuation. Thanks! Ruby2010 comment! 03:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting there, but I'm still not entirely happy about the prose. For instance, in the Part one section it says "They form a plan that uses Olivia's universe-hopping ability, and amplify it with the help of three other Cortexiphan test subjects". How do you amplify a plan? And plans don't really "use" anything, why not "a plan that exploits ..." instead?
Fatuorum 00:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Fixed that particular sentence. I also made a few other c/e fixes in the plot section. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 02:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind I've never seen this series, and am never likely to, but I don't understand this from the Part two section: "Fauxlivia arrives and meets Peter, who drives him to his new apartment." Up to that point I'd thought that Fauxlivia was a girl, so I can't make head nor tail of the "who drives him to his new apartment" bit. Also, "After a fight, Olivia knocks Fauxlivia unconscious". After the fight, not during the fight?
Fatuorum 03:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Both plot issues now clarified. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 21:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really like to be able to support this article, but I still can't: "Nick is shot and Sally stays with him, producing a suicidal fireball that burns both them and the Fringe Division's principal investigator". So her staying with him produced a fireball? In general part two of the plot section has an uncomfortable staccato feel. I still think it's close, but no cigar as yet.
Fatuorum 05:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Just to be sure, is it just that section (the plot) that is preventing your support? I tried to clean it up a bit. Part of the problem may be that two copy editors have gone through it and tweaked a few things, which while helping with flow might have made it slightly more confusing for some. Hope it looks better now. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 16:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. It's not that I find the plot section confusing, rather that it's a series of "he did this", "she did that", "he then did something else". Copyeditors aren't always your best friends if they don't allow your voice to shine through.
Fatuorum 21:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the "staccato" style writing was meant to keep the section under the minimum basic plot length for a two hour episode (as with most TV episodes/films, plots can easily go over the word limit). After the recent tweaks, how does it look now? Ruby2010 comment! 04:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes look great, and really added some much needed flow. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes makes all the difference. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seems like a very strange series.

Fatuorum 22:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Much appreciated for your great suggestions and support Ruby2010 comment! 22:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:55, 19 July 2011 [15].

Hurricane Eloise

Nominator(s): Juliancolton (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the more significant cyclones I've written about on WP, and it's been a work-in-progress for a couple years now. I've recently added some final touches from a few journals and newspaper articles I hadn't yet looked at, and I think this piece covers all aspects of this important hurricane well. Juliancolton (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviews - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • No citations to Schwartz 2007
  • Ref 3: page?
  • Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Done" for the first two, I'll get on the last two issues sometime soon. Thanks for the review, as always. Juliancolton (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments *"However, the storm made landfall on Hispaniola, causing it to weaken into a tropical storm." – Maybe you could say something like "causing it to weaken back to tropical storm status" instead, since you already once mentioned how it intensified "into a tropical storm".

  • "Eloise, a weak and disorganized cyclone, emerged into open waters of the northern Caribbean Sea" – Though it is technically correct, it's sort of an awkward mid-sentence interruption. What's wrong with "A weak and disorganized cyclone, Eloise emerged..."?
  • "The origins of Hurricane Eloise trace back to a tropical wave which emerged" → "The origins of Hurricane Eloise trace back to a tropical wave that emerged"
  • "Satellite imagery indicated that the system was initially "unimpressive" – I don't understand. How was it unimpressive; on what grounds did the imagery indicate this? Please clarify if possible, or change to something like "The system initially exhibited a disorganized structure on satellite imagery."
  • "On September 16, the storm attained tropical storm status and was designated Eloise" – Maybe you can use "the system attained" instead for less repetitiveness.
  • "While the anticyclone over Eloise became better organized" – In its current state, the sentence implies that the anticyclone was previously mentioned in the article, which isn't the case. It should read something as "With an organizing anticyclone aloft, Eloise..." or "While in the vicinity of an organizing anticyclone aloft, Eloise..."
  • "However, the cyclone made landfall on the Dominican Republic, inhibiting further development." – Maybe add "subsequently" or "went on to make landfall" in there to make it flow better?
  • "Initial forecasts predicted the storm to remain north of land, although the storm" – Repetitive
  • "However, the cyclone made landfall on the Dominican Republic, inhibiting further development. Early on September 17, Eloise weakened into a tropical storm. Initial forecasts predicted the storm to remain north of land, although the storm moved across northern Hispaniola and then tracked across southeastern Cuba. The mountainous terrain caused Eloise to deteriorate into a minimal tropical storm, as much of its circulation was over land for about 36 hours." – This entire part confuses me. It mentions weakening twice, and the sequence is all jumbled up. You mention it makes landfall and weakens; then you mention initial predictions of a track north of land; and then you again mention it interacting with land to weaken, while you already did so. I really think you could be more concise and fit this in 2, at the most 3 sentences.
That's all for now.★ Auree talk 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to take care of all of this. Good points, thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mention it. This still needs revising though: "Eloise became better organized, the storm rapidly intensified and reached Category 1 hurricane status 18 hours after being named." ★ Auree talk 20:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... Juliancolton (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"Upon entering the Gulf of Mexico, Eloise quickly organized. The trough enhanced the wind divergence over the storm's center,[1] allowing for the storm to strengthen once again to reach hurricane force about 345 mi (555 km) south of New Orleans, Louisiana." – Pretty sure you could fit this into one sentence.

  • "Several ships passed through the storm's center during its passage through the gulf" – Pass... passage. Tweak for less repetitiveness?
  • "Several ships passed through the storm's center during its passage through the gulf. The hurricane also moved over two experimental buoys which recorded data on the storm, aiding meteorologists in their forecasts." – Actually, you could probably just merge this into one sentence as well.
  • "Shortly after making landfall, the hurricane rapidly degenerated. Just six hours later, it had weakened into a tropical storm, while situated over eastern Alabama." → Shortly after making landfall, the hurricane rapidly degenerated; it weakened into a tropical storm just six hours later, while situation over eastern Alabama.
  • "It further weakened into a tropical depression at 0000 UTC on September 24. The depression transitioned into an extratropical storm over Virginia, and became indistinguishable by later that same day." – Again, this could be one sentence...
Overall, I think the prose is a bit stubby, with many short and repetitive fragments throughout the article. I think you should look it through extensively once more. It's a nice article, though. ★ Auree talk 02:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
I agreed with all of your recommendations in your first bout of comments, but I'm not so sure we're on the same page at this point. I think for most of the cases you suggested merging sentences, the only way to condense them would be to force the use of semicolons, else I'm left with a bunch of run-ons. I'm already splicing around 10 sentences using semicolons. For the first sentences you highlighted, merging would result in Upon entering the Gulf of Mexico, Eloise quickly organized, and the trough enhanced the wind divergence over the storm's center,[1] allowing for the storm to strengthen once again to reach hurricane force about 345 mi (555 km) south of New Orleans, Louisiana. Quite clunky, and I believe using varied sentence length is a good way to keep the writing from becoming monotonous on the researcher. Again, I really appreciate the look-through, I'd just like to discuss this a bit more. Juliancolton (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
As for the first sentence, I'd suggest something like this "Upon entering the Gulf of Mexico, enhanced wind divergence aloft allowed for further organization, and the storm restrengthened into a hurricane about 345 (555 km) south of New Orleans, Louisiana," or even "Tracking over the Gulf of Mexico in the vicinity of enhanced divergence aloft, the storm restrengthened into a hurricane about 345 (555 km) south of New Orleans." These are just two of many examples of how concisely this could be said instead. You can even mention the trough in there, though personally I don't think it's necessary. ★ Auree talk 18:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. There are no major issues left in the article, and I feel its overall quality does meet FA standards. ★ Auree talk 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It says packing winds of. I think I know what that means but it's a bit obscure to me. Can it be written more plainly?
Units check
It says 1.5 million pounds of shrimp and 801,000 cubic yards of sand. These need conversions
Lightmouse (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? Juliancolton (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. We don't link common units but I've fixed that. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Source link for File:Hurricane_Eloise.jpg appears to be broken, as does the link for File:Hurricane_Eloise_beach_house2_damage.jpg. Images and captions are otherwise unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found updated URLs for these. Juliancolton (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Meteorological history: "The trough enhanced the wind divergence over the storm's center, allowing for the storm to strengthen...". Prose redundancy here with the two "the storm"s.
  • Preparations: There's an excess word in "warnings for heavy for rainfall" in the beginning of the section.
  • Impact: Puerto Rico was just linked in the last section; another one isn't needed here. There's also a repeat Cuba link here.
  • Reference 20 should be moved outside the parentheses.
  • "inundating the city of Frederick and compromised the city's supply of fresh drinking water." If this structure is to be used, doesn't "compromised" need to be "compromising"?
  • "an additional 4 in of rain in central Maryland triggered severe flash flooding." Feels like something is missing after the state...
  • The Hurricane Agnes link should be moved up a paragraph to be where it's first mentioned.
  • "and in the words of Schwartz (2007)". First, the writer's first name could be given here; I don't think it was mentioned before. Second, is it normal to mention the year like in a citation?
  • Aftermath: What state was Ruben Askew governor of? Florida?
  • "In at least one instance, the hurricane and its associated storm surge had a lasting effect on local geographical". Something feels off toward the end. Either a word is missing, or "geographical" should be something else, like maybe "geography".
  • "The corresponding name that was used in 1981 in replace of Eloise was Emily." "replace" → "place"?
  • Here's a link for reference 3 (the one missing a page number). Hope this helps. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and help in finding that link. I believe I've addressed nearly everything, directly or indirectly. Thanks again for the review, it's much appreciated. Juliancolton (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I had forgotten this was up on FAC. I checked through the article, and I'm confident it uses a great variety of sources. The writing is great all around. One thing that stands out is that the lede is only two paragraphs, despite it being a rather significant hurricane and the article being fairly lengthy. Also, the first lede paragraph says it dissipated by September 25, but the Infobox says 24th, so you might wanna change that. Otherwise, it's a great article for a notable hurricane. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the date issue, and I'll look into expanding the lead. Thanks for the review! Juliancolton (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:55, 19 July 2011 [16].

Malagasy cuisine

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cuisine of Madagascar is distinctive and diverse, and reflects the island's unique history as a crossroads of the Indian ocean. This is the second FAC run for this article, which if promoted would become the first Featured Article on a cultural/historical topic related to Madagascar. This is a very underrepresented area on Wikipedia. All the changes proposed during the first FAC run have been made and I believe the article is ready to be promoted. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Missing bibliographic info for Bradt 2010
  • Is Nativel's co-author Faranirina Rajaonah or Rajaonah Faranirina? Check for consistency.
  • Be consistent in how you notate author/editor of larger works (ie. "In...")
  • I can't seem to make the Martin ref match the others (using "In...") because the volume doesn't have an editor name provided. The only way to do this would be to create a manual reference. Is that how you'd like me to handle it, or do you know another way? Lemurbaby (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the Martin ref is fine as-is (except for the malformatted page range). What I was looking at was the author/editor name format on refs that already use "In..." - for example, "In Ade Ajayi" vs "In Reade, Julian". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have fixed the page range issue for Martin. The editor name format is in fact consistent - the full name of the editor in question is Jacob Festus Ade Ajayi, so it is in fact showing his last name, (comma) first name. Lemurbaby (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure all foreign-language sources (like FN 52) are notated as such.
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods.

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support (GermanJoe) - no dabs, no broken links. Interesting, comprehensive article with solid prose and referencing. One small question though:

  • Lead states "Throughout almost the entire island, the contemporary cuisine of Madagascar consists of a base of rice" and "In parts of the arid south, pastoral families may replace rice with maize, cassava and curds made from fermented zebu milk.". However section 'contemporary cuisine' states "Throughout the country, rice is considered the preeminent food and constitutes the main staple of the diet in all but the most arid regions of the south and west." (emphasis mine) ==> One of the statements seems inaccurate, what's the situation in the west for the lead? GermanJoe (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch - the region in question is broadly the southwestern region, but because these are pastoral people they migrate in both directions (south and west). Now both points in the article read "south and west". Lemurbaby (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated Vote, after another read-through. Good work with the article. 2 small niggles not affecting vote:
  • 1650-1800 "The prickly pear cactus (raketa), also known in southern Madagascar as sakafon-drano ("water food"), was brought from the New World ..." ==> "the New World" could mean a whole continent or more and is kind of vague here (and the similarly vague linked article doesn't help). Do your sources name the area of origin more specifically?
  • Unfortunately not, probably because it was brought over during that period of the trans-Atlantic slave trade when ships might stop at numerous ports in the Americas collecting produce etc before returning to Africa. It seems the circumstances of the introduction of this particular plant to Madagascar are unknown. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • laoka "...; other variations on the achard are found throughout Southeast Asia where they are known by variant names such as acar or achar." ==> the whole phrase is slightly off-focus and could be removed completely without loosing content for Madagasy cuisine itself. GermanJoe (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't there anything more recent than 1935 for the history section? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything more recent is discussed in the Contemporary section. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I provided a thorough review during the

 talk » 03:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The lead must not contain any references, as it only summarizes the information given below. TGilmour (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that comment regarding the reference on the photo caption in the lead? I didn't see any refs in the actual text part of the lead but perhaps my eye is missing it. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • TGilmour, that information is incorrect; please familiarize yourself with
    WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I'm a bit concerned... will this be promoted with only two supporting votes and no opposing votes? Lemurbaby (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're looking for 3 or more supports, but the reviewers also need to indicate that they've given the article a thorough review. Any opposes would have to find important flaws in the article, and you would have to fail to address them. As long as you address all concerns, here and/or in the article, you should be fine. Unfortunately, getting reviews is tough for everyone. And being new to the FAC process makes it harder because you probably feel uncomfortable doing your own reviews. At this point, I'd say that it's best to jump on in, carefully read the
     talk » 15:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support Comments Close to support, and it's good to have a food and drink article, but some niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Names of countries, including Madagascar, should not be linked
  • Overlinking. Are readers really going to need a link to onion, tomato etc. I've removed a few, but there plenty more unnecessary links including repeats of some I delinked
  • Fixed. As regards ingredients, I only retained links to those that might not be immediately known by an Anglophone 5th-grader. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency in giving local names for non-native ingredients. Why rice, beef and prickly pear, but not tomato and ginger? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so I'd suggest sticking to Madagascan names only for endemic ingredients and dishes
  • Fixed, I think. After a read-through, I've kept the local names for dishes and for ingredients that are somewhat less common in the grocery stores of Anglophone countries. Note that oftentimes the name of a dish is simply the name of the primary ingredient, which is why I provide the local names for things like fish, beef, eel etc. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overuse of italics. I would suggest that biryani, croissant etc are Anglicised enough not to need italics. It's also inconsistent — why are samosa and vinaigrette spared?
  • Fixed. I switched to using italics on the first use of foreign non-Anglicised words only. I have to remark, however, that it makes for a somewhat humorous effect when it comes to the word mofo (even if the word in Malagasy is pronounced "moof"). Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for the reviewers: I'm noticing the need for greater consistency in providing the pronunciation of Malagasy-language terms. After comparison with other GA food and drink articles, I'm seeing the pronunciation is not provided throughout the article. However, these examples are all Romance language-based (i.e. French cuisine, Italian cuisine, even Mayan cuisine uses Spanish for the most part), where most Anglophone readers will know basically how the words should sound. This isn't the case with Malagasy words where the pronunciation is not self-evident (i.e. "o" is pronounced "oo"). Part of me feels it's important for people to know how to say these words correctly, but that means adding in even more descriptive pronunciation in places where it's currently been omitted. Please advise. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fine with adding more pronounciation, but agree it is only really needed for the non-European / Malagasy names. Could these be added as notes perhaps? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the rest of the pronunciation. I could do them as notes but would like a second opinion on that before going forward with the change. Is this how pronunciation issues have been handled in other articles? If there is a precedent I wouldn't hesitate. I guess that's what it comes down to - I feel like we're setting a precedent here so we need to figure out how it should be done (unless someone is aware of how a similar situation was dealt with before). Lemurbaby (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did a copyedit on this article a while back and it has improved since then. Comprehensive and well structured with more than adequate referencing. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 20:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did a peer review on this some time ago and on re-reading it just now I find it is even better now, and that it fully meets the FA criteria. My only quibble is that the addition of pronunciation is not done consistently - sometimes the IPA are in square brackets and parentheses like "rum (toaka gasy [ˌtokə̥ ˈɡasʲ])", while others are only in square brackets like "rum, called betsabetsa [ˌbetsəˈbetsə̥],". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I believe. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review I reviewed all of the images in the article and they are all freely licensed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (cont'd):

  • Have spotchecks been done? Karanacs (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to do this myself, and got stalled on this source. Perhaps I'm using the search function wrong, but I couldn't find any of the words in the text cited in the source (canoe, outrigger, etc), and I get the impression the paper is about a hypothesis, but we see statements of fact in the text. Can someone clarify, and point out the exact sentences from the source used to support the text cited?
  • In their outrigger canoes they carried food staples from home including rice, plantains, taro, and water yam.[4] Sugarcane, ginger, sweet potatoes, pigs and chickens were also probably brought to Madagascar by these first settlers, along with coconut and banana.[4]
  • Next I tried to check pages 107 to 111 here, but they aren't in the preview, so I'm afraid I made no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried searching the first source Sandy mentioned and it is not searchable at all (even words like Ocean and the author's last name came up as not found). I read 9 of the first 23 pages and it discusses plantains, taro, water yam and and Autronesians carrying them with them in their boats. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, I see a mixture of
    unspaced emdashes in the article text-- pls be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Lead comments:

  • "Malagasy cuisine encompasses the many diverse culinary traditions of the Indian Ocean island of Madagascar, each reflecting various degrees of influence from the Southeast Asian, African, Indian, Chinese and European migrants that have settled on the island since it was first populated by seafarers from Borneo between 100 CE and 500 CE." This is a massive sentence. I am of the opinion that there are far too many ideas being crammed into one sentence, which is particularly problematic since this is the illustrious opening sentence. Considering that the lead is meant to give a broad overview of the subject, is it necessary to mention when the island was first populated? I think not.
    It's a long sentence but not a run-on. I personally like it as a lead, but maybe others would like to propose something else? Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the population date, it does seem important as well since Madagascar was the last major landmass to be populated by people, and quite recently too, which has had an impact on how long the cuisine has had to develop. How would you like to see this handled? Lemurbaby (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which contributed to the extinction of the island's megafauna." Is this relevant to a cuisine article? Perhaps, but not so important that it should be mentioned in an already massive lead.
    One of the distinguishing features of Madagascar is its unique ecological diversity and endemism. In fact, I would suspect most people looking for information about Madagascar are looking to learn about the animals, not the people (there are many FA-grade articles on Malagasy animals, for example, but this will be the first related to culture). I think this is a point of interest for readers and a good hook to keep them reading as well. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my experience, it is not common practice to include the pronunciation of foreign words with the exception of the title of the article. I particularly disagree with the inclusion of vary; if this were a particular variety of rice, its inclusion would be logical, but as far as I can tell, vary is simply the Malagasy word for rice.
    There is no way to overstate how important rice is in the local diet. It really IS the meal, every meal, every day, and as such merits translation - laoka is just a bonus. Additionally, I explain the translation of "to eat" as "to eat rice", and translating vary allows the reader to potentially draw the connection with the translation of the verb (in theory) - mihinam-BARY - particularly if they click through to the article on Malagasy language and see that V becomes B in some contexts.
    As far as pronunciation, it's true that no other FA-grade cuisine article has pronunciation throughout like this. At the same time, the others are written using languages more English-speaking readers are likely to be familiar with (i.e. Romance languages) so pronunciation is less likely to matter. Spoken Malagasy is often so far from how it's written that readers are going to read it through and hear the incorrect pronunciation in their minds. I guess the question is, what's worse, unusual inclusion of translation or incomplete learning by way of wrong mental pronunciation? I could go either way but I think it's a point worth discussing all together. As I mention above we are possibly setting a precedent here by including the pronunciation throughout so we need to discuss collectively whether and how it should be done. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In parts of the arid south and west, pastoral families may replace rice with maize," This reads like a suggestion for the reader rather than a summary of what actually happens. I suggest replacing "may" with "often", "sometimes", or some other frequency word.
    It may not be advisable to use a frequency word because I have no source for how frequently it happens. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question that does not appear to be answered in the lead (nor, as far as I can tell, in the body of the article): To what extent has Malagasy cuisine influenced other chefs/cuisines? With Madagascar having served as a trading port for so much of its history, surely its culinary traditions must have seeped out into neighboring areas at some point. On a similar note, are there any foods or drinks (perhaps the spiced rums) that are made primarily on Madagascar that are then exported to other countries?
    Thank you for raising this point. The cuisine hasn't traveled far in terms of influence (although the expat community has set up their restaurants here and there overseas), but it has been important in Reunion, Mauritius and to a lesser extent Comoros and Seychelles where Malagasy were taken as slaves in the 18th-19th centuries. I'll put together a few sentences on this over the weekend. Thank you for your review and comments, Cryptic.Lemurbaby (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:55, 19 July 2011 [17].

Harold Pinter

Nominator(s): Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that after much work this meets the FAC criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) It has been suggested that I add a little more to the nomination: Pinter was acclaimed as one of the most influential English language playwrights of the post-WWII era and the award in 2005 of a Nobel Prize confirmed his status as a giant of literature. His work inspired debate and critical commentary world-wide and his influence on modern theatre was marked. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has multiple errors of fact and format, which Jezhotwells and its "peer reviewers" have not corrected. The current version of this article does not meet criteria for featured article designation. Please see both the current talk page and its archived talk pages as well as the 2007 "good article" review leading to its "good article" designation, and also see more recent "peer review" archives. The article is still subject to unresolved disputes, including incorrect use of quotation marks, insufficient use of quotation marks, misquotation, and erroneous attribution of quotations (wrong sources listed). Jezhotwells and an administrator or administrators enlisted by him have banned users who have tried to correct the problems in this article and then semi-protected the article "indefinitely", preventing the correction of these errors, which were introduced mainly by Jezhotwells and others participating in the most recent "peer review"; they have made no attempt to correct their own errors after some of these errors have been itemized as examples on the current talk page. This article does not currently "meet" the most basic Wikipedia editing criteria, such as factual accuracy and accuracy of source citations. Thus, it does not meet "the FAC criteria" in this version. The current version of this article also contains misinformation about a living person,

WP:BLP [see {{Template:Blpo}} on the current talk page]. Such errors are supposed to be corrected "on sight"; yet the error remains, despite its being pointed out in the current talk page. Multiple problems pointed out in the current and archived talk pages and "peer review" archives still need to be corrected and resolved before this article should be submitted as a FAC. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (updated) --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

It is not sufficient for you to say that the article contains factual errors, without your saying what they are. So let us have some specific examples, please. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As already indicated, some of these specific examples are already itemized on the current talk page. It is not necessary to list them again. That is why the current talk page is linked in the listing. People can refer to it directly; the most recently composed section w/ specific examples is: Talk:Harold Pinter#Multiple factual and source errors throughout article due to "peer review"; previous sections detail other problems, some of which were archived by a bot. Given Jezhotwells' and others' unwillingness to examine their errors, it is a waste of time to list them here again. Please consult the talk page and its archives. Thank you. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC) [added section link for your convenience]. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have studied the comments made by this IP on the article talk page and addressed the specific instances. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This update occurred over a month after the errors and format problems were pointed out to Jezhotwells. He ignored the comments when they were originally made and made no attempt to make the corrections that he made only after I made this comment here after he submitted the article as a FAC. There are still errors that need correction. Please see the current talk page about this matter. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you had checked out my talk page, you would have seen that I was on vacation. Is this comment really necessary? --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The use of non-free content is extremely excessive at this time. In an article like this, one non-free picture of the subject will sometimes be required (preferably, of course, none) but rarely more than that.

  • File:HaroldPinter.jpg should be deleted ASAP. As an image from a commercial file imagebank, it is eligible for speedy deletion and our use here clearly fails NFCC#2. Yes, it's widely used, but that's probably because the other sources have paid for it.
Thanks for finding the replacement image. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:PinterDavidBaron.jpg I get the point that his appearance was different, but is the difference in appearance really that significant?
Good point, but I think it is illustrative of his appearance as a rep actor. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image is extremely helpful in illustrating the part of the article about Pinter as a young actor. His appearance is so strikingly different from the other images of him as an older man that this is needed for comprehension of his career. An actor's appearance is important in understanding the kinds of roles that they would be considered for. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so, but the mere fact that he was an actor does not mean that multiple images of him at different stages of his life are justified. If there was sourced discussion about how his appearance affected his early career (say, if he was something of a sex symbol...) this argument may hold some water. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am pointing out that the same objections to this image were made by "NYScholar" and they led to the banning of that user by Jezhotwells et al. Please consult the block history. A note in the section about Pinter's acting career already links to the photo ("The Acting Career of Harold Pinter," compiled by Batty). It was never necessary to have the photo in the article, since any reader would see it when clicking on the linked source, which features it. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am very disappointed by the removal of this image. As NYScholar points out, this image survived a previous discussion about it, and there is plenty of discussion in the article about Pinter's acting career that this image aptly illustrates. Jezhotwells, I encourage you to find that old discussion and reinstate this image. As the other fair use images have been removed, the NFCC criteria now permit the use of this image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no system of "one in, one out". As many or as few non-free images as are required should be used. I'm just questioning how required this one is; right now, it's a long way from clear. As I said, an image like this may, hypothetically, be usable, but it's a matter of demonstrating that it is the case. If his early career was based on his appearance or some such, this image may be justifiable, but the mere fact that he looked different does not automatically justify its use. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Harold Pinter.JPG Has this been published? Is the author notable? Or is this just a sketch from some guy on the internet that may or may not be based on a copyrighted image?
I have asked the question at Commons. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's a recognized artist, Reginald Gray (artist). The Harold Pinter article says the image was published in the New Statesman on 12 January 2008, but that information should be added to the image page itself, no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SSilvers has sourced this - Reginald Gray who uploaded it to Commons himself and it was used in the obit 12 January 2009.[18]
Then I most certainly support its use there. As mentioned, it's worth mentioning the artist and the use in the article, as it gives the picture some legitimacy beyond "a sketch on the internet". J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:HaroldPinterKrappsLastTape.jpg Ok, the role was important, but do we need to see a picture? Was his appearance in role something of great importance, or is it an issue best discussed in the article on the show?
It was his last stage performance. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader of the article, I found it very interesting to see how Pinter appeared in the role, having battled cancer and other physical challenges for several years. His intense expression in the photo helps to explain why he must have been such an effective actor, even under such circumstances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our own emotional responses to the image/our own interest in it are all well and good, and so is the significance of the role, but that does not mean that it meets NFCC#8. Basically, the use of the image has to add significantly to reader understanding of the article. His role in the stage show is discussed comparatively briefly; in fact, his performance/role is only mentioned, while the show is discussed briefly. While the details Ssilvers outlines may well be important, they are more suited to the article on the show, in which the image is more legitimately used. We should aim to minimise the use of non-free content, and this seems to be a clear case where the image is not strictly needed. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pinterdvd.jpg doesn't even have a rationale. It's very rare that DVD covers (or album covers, book covers, etc) are going to be needed. What's so significant about this cover that reader understanding is significantly diminished if they cannot see it?
It does have a rationale, and it does illustrate the fact that this was a video Nobel lecture, in itself a notable event. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had added the additional separate rationale after seeing J Milburn's objection; please see the editing history for the jpg file. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As that section of the article mentions Pinter was unable to attend the Nobel prize ceremony on medical grounds, so he made the video himself. --Jezhotwells (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pinter had not "made the video himself" at all; it was made by a commercial company named Illuminations; please consult the image history and follow the links for the source. Please do not make false claims about the video. The video was arranged to be made by Channel Four and broadcast on Channel Four in the UK after it was shown in Stockholm; please consult the sources. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't suddenly mean that the cover is so significant that a reader cannot fully understand the article without seeing it. Of the three questionable images remaining in the article, this is the one that clearly does not belong. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this image. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The images have been discussed in earlier now-archived talk pages; they have been the subject of disputes. As the image is linked via the Wikipedia internal link to the DVD, it is not that significant if it is not in the article too; however, there is a clear-cut rationale for the DVD jpg, since it is the subject of the section of the article that it illustrated before Milburn's (recurrent?) objection and Jezhotwells' more recent removal of the jpg. Again, one can consult the DVD article directly if needed. It's really no skin off anyone's teeth, so to speak, whether it is in this section of the article or only in the DVD article. I happen to think it is within its fair-use rationale in the article, and I know from past communications with Illuminations that Illuminations has had no objection to its being included in this Wikipedia article section of Harold Pinter; but I am not able to share with Wikipedia my email with Illuminations about this matter, so it may have to remain out. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the copyright holders have any objection to the use here is not of great significance- instead, we must turn to the
non-free content criteria. If, on the other hand, the copyright holders are willing to release the image under a free license, we can use the image near enough however we like while sticking within Wikipedia policy. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I appreciate that this is an issue that some do not really care about, but it is one that, like any other, really needs to be dealt with before an article can be considered ready for FA status. A single identifying image of the subject may be necessary, but that's only when you're certain that free content does not exist (and preferably, at this level, once you've made a significant effort to locate some). J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the lead image, and replaced it with a free one. It's not great- you may prefer to use the full image, or attempt a crop. Alternatively, you could put a bit of effort in to get a stronger image released. However, better that than a non-free image, and certainly better that than a non-free image from a source like that. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have actually asked over thirty rights holders for permissions over the last three years or so, but so far without success - I guess too many people think they can make money form the images. If others agree with your points I will remove these images. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I have now addressed your points by removing the non-free images. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the current format for the photo is not really effective; it needs a bit more cropping and enlargement perhaps, or a better version. It's really hard to make out any details in the photograph. This photograph has been accessible for quite some time. It never seemed entirely appropriate for an infobox photograph. It's not a question of money; it's a question of the reliability and dependability of other internet users: people with their own personal photographs of Harold Pinter may not be willing to have them posted and re-posted all over the internet. To have that happen may be offensive to Pinter's living relatives and friends. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been
non-free image. If you feel that it is not the best picture (and I agree) then the best course of action is to attempt to get a better one released under a free license. I'm afraid I don't really understand the second part of your post. J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Support – Declaration of interest: I peer reviewed this article, and earlier contributed a little to the nominator's Herculean attempts to knock the article into shape following crippling

WP:OWN problems with a now-banned editor NYScholar (whom, from the tone and content of her/his comments, I take to be the anonymous 66.66.27.196 above; those comments are, in my view, of no merit.) I offer no opinion on the images, as I am inexpert on the intricacies of the WP rules about fair use etc. Otherwise, in my judgment, having taken part in reviews of very many FA nominations (and having taken a few of my own contributions to FA) I believe the content of the article clearly meets all the FA criteria. I send sincere applause to Jezhotwells for a wonderful job. Tim riley (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The above user needs to follow Wikipedia's own policies regarding other users, especially those who are clearly living persons:
WP:Harass. Some of his earlier comments need to be stricken from Wikipedia history. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose while the issues I raised above remain. Why the nominator has not replied here, I am not sure. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded. I have been rather busy in real life. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I have struck my oppose, but I cannot support as I am yet to give the article a proper look through. Thanks for taking the image issues seriously. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks foe your comments and for pointing out where the images failed to meet the criteria. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I proofread and copy edited this article before it was promoted to GA. Since then, the nominator has continued to improve the article. The nominator has responded to extensive peer review comments and also to the comments of 66.66.27.196, to the extent that specific comments were raised. I believe that the article is comprehensive, thoroughly referenced and meets the other FA criteria. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Until all of the errors of fact and format are corrected. The "peer reviewers" seem unable to perceive their own errors. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.196 is banned User:NYScholar. Moondyne (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify here the remaining issues which you feel do not meet the criteria. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moondyne's addition above is most helpful; would it be possible and proper for an admin to strike through all the long and disruptive interpolations by NYScholar/66.66.27.196 to enable bona fide reviewers to find relevant material more easily herein? Tim riley (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comment – Just skimmed through the Sport and friendship section, and the following caught my eye: "a lifetime support[er] of Yorkshire Cricket Club". Assuming this isn't from a quote, there's no need at all for the brackets. Just saying "lifetime supporter" is perfectly fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have tweaked that sentence a little. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCO comments.

1. Lead could be made more engaging. Don't give us 8 (I counted) different roles that the fellow had in the first sentence. Later in the first paragraph, it is also a bit too listy (be selective). Second paragraph feels too pompous academic art critic-y. Try to boil it down a little more (lead should be engaging). Third and fourth paras seem better. Advise having some lead-master like Wehwalt or Tony give it a little help to pep it up. Make it shine!

2. Also, please don't take this as a snipe, or off topic, but in the FAC listing if you can tell us what the subject is and why we should care, it will help people decide if they want to click through to look at it...or to review. Obviously you had some "love" for the topic to do all that work on it to make an FA, so communicate a little feeling for it!  :)

TCO (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points which I shall attempt to address by Saturday. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked the "listy" sentences. I think the second paragraph is a fair summary of the critical commentary on Pinter, which is probably far more extensive than that for any other contemporary playwright. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The number of citations in the lead is a bit excessive - per
    WP:LEAD
    , most of this material, except for quotes, should be cited in the body, not the lead
Fixed Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do "Hobson's prophetic words" appear in FN 108?
No, removed POV phrase. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The correct name of NYT is The New York Times ("The" is part of the title)
  • Don't repeat full bibliographic details in Notes for works that appear in Works cited
  • FN 8: are you citing two different articles here? If so, are we missing a URL? If not, formatting seems off
  • FN 16: why "guardian.co.uk" but "Independent"? Be consistent in whether you use website or newspaper titles. Also, why does FN 44 include both?
  • Be consistent in how cf entries are formatted (capitalized or not)
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers
  • FN 69: access date?
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations, as it results in inconsistent formatting
  • FN 93: check formatting, make sure it's consistent
  • FN 98: access date? There are a few other weblinks also missing access dates
  • Print sources without weblinks need page numbers (ex. FN 106)
  • Be consistent from which angle you notate reprints - ie. rpt in or rpt from
  • FN 151: is this meant to start with a hyphen?
  • FN 204: formatting
I am working through all of the cites and reformatting as neccessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Faber" and "Faber and Faber" the same thing?
  • Be consistent in what is italicized - for example, "BBC News" sometimes italicized and sometimes not
  • Be consistent in whether website names are capitalized
  • Don't include "Eng." in UK locations

In general sources appear reliable but formatting needs some editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of these points have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but there are still some formatting inconsistencies. For example, compare refs 33 and 36, you're spelling out NYTC in ref 58 not 21, compare refs 56 and 57 (and need endash in page range for ref 56), missing accessdate for ref 88...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry about missing those but the points immediately above have now been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TCO is too kind, I do not think I write ledes particularly well, but the articles get promoted so I must be doing something not too wrong. Anyhoo, I rewrote the first paragraph. If you find it an improvement, I will work on the rest. TCO is correct, the lede is really too advanced, which sometimes happens. Use the second paragraph to tell about a good part of Pinter's biography, the man is being lost behind his works. Keep the whole lede to no more than four paragraphs, though. Once you've done that, ping me again on my talk and I'll come look at it. Also, there is no need to have citations in the lede, unless there is something not mentioned in the body which is in the lede.

Of course, if you are appalled by my machete work on those stone tablets, I will not be offended if you choose to look elsewhere for editing help. Either way is fine. I should also add I don't intend to either support or oppose, because I don't have time to review the article in full.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work, I have incorporated your comments and wonder what you think? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is much better. I made some minor changes. Just looking across at the prizes in the infobox, perhaps you are overly dependent on chronological order? I would put his major prizes first. And I'd rank the CH above the Nobel, as there are fewer CH than there are Nobel Prize winners at any one time.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, awards re-ordered. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead reads like a lead now. Kudos, both ov ya! Don't plan to review or work with the article, but wish "Harold" the best.TCO (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I wish this article well, I'm concerned that it is now headed by an "under construction" banner. This, as the banner explains, indicates that the article is "in the middle of an expansion or major reconstruction". Such heavyweight work is incompatible with the FAC page, which is about review not rebuilding. Perhaps the work taking place is largely supperficial, in which case the banner is inappropriate and should be removed. However, if major changes are under way with the prose and structure, the article needs to be withdrawn from FAC until these operations are complete. At a glance, it looks to me more like the former than the latter, and that it is the banner that should go. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was reformatting citations, now that that is nearly completed, I have removed the banner. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine now. For future reference, the "underconstruction" banner should be used only when an article is being substantially rebuilt. Brianboulton (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck sources for close paraphrasing, accurate representation of sources needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you point out specifics. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. A spotcheck for compliance with WP:V and close paraphrasing is needed for all nominators-- have you had one on another nomination? If so, please link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I understand - well will someone undertake a spot check please? Presumably i can't do it myself. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have had one previous momination, please see: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol Bus Boycott, 1963/archive1. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If, having peer reviewed and commented extensively, I am eligible, I shall be happy to undertake a spot check. The sources are extensive but I have access to the British Library, and so can check the refs in this article against all published sources. (Grateful for a quick reply on this, as I may need to order some Pinter-related books from the BL's stores, which can take a few days for the more recherché stuff stored offsite.) Tim riley (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, thank you, Tim riley-- peer reviewing doesn't confer a COI wrt spot checking sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! I'll attend to this tomorrow and report back here. Tim riley (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have spot-checked for accuracy and compliance with
Wikipedia:Sources#Copyright_and_plagiarism, against references 2, 6, 7, 8, 19, 30, 40, 50, 60 (both) and 70 from printed books cited; and against online references 21 (eight citations) and 33 (five citations on different pages with the same url). That is slightly more than a 5% sample. Is that sufficient? All examples listed accurately represent their source material and are duly rewritten where necessary (e.g. when the original is not reproduced in quotation marks or a quote is not plainly indicated). On this 5% sample, the spot-check is wholly satisfactory, though n.b. that I cannot verify accuracy and proper paraphrase for ref 189 because I cannot get the Pinter sub-page to open. (As a passing comment, I wonder if ref 124 is lacking "Pinter" as its first word?) Tim riley (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, Tim. Yes, Pinter was missing from ref 124, but is now added. Ref 184 although the internal page link to "Harold Pinter" does not work, the obituary is there further down the page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment. I just glanced at this, I haven't done a proper review (I might if I get time). I fixed an MoS issue, but I noticed a few issues with teh very first sentence in the body:

Pinter was born on 10 October 1930, in Hackney, east London, to Jewish, lower middle class, native English parents of Eastern European ancestry: his father, Jack Pinter (1902–1997) was a ladies' tailor; his mother, Frances (née Moskowitz; 1904–1992), a homemaker who was described by Pinter as a "wonderful cook".

First of all, that's an incredibly long sentence, and not easy to read (try reading it out loud). Second, is his mother's culinary ability really relevant? And finally, even before the colon, we have five commas in one sentence! It could do with breaking up a bit. I haven't read the rest of the article, but would suggest reading it aloud. Oh, and is the "biography" header absolutely necessary? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. Overfamiliarity on my part, I think. I have stripped this down and simplified. Some one else split the sentence. I'm a little bit puzzled by the comment about the Biography header. Do you have an alternate suggestion? Life? I have seen Biography used ferquently in FAs - overcourse, I am aware of
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Well if it was my article, I'd remove the "biography" and "career" headings, and have the heading under them as level 2s rather than subheader of biography and career. But I guess it's personal preference. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost support.
But I can't support a nom that has a sentence in it that I can't understand: "In 1964, four years after the success of The Caretaker, through its long run at the Duchess Theatre, which garnered an Evening Standard Award, The Birthday Party was revived both on television (with Pinter himself in the role of Goldberg) and on stage (directed by Pinter at the Aldwych Theatre) and was well-received." Please split this in two and make clear which play had the long run at the Duchess and which play got the Evening Stndard Award: in each case was it The Caretaker or The Birthday Party?? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted out - I hope to your satisfaction - once again my overfamiliarity with the artcile cause me to miss that. thanks for pointing it out. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. Sorry to be late to the party, but I think there's a little bit more polishing required; a few parts seem rather leaden. Some examples:

  • The award of the Nobel Prize in Literature to Pinter and his sharp political statements have elicited strong criticism and even, at times, provoked ridicule and personal attacks. The lack of a comma after "Pinter" makes it at first sight appear that Pinter shared the Nobel Prize with his sharp political statements.
  • Mountain Language (1988) concerned the Turkish suppression of the Kurdish language." Use of the past tense makes it appear that it no longer does, which can't be true. It also makes it appear that the play was in some way worried about Mountain Language.
  • In the first paragraph of the Marriages and family life, the last sentence repeats what we were told in the fourth sentence, that Betrayal was inspired by Pinter's relationship with Bakewell.
  • "Pinter also adapted many screenplays from other writers' novels". Surely you don't adapt a screenplay from a novel, you adapt a novel to a screenplay?
  • "His commissioned screenplay adaptations from others' works for the films ...". Shouldn't that be "of" rather that "from"?
  • "On 16 June 2009, Antonia Fraser officially opened the Harold Pinter Room & Studio at the Hackney Empire, renaming the Hackney Empire Hospitality Suite." Not sure what that means. Was it previously called the Hackney Empire Hospitality Suite?
  • "In solidarity with the Belarus Free Theatre, which was invited to bring Being Harold Pinter to Chicago for the month of February 2011, collaborations of actors and theatre companies joined in offering additional benefit readings of Being Harold Pinter across the United States." Awkward repetition.
  • "In November, however, discovering an infection that would nearly kill him, his doctor hospitalised him and barred such travel". That's a strange sentence, made stranger by the use of "would nearly kill him". The doctor didn't "discover" an infection as Pasteur discovered a rabies vaccine, rather he diagnosed Pinter as having an infection.

Fatuorum 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Good points, I will look at these tomorrow. Thanks for your copy-editing, Malleus. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to these points in order:
  • 1. That is why the third person plural "have" is used, but I see the chance of confusion. I have reworded. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all of those points have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you have, so I've now supported.
Fatuorum 22:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:07, 15 July 2011 [19].

Gumbo

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to commit myself to editing again in a big way. :) One day last year I was hungry and chose to rework the article on the particular food I was craving. Gumbo is more than just something to fill your belly. In my family, there were few major events, holidays, illnesses or family gatherings that did not include this dish. There are millions of varieties of gumbo - I can often identify the occasion simply by seeing which particular ingredients my grandmother threw in the pot that day (shrimp and crab on Christmas Eve, crawfish and oysters on Memorial Day, chicken - no sausage - on my birthday, etc). Two Cajun cooks can argue for hours (or days) on the best way to make gumbo. The only thing they'll agree on is that it must be served on top of rice and you must also provide potato salad and beer. Lots of beer.

I've deliberately chosen not to consult popular cookbooks but to stay with more scholarly sources. User:Jappalang provided very useful feedback at the peer review in September.

Bon appetit, cher. Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not include both editors for Davidson refs?
  • No bibliographic info for Theriot 2009
  • ref 12: should include page number(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikki, obviously it's been too long since I did one of those checks. I've fixed those three issues. Karanacs (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support consider everything stricken below; I've just reread the article and I think it meets the FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Comments by Sasata[reply]

  • lead: link Choctaw
  • "vegetables are cooked down" what does this mean? The liquid is reduced?
  • "The dish boils for a minimum of three hours" Would "simmers" be more accurate?
  • I don't think rice is a high-value link for the lead; "greens" would probably be less familiar to the average reader.
  • link etymology
  • "…filé, or ground sassafras…" does this refer to sassafras root or leaves or …?
  • Can we have a citation for the first quote?
  • why is the okra picture so small?
  • second link to sassafras not required; cayenne pepper, callaloo, and thyme should be linked earlier
  • translate potage aux herbes
  • link metaphor; Louisiana is linked too many times
  • "18th century Cajun practice" needs hyphen
  • link grits
  • "The use of corn and filé powder, may imply that the dish was derived from native cuisine." lose comma
  • Dr. John Sibley -> I believe the MoS says not to use Dr.
  • "when Chef Paul Prudhomme's popularity" should chef be capitalized?
  • link tureen; "… although in wealthier or fancier homes the dish might be transferred to a tureen on the table." I doubt tureens are the exclusive domain of the rich or fancy; I have one, and consider myself neither!
  • 3 feet (0.91 m) deep; 2 feet (0.61 m) -> one too many sigfigs in the metric conversion

Sasata (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, Sasata, but thank you so much for your comments. I've fixed everything but the following:
  • "cooked down" - this means the veggies essentially turn to mush. I'm not sure a better way to word this - most cookbooks use this phrase and it's really common on Google.
  • By the first quote, do you mean the quotebox? The book and the page number are listed there.
  • My family has tureens too, and we serve soups in them, but never gumbo. Gotta be high in the instep to eat your gumbo that way ;)
  • I think the translation of potage is "potage". I didn't think it was necessary to say potage aux herbes (pottage with herbs), but I can.
Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media: One problem- File:Zherbes.jpg is available in a larger format on Flickr as all rights reserved. Judging from the usernames, it's probably the same person, so nothing sinister going on, but we're gonna need an OTRS ticket, I reckon. I've fired off an email to the Flickr user just double checking. J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reply- forwarded the email to OTRS. Everything checks out. J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, J Milburn! That was really helpful and above and beyond the call of reviewer duty. :) Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Before I begin, allow me a moment to offer a huge bucket of win to Karanacs for working on this article. Wikipedia desperately needs more Food and Drink FAs, and I can't imagine how hard it was to put in the time for this while also juggling the duties of FAC delegation. Good shit. Anywho, let's see what I kind of trouble I can rustle up: I've moved the bulk of my review to the talk page to avoid clutter.

  • For some reason, Social aspects seems like an odd section title to me. How about Culture or In culture instead?
"Culture" always seemed to me to indicate that we'd be talking about other aspects, like literature or media references/influences. I am not that fond of "Social aspects" either, but the theme of the section is that gumbo is a dish for social gatherings. I'll think about it overnight and see if I can come up with something better. Karanacs (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stay tuned, there's more to come I like bagels! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cryptic, and my apologies for the delay in responding. I fixed the first two wording issues.

Taking a read through.

  • The "main ingredients" list seems to use unwarranted capitals and bold text
  • Sassafras would be worth linking to somewhere
  • Overuse is as bad as underuse, bear the comments about
    italicising non-English words
    . Your call.
  • "ham or crabmeat are occasionally" "is", I think. If it was "and", it would be "are".
  • "fostered an environment where cultures" in which?
  • "In 1721, 125 Germans settled 40 miles (64 km) in New Orleans." What does this mean?
  • I agree with Sasata about providing a translation of "potage aux herbes". "Pottage" is not the most familiar term anyway- a link wouldn't hurt.

Very interesting and readable. I think you made a good choice avoiding cookbooks and sticking to more scholarly sources, though I must say the dish itself doesn't sound all that pleasant. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it sounds fantastic, and potage is the French word for soup, a perfectly familiar term to us Europeans. ;-)
Fatuorum 00:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the review J Milburn (and thank you for the ce efforts, Malleus). I fixed all the issues you listed (and translated potage to soup). I went through and think I've now only italicized foreign words used as words (like kombo) and not foreign dishes. Gumbo has a very strong flavor and tends to be very spicy - a lot of my Yankee and European friends don't like it (although one of my Swedish friends can eat more than I can). Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've just given the article another quick look-through, and I'm happy that it now meets the featured article criteria. J Milburn (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I linked Bell pepper since it's not called that this side of the pond. I wondered whether to link hog, since that's unusual now in the UK, but it's obvious enough
  • The dish is the official cuisine of the state of Louisiana — Can a single dish be a cuisine?
  • rice seed — reads oddly, it's what we normally call "rice"
  • Thanks for the review, Jim. I've fixed "rice seed" - my brain must have been asleep. What do you call "bell pepper"? I didn't know it had another name. I agree with you about a dish not being a cuisine, but apparently the state legislators didn't know that [20]. Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually "Sweet pepper" as opposed to chilli [sic] pepper. It's like coriander/cilantro or courgette/zucchini; same thing, different name. I say tomato... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support Comments - I'll read over and copyedit as I go - comments and queries below. Revert if I guff the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It consists primarily of a strong stock,... - you mean strongly-flavoured?
In the Etymology section, are there any analogs or very similar recipies in other cultures with different names? Might be worth a line or two here.
Gumbo cooks for a minimum of three hours and is often simmered all day -? I'd reverse the active/passive to "Gumbo is cooked for a minimum of three hours and often simmers all day" (or "often let simmer all day")

Otherwise looking very appetising...Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cas, for the review. I've made the 2 cosmetic changes you mentioned - thank you. There are a few other dishes that are slightly similar; these are mentioned in the origin section. I don't have any sources that specifically compare and contrast them, so I could say "Gumbo bears similarities to the Caribbean dish callaloo and French bouillabaisse", but that's as far as I can go. Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments. I've never had gumbo, but that bowl of shrimp gumbo in the lead has my mouth watering. A few comments:
  • The lead says that there are "several" different varieties of gumbo, yet lists only two. And later in Cajun vs Creole section it says that there are commonly considered to be only two varieties. As a matter of interest, is there any reason why beef and pork are rarely used?
  • The Background section says that "Colonization of the French colony Louisiana began in 1718". Obviously there's at least one word too many there. What about something like "The French colonization of Louisiana began in 1718"?
  • "Traditionally, okra and filé powder are not used at the same time". I guess you mean that they're not used in the same dish, as opposed to added simultaneously during cooking?
  • "In 1721, 125 Germans settled 40 miles (64 km) in New Orleans." Not sure what that means. Forty square miles of New Orleans?
  • "The new laborers introduced new foods, including the African vegetable okra, and hot pepper plants, which were traced to Haiti." What does "traced to Haiti" mean? Sourced from Haiti? Brought from Haiti? Later researchers discovered that's where they'd come from?
  • "Louisiana became a United States state in 1812." That "States state" is rather awkward.
  • "Bienville's housekeeper, Madame Langlois, taught the women how to improve the basic gumbo, using okra, which they had learned from their slaves." Who is the "they" being referred to here? The subject seems to be Mme Langlois.

Fatuorum 04:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks, Malleus, and thanks for the copyedit. I've fixed the wording issues. I have no idea why beef and pork aren't used - none of the sources addressed that, and it was just one of those facts of life when I was a kid. I suspect that beef and pork were more easily dried and preserved and gumbo instead used meat that would spoil more quickly, but nothing solid I can use in the article.
I'm unsure how to handle the "varieties" issue. Some people say the varieties are Cajun, Creole, and gumbo z'herbes. Some say it's seafood vs chicken. Others say it's okra vs file vs roux. Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC) PS If you ever make it to Texas I'll make chicken Cajun gumbo with roux for you - it's the only kind I eat. Karanacs (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:42, 14 July 2011 [21].

Indian Camp

Nominator(s):
talk) 20:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

"Indian Camp" is the first short story

talk) 20:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

"Indian Camp" is a short story written by Ernest Hemingway". Maybe indicate that Hemingway is an American Nobel prize-winning author like in SAR? TGilmour (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've thought about this and decided I'd prefer not to. I didn't mind that you added it to SAR, which will be on the main page, and is an important book, but this is a small short story, in the back water of Hemingway's work. For the same reasons that we don't put birthdate and deathdate in each page, I don't think it's necessary to add Nobel Prize winning for every Hemingway article. I'd prefer to link into the main Hemingway biography where it's mentioned in the second or third sentence of the lead.
    talk) 00:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether you use 1964 or 1973 for Young refs
  • Check formatting on ref 15
  • ref 17: dash in page range
  • Where is Durham? Cranbury?
  • Strychaz or Strychacz?
  • Check alphabetization of source list. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Nikkimaria. Although TGilmour fixed ref #15 I intend to switch that out with a hardcopy edition. I've misplaced the book, but will pick one up at the library tomorrow, and reformat then. I'll post here at that time. The rest have been fixed.
    talk) 00:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Ref 15 has been fixed and made consistent.
    talk) 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch I am leaning towards support, but have some concerns that I would like to see addressed first.

  1. I assume both books were published in Paris - if so, this sentence should probably say so. During their absence from Paris, Hemingway's first book, Three Stories and Ten Poems was published; months later a second volume, in our time (without capitals), was published. Also could the sentence avoid using "was published" twice? Perhaps the last phrase could be something like "followed months later by a second volume, in our time (without capitals)."?
  2. Missing word? The small volume included six vignettes and a dozen short stories [by?] Hemingway.[1]
  3. Since he has already had two books with stories in them published, this sentence makes no sense to me It was Hemingway's first piece of fiction to be published and the first for which he was paid—less than $10, but he was thrilled to see his work in print.[7] Also is the month of publication known (and if so, can it be included here)?
  4. I would also specify that the book In Our Time was published in New York City (not Paris) in 1925
  5. Us seems somewhat unencylcopedic in In "Indian Camp", Hemingway shows us the events that shape the Adams persona. Perhaps shows the reader would be better?
  6. Can this be related to the chronology of events in the story as published? Is young Nick left alone in the woods before or after helping with the C-section? In the cut section, later published as "Three Shots", Nick is left alone in the forest, terrified of dying.
  7. Unclear to me - I know that both Hemingway and his father committed suicide (and suspect his father was dead before this story was ever written). I have not read all of the Nick Adams stories - does Nick kill himself too? Does the character of Nick's father? Young thinks it unavoidable to focus on the fact that the principal characters in the story—the father, based on Clarence Hemingway, and the boy, based on Hemingway himself—end up committing suicide; and Kenneth Lynn writes that the irony to modern readers is that both characters in "that boat on the lake would one day do away with themselves".[24][25] I think a sentence before this that explains who kills themselves - ie just the real Hemingways, or them and the characters of Nick and his father - would help. Perhaps it could be a note, but I think a sentence would be clearer.
  8. My understanding is the original in our time collection (no caps) did not include this story. Starting the Reception and legacy section with When in our time (without capitals) was published in Paris in 1924—in a small-print run from Ezra Pound's modernist series through Three Mountains Press—the writing style attracted attention. thus is a bit confusing (at least to me). Perhaps if something were added to "Indian Camp" received considerable praise. that would help? So something like: When it was published the next year, "Indian Camp" received considerable praise. Not great, but you get the idea.
  9. Not really actionable, but what happened to the uncle - how is he not in the boat the next morning? How does he get "home"?Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear TGilmour, please do NOT convert my numbered list to a bullet point list (I have changed it back). I did this because of Sandy Georgia's request here. I will not move your comments, but the idea is that you are not supposed to break up my points, but instead respond to them by number below (i.e. Number 2 is fixed). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Ruhrfisch for the comments. I believe I've covered / fixed everything. I've removed the bit about "Indian Camp" being the first piece he sold, which doesn't make sense in light of the other books being published earlier, but will research that a bit more and clarify it when I have answers. I've added to the plot section that uncle doesn't return. We don't know what happens to him, so not much I can do there.
    talk) 22:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • He was left in the woods the night before they went to the Indian camp, which I added. I'll see if I can tweak it a bit more.
    talk) 00:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Thanks for the good review and the support.
    talk) 00:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Image review

  • Thanks for the image review. I've added the NARA archive ID to the passport photo. I've fixed the license for the second photo and added that all these Hemingway photos from JFK library were gifted to the public and entered into the public domain.
    talk) 00:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support - A well-written and seemingly comprehensive article. ceranthor 21:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for reading and for the support.
    talk) 00:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I follow
    talk) 16:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

TCO support. Very important writer and then an important piece for him. In addition to its famousness, it is intrinsically interesting because of the harsh surgery that a boy watches. This will be a highly clicked-through Front Page article, with its juxtaposition of sex, violence, and children. You present it very readably also. I had never read the story, but feel educated, now. Nailing exactly what we should be doing as an encyclopedia.

My vote is based on hours of reading for content and prose. Will send separately a longish list of very minor suggestions, that do not change my support. Major suggestion would be to try to get "guttier" in the writing within the Writing Style section. (Keep all the litrary concepts and terms, but eschew "the fact that". Don't say "events of his life", say "his life". That sort of thing. Given the topic is already a little academically remote, even more reason to aim for clean prose.) I did not check image rights, endnote formatting, or source materials (for content or copyvio), but have no impressions there would be any problems. I'm not a literature scholar, but the reference list sorta passed my Bayesian sniff test for being sound. Kudos and thank you.TCO (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spending the time reading and for the support. I'm pleased with your reaction - it's a small article about a small story, but seemed to me important to do it right.
talk) 21:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Has anyone done any spotchecks? Karanacs (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only used one oneline source - the rest are books and journals. Obviously I can't do it myself (though I did doublecheck the online source and it was fine) so would appreciate if one of the other reviewers could have a look. Thanks.
talk) 19:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I have access to The New York Times and checked both articles from it used as references here. The sentences in the article referenced to them accurately reflect what is in the newspaper pieces, and I did not find and copying or too close paraphrasing. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
talk) 02:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Hi, thanks for the comment. I don't see it on my display but will try to get to a different monitor later in the day. It's a small page with only three images - I've tweaked a bit, but can you tell me where you see the whitespace? Thanks.
    talk) 12:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I have TOC turned off, so the space that it would use at the top isn't there. As a result, the 2nd image, the couple, pushes the H1 below it down about 3 inches. I'm wondering if the first image is useful in context? Perhaps the 2nd would be a better lead? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to email you an image? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd - I"ve turned off the toc and it's still formatting okay for me. Maybe we can see what others have to say, or what they see. As for images, we're using the ones from JFK library that have links - so go ahead an add the link to the article talk-page. A lot have already been uploaded. I'd prefer not to use the one with Hadley in the lead - Hemingway was the author, so it makes sense to have him at the top, in my view. 13:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:42, 14 July 2011 [22].

White-bellied Sea Eagle

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, this was a

Wikiproject Birds collaboration for April 2011, which I have carried on with till here. It got an exhausive GA review by J Milburn, and I feel it is within striking distance of FA status and believe I can deal with any queries promptly. It is a wikicup nomination. Have at it, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Media is unproblematic, though a link to the base image of File:Haliaeetus leucogaster distr.png, if there is one, would be helpful. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As well as dealing with the many niggles I raised in the GAC, Cas has managed to expand the article so that it does not feel so Australia-centric. I have nothing further to add. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to withdraw my support for now, as Sasata raises a very valid point about the possibility of including a number of other sources. J Milburn (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gone through all extra sources apart one about a record of it eating a prickly toadfish which I can't get fulltext of. Given its consumption of a wide variety of prey, I don't think it is essential but would be nice to add if I can get. But you might want to delay revising your support until I deal with more bits and pieces below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article's looking great. J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Grewal citation should be standardised for multiple authors
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No citations to del Hoyo et al
gah! you're right! that book was added before I began buffing the article, and the only inline ref was lacking a page number, and I didn't use it anyway, so (belatedly) removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps indicate that 1980 is not the original publication date for Liddell & Scott
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct format of citation 6 (Schreiber & Weitzel)
took me a while to figure that one...done now Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency required Retrieved v. retrieved
appears (frustratingly) to be a template problem - not sure what's going on there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency of publisher location required (Kennedy v. Liddell & Scott)
added Oxford Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources & citations look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source comments after edit conflict

  • FN 8: can omit university name from the italicized portion
removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debus entry should include page numbers
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dove or Dove Publications? EMU or Emu? Check for consistency
conformed.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two more source comments

  • I noticed that several multi-paged journal articles only give the first page #
  • How about changing the subheading "Cited texts" to the more accurate "Cited literature"? Sasata (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good. done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Literature review by Sasata (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found several recent articles (post-2002) from a Web of Knowledge search that weren't used in this article. Will post these to the article talk page so as not to take up too much room here. Sasata (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
all processed/checked apart from one I can't get. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My concerns have been dealt with, and I think the article complies with the FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata

  • "It is opportunistic, and also consumes carrion and a wide variety of animals." Why "also"? Doesn't the first part of the sentence imply the second?
yep. reworded to "Opportunistic, it consumes carrion and a wide variety of animals." - wasn't too keen on the "and" actually Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • why link India and Australia, but not Tasmania? (lead)
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead seems a touch thin for the length of the article
agree - just added a note on immature plumage but hard to figure out the next-most important fact to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • two "first described" in the first two sentences of Taxonomy
trimmed and join so sequence is clear Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Java, Captain Cook, specific name, genetic divergence, mitochondrial (DNA), New Guinea, molecular, allozyme, plumage
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dark-head" no hyphen required
oops. removed Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • "This species pair has at every age at least some" seems a bit awkward to express it like this
reworded to "Both these species have at least some dark colouration in their tails" - age bit is redundant on second reading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are relatively abundant in Hong Kong, where the population increased from 39 to 57 birds between 2002 and 2009." I don't understand how about 50 birds can be considered relatively abundant compared to a global population of 10-100 thousand?
HK is really tiny (~1000 sq. km), the range of this critter is huge - Australian and southern Asian coastline. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A review of average egg-shell thickness between 1947 and 1993 to evaluate the impact of the pesticide DDT on egg breakage found that the shells of White-bellied Sea Eagle eggs had thinned by 6%, which was not thought likely to result in more breakage overall although individual clutches would have been more affected." Too much info stuffed in here awkwardly.
It's easy to forget that many people aren't familiar with DDT - I added an intro sentence, and split a long sentence. Do you think that helps enough or shall I revisit? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tweaked the wording a bit, please check. Still having trouble with this sentence:" "This was not thought likely to result in more breakage overall although individual clutches would have been more affected." ... needs something, I don't know what Sasata (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded it to, "This average level of thinning was not thought likely to result in significantly more breakage overall, however individual clutches that had been even thinner might have broken. ". The idea is that statistically 6% won't result in more breakage, but that the 6% is an average, hence some might have thinned more (and broken). Tricky point to get across... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • link habitat destruction, Murray River, Threatened Species Protection Act 1995, Darwin (Northern Territory)
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… is listed as vulnerable" elsewhere this is capitalized
oops. got it now Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The community held localities around Booderee National Park to be connected with it." I cannot parse this sentence easily… "held" is synonymous here with "considered", correct?
yes
  • I changed to "considered", revert if you disagree. Sasata (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
works fine for me Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are five instances of "known as" in two paragraphs of "Cultural significance", perhaps reword a couple
reworded 3 Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is "Kuna-ngarrk-ngarrk" capitalized but not "nairanaa"? Sasata (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
capped second one Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The cite doi template has been recording page ranges from start page, fixed them now. Some articles are only single page short notes though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments by Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partial support (of the cultural aspects section), following the changes discussed below. Will leave others to review the rest of the article, which looks fine to me in terms of copyediting and readability, but is getting closer scrutiny from others as regards the content (and has been looked at by WikiProject Birds editors in any case). Apologies for not having time to review the whole article. Carcharoth (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed reading an earlier bird FAC that I commented on, so thought I'd read through this one and see what my initial impressions were. My first thoughts are that the zoology parts of the article are excellent and very informative. The concern I had was from the final sentence of the lead: "The White-bellied Sea Eagle is revered by indigenous people in many parts of Australia and the Solomon Islands, and is the subject of various folk tales." That focus on Australia struck me as strange, given that the range is given earlier in the lead as including the coasts of India and Sri Lanka (and parts of the Malay Archipelago), and I wondered whether there was stuff about cultural influences outside Australia in the main body of the article that should be included in the lead (the answer seems to be 'probably').

I then started to read the 'Cultural significance' section more closely, and that struck me as a bit of a scattered collection of facts with no unifying narrative and an undue emphasis on Australia (possibly due to existing bias in the available sources - I noted this before I realised above that some attempts had been made to address this after the GA nomination, so possibly more still is needed here to avoid undue focus on Australia). Hopefully there is something on the aspects of sea-eagles in general, even if not this one, in the mythologies other than those in Australia (I've looked, but it seems a keyword to differentiate between sea eagles in the mythologies of the subcontinent and sea eagles in the mythologies of North American Indians is needed).

One (specific) comment: the sentence on the Malay magnate seems to have been placed where it is to go with the other "nest" sentence, but the general structure of the section appear to be geographical, so it might make more sense grouped with the other "Malay" sentences. Failing that, some date context is needed, as it is not immediately obvious that you are going from a nest observed in Australia in 2010 and 2011 to an observation tower built much earlier (presumably) as the magnate in question died in 1964 - the obvious question that the article leaves unanswered is when this tower was built.

In general, some of the stuff mentioned in the 'Cultural significance' section also comes across as trivial and/or

WP:RECENTISM (the bit about the EagleCam attracting 'statewide attention' in particular seems aimed at Australian readers), but would be a logical endpoint for the article if the Malay magnate sentence were given a year and moved to the third paragraph of this section (the one including the Malaysia material). Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree with alot of this - one of the frustrating things about cultural material is the piecemeal nature of the information available. Regarding the tower in Malaysia, I couldn't find a building date from that source, but will have a look to see if I can find that elsewhere. Regarding the notability of the EagleCam, the park it is in is one of Sydney's biggest and most notable parks, and one has to also remember that very few ornithological items ever make the news, they are generally deemed not notable enough. This one did, and this camera has been a fixture there for over three years now, so I figured that was pretty significant for a bird-related story. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Damn - no dates on google anywhere - I moved it so all Malay material together. I'll see what else I can find and recalibrate lead as summary of salient points of section with appropriate weighting. Give me a bit of time....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Sanger (1995) reference while looking as well. A similar story is related in one of those
Singapore Bird Series currency notes (see link at bottom), it was 1 February 1980 (you probably also want to add a link from this bird article to that article). Similarly, when did this bird become the emblem of the Malaysian state of Selangor? When did this bird become the emblem of the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles rugby league team? Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Aha. thanks for that. Will get to it. Got most, but yet to realign lead and body of text. See answer below to Ucucha. Tolkien never described Gwaihir as white did he...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ucucha 22:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]
agree - just removed any locality from lead Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The map shows this species occurring in the Solomon Islands (the country), where the article says Sanford's Sea Eagle occurs.
Aaah, that's why there is that paler blue circle - adjusted map caption accordingly Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sanford's and White-bellied are called a
    cryptic species
    , which I don't think is appropriate.
superspecies done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The talons, bill, and eyes are dark as in all Gondwanan sea eagles"—I couldn't find this in the cited reference (Wink et al., 1996). I'm not sure the word "Gondwanan" is a good choice here, since those eagles probably evolved long after the breakup of Gondwana; why not use "Southern Hemisphere" or so?
Ok, latter is plainer English too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, is the reference correct? Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
duh! I shoulda realised - dark yellow..fixed now. nuts to my speed-reading...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the
    Grey-headed Fish Eagle
    not linked?
cos I hate them sloppiness, fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The White-bellied Sea Eagle is generally sedentary and territorial, although it may travel long distances. They have been reported travelling upriver to hunt for flying foxes (Pteropus)"—is this really accurately cited to Tarr (1962)?
Damn, something's gone awry there and a reference has dropped out. I'll update once found. Found it and added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(including one record of seizing the last species when unsuccessful in obtaining its prey)"—sounds awkward; probably better put it in a separate sentence
duly split now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear now whether the prey was the eagle's or the gannet's. Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A study of the species in Jervis Bay showed increases in the numbers of immature and subadult birds in autumn, although it was unclear whether these were locally-fledged or (as was considered more likely) an influx of young birds born and raised elsewhere in Australia"—why is this not under "Breeding", together with the information about the breeding season?
I was intending on some notes on territoriality and seasonal movements in the beginning bit because it is focussing on outside breeding season more than the breeding season itself....it leaves a very small behaviour section if I move it out Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The White-bellied Sea Eagle is listed as marine and migratory"—what is the relevance of the "marine and migratory" part?
I have reworded it a little - it is the marine and migratory categories under those tow pages which make it a protected species nationally in Oz. Is a rewording sufficient (as both categories are linked on the national page), or do you think I should also link both original rulings on the wikipedia page? Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • Like Carcharoth, I think the "Cultural significance" section is rather piecemeal. Do we need all those names, for example? It obviously has names in the area where it occurs (the interwikis will give you a few more), but we don't normally list those except when they are otherwise relevant. The Aboriginal tribe that uses the same name for itself and for the eagle is quite interesting, for example.
@Ucucha and Carcharoth - I have reworked into three paras (1) australian indigenous beliefs (2) those beliefs elsewhere (3) more modern material. There is a nice covering phrase in the thesis for Australian beliefs, but none for elsewhere. I mean, it would be great if someone had pointed out its loud call had been written about in several folk tales (the Malay, Indian and Nissan stories), but none exists so I can't do the OR and tie it together. Have also tried looking for more extra-Australian material but without much success... :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Still, do we need all those names? Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have removed the ones which were just isolated "the name of the bird is X" ones - I left the gulbi one as it is in Colebee as well, ditto Mak Mak. Listing Kuna-ngarrk-ngarrk helps show the Umbrawarra Gorge Nature Park (which is not far from where the Mak Mak are) is from a distinct source/story/people etc. The other four help flesh out the people/locales talking about the Sea Eagle and are good for flow. If I removed all them it'd sound more listy again. Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • Some refs need to be formatted: for example, current ref. 9 (to Baldwin 2010) should probably use {{cite thesis}}, refs. 26 and 33 repeat the name of the department (and are otherwise inconsistent), ref. 68 shouldn't have "Manly Sea Eagles Official Site" italicized, etcetera.
done first, one of the repeated ones is actually how they ask to be referenced on the bottom of the department web page, tweaked the other department one (note that state and federal gov'ts are different entities), the "Manly Sea Eagles Official Site" is the work= parameter of the cite web template, reduced it to "Official Site". Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to fill in both |publisher= and |work=, and I think the latter is rarely needed in cite web. There are a few more like this; the ref to Birds Australia apparently has |publisher=Birds Australia|work=Birds Australia website; that's not helping anyone. Ucucha 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, work parameters removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I left it in as I couldn't find the information elsewhere....and upon thinking about it there may be a good reason why it isn't elsewhere (i.e. not quite accurate), and then I realised much of it is in next sentence, so deleted it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha 03:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, COI, comments I'm a member of the Bird Project, and I've made a number of minor edits to this article. Unsurprisingly, I can't find much wrong with it, so just two comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Description" veers from singular in para 1 to plural in para 2
duly singularised Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "coot" be bolded since it refers to a single species?
yup. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead comments: I believe the lead is sufficiently well-written, and it appears to contain material from each of the major sections (a refreshing change of pace indeed!). However, there are a few questions that I think should be answered in the lead:
  • Are there any critters that prey upon this critter?
aaargh - even though it is blindingly obvious that it is an apex predator, finding a source which say just that is elusive :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh indeed -- I know the frustration. If you happen to stumble upon a source for this fact, it would be a great addition, but we obviously can't invent facts, so don't fret over it too much. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How big is this critter?
added stats of larger size. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long have people known about this critter?
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, thanks for the good work thus far! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:42, 14 July 2011 [23].

Anfield

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article is close to featured standard. The article has received a copyedit from the GOCE and has had a peer review which proved very productive. I now believe the article is in very good condition and ready to be considered for featured status. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 49: why no date?
  • Why italicize CNN and not BBC Sport?
  • FN 40: check publisher punctuation
  • Location for Kelly?
  • Are all of the publisher locations in References in the UK? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the first four issues and yes all of the publisher locations are in the UK. NapHit (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Review
    • I don't like the situation with File:View of inside Anfield Stadium from Anfield Road Stand.jpg (it was uploaded by the photographer in low res under a free license, but links to a flickr page with a high res version under a CC BY-NC-SA-2.0 license, which isn't free). Don't know what can be done about it. It's strictly legal but in very poor form.
I think File:The view from the Kop.jpg might be able to replace it, the quality is better and there is no issue over the license. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It works, but if you do that, you should pull
Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
done, added one which highlights what the caption is stating. NapHit (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ye its not the best, can't find a replacement on flickr either, unfortunately I don't live near the stadium so can't get a replacement picture hopefully someone will be kind enough to do so. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll poke around on the IRC, I know a couple of people there live in England, but I don't know where specifically.
Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Found a better one which is now in the article NapHit (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works. The angle isn't the best but no image is perfect.
Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
added the dates to the images that didn't have any. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good show.
Wha? 04:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]


Support (through gritted Evertonian teeth). A few very minor points on prose:

  • Lead
    • As Shankly was the manager before Paisley perhaps mention the former's gates first.
  • History
    • Image caption: "The This is Anfield sign…" gives the false impression at first glance of being a typo: perhaps inverted commas or possibly italics?
    • "The new team was called … and their first match at Anfield" – singular or plural? Consistency needed.
    • "They won 7–1" – clearer to the casual reader if you wrote "Liverpool won 7–1"
    • "Liverpool's first Lancashire League match at Anfield was played on 9 September 1893, against Lincoln City" – to the uninformed reader (e.g. me) it is not clear what Lincoln City would be doing playing in the Lancashire League. Could we have a footnote?
You were right to query this, it was in fact Liverpool's first game in the Football League. Footnote follows in the next sentence with the score of the match. NapHit (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "was hauled up the Everton Valley" – I wasn't brung up to say "the Everton Valley" – is the definite article needed?
    • "It still stands there today" – does the "today" add anything here?
  • Structures and facilities
    • "with space for one personal assistant" – one per visually impaired patron or one for all of them?
    • "The Paisley Gateway is a tribute of Bob Paisley" – "to" rather than "of"? Ditto for Shankly, later in the same para.
  • Future
    • "the Kop is unrivaled" – this is not what the quoted source says.
It does, the quote is at the start of the fourth paragraph. NapHit (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, you know; look again: it says "unrivalled" (English spelling, not American). My earlier comment was too cryptic, I admit. Tim riley (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, corrected it NapHit (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Records
    • Somewhat one-sided. Perhaps a mention of the longest losing streak etc to balance the laudatory statistics already presented?

This is a fine article, and remarkably fairly balanced. Well done, blast it! Tim riley (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All my minor points above now addressed, and duly struck through. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, especially seeing as your a blue :p I've dealt with all your comments. NapHit (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. This looks like a nice piece of work (also said through gritted teeth, as I'm from Manchester). There are a couple of things I didn't follow though:

  • The Structures and facilities section says that there are 59 spaces available in the stadium for wheelchair users, 33 of which are available for general sale, 8 allocated to away supporters, and 2 reserved for emergencies. But that only makes 43, not 59.
Resolved this, I mis-read the source the 59 space is for season tickets holders, not a total as it suggested. NapHit (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The History section starts off by telling us that Orrell was the original owner of the stadium, who sold it to Houlding in 1885. But a few sentences later we're told that "A dispute emerged between Houlding and the Everton F.C. committee [when?] that escalated from negotiations regarding the full purchase of the land at Anfield from minor land owner Orrell." I don't understand that at all. And why did Orrell build the stadium in 1884? What was it used for before Everton moved in? The text says that Orrell let the land to Everton not the stadium ... in short, when was the stadium built, by whom, and why?
It is a confusing episode, firstly Houlding let the land of Orrell who still owned. I don't think Orrell built the stadium from my books say he simply let the land to Everton who built the stands themselves, as to what was there before the stadium I think it was simply a field that Orrell owned, I hope I've cleared that up. Not really sure how I can make that clearer in the prose.
  • One last thing, the Other uses section is really choppily written and looks like it was at one time a list that's been converted rather unskillfully into prose. It really needs to flow a little better than it does.
    Fatuorum 23:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Had a go at improving this, I think its in better shape now. NapHit (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my comments have been addressed satisfactorily.

Fatuorum 16:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment -

  • The caption for the first image (going down the article from the top) should not have the T in "the" capitalised, if the F in "from" is not, I do not think.
  • In the intro, is "the changes, a result of the Taylor Report, greatly reduced capacity." correct? Would it rather be "the changes, a result of the Taylor Report, include greatly reduced capacity." or something to that effect?
  • Is the first comma in "Fenway Sports Group's acquisition of Liverpool in 2010, has made the construction of a new stadium doubtful..." (from the intro) necessary?
  • In the History section, it is stated that "Everton quickly improved as a team, and became Anfield's first league champions...". This was slightly confusing to me as no games other than their win of 5-0 were mentioned. I was under the impression that it already was a good team.
Their first match won't have been in the football league, it will have been in a league below that so that highlights the improvement. NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most recent change to Anfield came in 1998 when the new two-tier Anfield Road end was opened." is stated in the History section. You may want to reword this ("The most recent structural change"?), as introducing a new style of turnstile might be considered to be a more recent change to Anfield. So might adding support poles and stanchions.
  • The Structures and Facilities section refers to the "THIS IS ANFIELD" sign's text as all capital. However, the image caption higher up does not. You might consider changing this for consistency's sake.
  • Just to confirm, in Structures and Facilities, are there 19 spaces for the visually impaired (38 total to include the personal assistants), or 38 spaces for the visually impaired (76 total to include the personal assistants)? It is a tad ambiguous but not necessarily warranting change.
38 for visually impaired with space for one personal assistant so it probably is 76 total, but as the source doesn't say 76 I'm reluctant to put that in the article. NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, are the headsets to provide full commentary just a luxury in case the visually impaired are also impaired in hearing? Is there a location for those with hearing impairments and/or would they be allowed to use the spots allocated to those who are visually impaired?
What is says in the article is what the source says, so unfortunately I can't elaborate any further NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second image from the bottom's caption, is the text grammatically correct as a sentence?
No it wasn't you're right it sounded like the owner was going to construct the stadium himself! changed it NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"On 30 July 2004 Liverpool were granted planning permission to build a new stadium 300 yards (270 m) away from Anfield at Stanley Park.[31]" -- Is Liverpool referring to the team, and would the plural verb be appropriate here? The same question about the plural verb applies to, under Other Uses, "England have played Wales at the stadium on three occasions..." and other times it recurs several more times throughout the section. Further information: A ctrl+F search showed that the instances of the word "have" in the article are just after the pronoun "they", "users", "England", and "Wales". Ctrl+F also revealed that the only two instances of "____ were" in which the subject is not immediately apparent to me as being plural were "Everton, who previously played at Priory Road, were in need..." (under History) and "On 30 July 2004 Liverpool were granted planning permission to..." (under Future). I had not realised that this had already been addressed with "'The new team was called … and their first match at Anfield' – singular or plural? Consistency needed."

The references and footnotes are okay from what I can tell and sorry for the long post. Micromann (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All typographical and grammatical issues I noticed through 2 readings were corrected. There are no actionable objections which have not been resolved, and there appears to be a good balance between length and detail in this article. Micromann (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support by Comments from Jappalang

History

  • "Everton's landlord changed when Houlding purchased the land from Orrell in 1885, charging direct rent."
    Pardon my density, but this is a bit confusing to me. Initially Houlding rented from Orrell, then he bought the land and charged himself direct rent?
    Ye there was a mistake, according to my books Houlding never bought the ground outright from Orrel before Liverpool F.C. came into existence so I've removed the sentence as its false. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing this sentence, however, eliminates the context for "that escalated from negotiations regarding the full purchase of the land at Anfield from minor land owner Orrell into a disagreement", and if Houlding never bought the ground, how did this came about? Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Houlding bought the ground after Everton left. Everton wanted to buy the ground before they left, but Houlding owned land adjacent to Anfield and wanted the club to buy that as well as Anfield, so they decided to move elsewhere. I'm not sure how the removal of that sentence removes the context, as it still says that Everton rented the ground off Orrell which provides the context for wanting to buy the ground. I can add the bit at the start of my reply if you want I think that will clear up the issue a bit. NapHit (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, it was the phrasing of the later sentence that catches me a bit off guard; I made some changes to clarify things (in my opinion), please check them over. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Houlding was left with an empty stadium, and decided to form a new club to occupy it."
    Does this mean Houlding's presidency of Everton F.C. was deposed?
    Again, I'm not sure Houlding was ever President of Everton F.C., there is no mention of him being President in my books so I've changed it to member (albeit an influential one) which the books say he was NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... former manager Bill Shankly; Shankly's widow Nessie ..."
    I think it could be changed to "his widow" to cut a bit of repetition.
  • "After the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 where 96 Liverpool fans died, ..."
    Would it be better to state instead "After the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 where overcrowding led to the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans, ..." to give the following clause some context on the change to all-seaters?
  • "... depicts Shankly wearing a fan's scarf around his neck, ..."
    "... depicts Shankly with a fan's scarf around his neck, ..."

Structures and facilities

  • "... to bring those who touch it good luck."
    Including the opposition (heh)?

Other uses

  • "England has played Wales at the stadium on three occasions, in 1905, 1922 and 1931; England won all three matches."
    This sentence seems rather disconnected from the previous (first international game was England–Ireland) and trivial in overall context (why is it important to mention England played Wales three times here and list all years).
    England normally play the majority of their home matches at Wembley, with other grounds in the country rarely seeing the national team play at their ground, so in that regard its important. Perhaps listing all the years is a bit much, but I feel its important, as it shows when England were playing in different grounds. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be of significance but not in such detail; one might summarise it as "Anfield was also the home venue for several of England's international football matches in the early 1900s and for the Welsh team in the later part of that century." Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    added this sentence now and removed the superfluous detail. NapHit (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wales have staged three matches at Anfield—against Scotland in 1977, Italy in 1998, and Denmark in 1999."
    Same issue as above—why is Wales especially mentioned (is there some sort of Welsh connection behind the club's history)?
    Per the first point, national teams in Britain at least normally play at a fixed venue, so the fact that they are playing elsewhere and outside their country as well, does have some significance. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See above.

Records

  • "Liverpool did not lose a home league match at Anfield during the ..."; "Liverpool did not lose a match at Anfield from ..."
    This seems repetitive; suggestion for the second sentence: "Liverpool's longest winning streak at home extended from ...", which would match well with the subsequent sentence about losing streak.
  • "This occurred three times in the 1893–1900, 1906–07 and 1908–09 seasons."
    This seems to suggest to me that the 3-game losing streak occured three times in each of those seasons. Is that the case or would "This occurred three times in the club's history to date (1893–1900, 1906–07 and 1908–09 seasons)." be a better sentence?

Images

  • WP:V
    , the image page should list its sources for the attendance figures.
    http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/england.htm was given as the source; what makes this website a reliable source? Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found [24] which is a reliable site and if you click on the appropriate season link and choose the statistics tab then the average attendance for that season can be seen. NapHit (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This site's "About" does describe a certain pedigree and faithfulness in their research (poring through documented materials). It looks fine with me. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IUP
    , the source of data for the layout should be given.

I am keen to support this article once the more critical issues are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've addressed all your comments, thank you for the review. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity (not an opposable action): is it really possible for players to "reach up and place one or both hands on" File:This is Anfield.jpg? It seems they would have to jump (on the stairs), which would make it a wee bit of a dangerous stunt to pull... Jappalang (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it is sure I was able to do it when I went on the stadium tour recently, so I'm sure the players can manage. NapHit (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my concerns have been resolved and I believe this brief but comprehensive and nicely written article about a stadium (whose club I do not support—I support a certain Red but not this Reds) qualifies for Featured status. Jappalang (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Hope none of these are redundant to anything in Jappalang's review...

  • History: "Orrell let the pitch to the club...". Here, "let" should be "lent".
  • Don't need to link Shankly twice in this section. Also don't think the one in the next section is necessary.
  • Structures and facilities: "The Kop is the most-renowned stand at Anfield amongst home and away supporters". "amongst" → "among"?
  • Comma would be useful in "Originally a single-tier stand a further revamp", after "stand".
  • Photo caption: "The Kop, the atmosphere generated by the crowd in the stand, has led owner John W. Henry to reconsider the construction of a new stadium." Something feels wrong with "The Kop, the atmosphere generated by the crowd in the stand." Maybe "The Kop; the atmosphere generated by the crowd in the stand has led...". That just tweaks the punctuation, but should be enough to fix it adequately.
  • Other uses: NRL should be spelled out.
  • Records: More overlinking for the 1893–94 season. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Giants, I've addressed all your comments. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Looks to be in good shape, and passes the Inglis test. Just a couple of queries:
    • Using your sources can you confirm whether either of the developments from the early 1900s was designed by the noted football architect Archibald Leitch, as some fansites imply? If so, he ought to be mentioned by name.
    • If there's a suitable source for it, it'd be worth mentioning that Liverpool always play towards the Kop in the second half if they win the toss.
    • Might be difficult to achieve while maintaining a neutral tone, but the bit about the Kop could be tweaked to stress the reputation it had as one of the most fearsome terraces to play in front of. Didn't Shankly once say something about the Kop "sucking the ball into the net", or is that apocryphal? Oldelpaso (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Oldelpaso, I've added info about Leitch and the Kop sucking the ball into the goal, but I couldn't add anything about Liverpool playing towards the Kop in the second half, as I couldn't find a reliable source. Thanks for the comments. NapHit (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I peer reviewed this and have reread it and find it meets the FA criteria. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:42, 14 July 2011 [25].

Cirrus cloud

Nominator(s): Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that cirrus cloud meets the FA criteria. It is an important topic, and appears to be read every so often in schools (judging by the number of times I have to rollback the article). I've gotten this article from a little, tolerably-sourced start to DYK and then to GA. I would now like to get it all the way to FA status, and I have had a peer review to help it along. Thanks for everybody's help along the way, and I guess it is now my time for my baptism by fire. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • McGraw-Hill Editorial Team or Staff?
  • Many of your footnote-to-bibliography links appear to be broken
    • I don't know how to get them to work. Could somebody please point me to an example of them working? Reaper Eternal (talk)
      • Californium is the next article on the FAC list to use them, and they work there. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, fixed. (I was missing the |ref=xxx parameters.)
  • FN 15: why not include the other authors here? Reaper Eternal (talk)
  • Date for Hamilton?
    • As this actually is an eBook, it doesn't appear to have a date of publication. I check Google books and the publisher's website, and neither gives a date of publication. Reaper Eternal (talk)
  • Be consistent in whether you include a comma before "et al." or not
  • Missing bibliographic info for Ahrens 2007
  • FN 4: spell out or link NOAA
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • FN 14: should include information on original source
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for publishers
  • FN 27: why the difference in date format here?
  • FN 49: check formatting on page range
  • Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
  • FN 53: should include the name of the interviewee
    • I added the interviewer's name, but the interviewee's name is not given. Removed because this broke the {{cite interview}} template by not having interviewee's name. Reaper Eternal (talk)
  • No need to include page numbers for books in Bibliography, since page numbers are in footnotes
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for convenience links to print-based sources (like Google Books)
  • Some of the sources marked as eBooks in fact appear to be normal books.
    • Sorry, I thought that the "eBook" was referring to the fact that the link was to Google Books. EDIT: One actually is an eBook, however. Reaper Eternal (talk)

In general sources appear reliable, but formatting needs to be cleaned up. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I try to only cite reliable sources to prevent errors from creeping in. However, my formatting is not very good :P ! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hopefully get around to looking at this. This edit serves only as a reminder to myself to do so. Carry on. :) -

talk) 20:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

TCO comments.

  • Please do not let Atmoz disturb you. He is a global warming skeptic. Try to keep to mainstream science and don't let this McIntyre-lover upset you.
  • Break the lead into paragraphs (not arbitrarily, but with structure).
  • Mention the altitude in lead.
    • Done. Added to the short, choppy sentence on color, which now reads nicer too. Reaper Eternal (talk)
  • Consider dropping the ubiquitous Infobox. Not helpful for this kind of article. Keep the pictures...scrumptious.
  • Add some pics in "Description".
  • Further down, there are a bunch of pics at 150 (way too small). Think about ways to present these better (perhaps centering).
  • Try to make the article have a little more "putting things into a larger context" or structure. I just felt like I was not getting a good sense of where this cloud fits into the family of clouds in general.
    • I added a description in the lead of the various cloud forms and how they compare to the cirrus clouds. Incidentally, this also fixed the issue with the lead being one paragraph. I cannot split it any more without just breaking it at some random location. Reaper Eternal (talk)
  • Also, clarify a little more if some of the aspects listed are peculiar to this kind of cloud (like the "glory" or hurricane association) or happend with all clouds.
    • Most of the optical phenomena are peculiar to ice-crystal clouds (various cirriform clouds. It appears that only cirrus clouds are associated with hurricanes, or at least no source that I could find describes any other. The problem with this is I am essentially trying to prove a negative, and all sources I can find state the positive. Reaper Eternal (talk)
  • (NEW)Try to do some illustration of a concept, that is a non-photograph of a cloud. Is there some analytical diagram, chart, map, comparison, or the like, that would help educate us? Maybe some Excel analysis shown in a chart (reffed properly of course), or a table or something? A measurement instrument? An effect? Predecessors and successors (arranged in a "this leads to this" set of images)? I really don't know what...just pushing you to think about it and see what you can come up with.TCO (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For instance, a quick google found this image ([26]) which kinda answers my "where does it fit in the family question. Here is a google search on cirrus+cloud+chart ([27]): scanning down, I see a few diagrams and charts.TCO (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, looked pretty polished, although I skimmed, no parsed. Just work a little more on context and structure, so my mind does not wander. TCO (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments, and I think I have fixed all of your issues. Does the chart showing cloud height and the paragraph describing the relationships added to the lead help? will be back later to work on the rest! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 15:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Units check
It says 200 mb and has other instances intended to mean millibar. The symbol for millibar is 'mbar'.
It says .001 millimeters to .1 millimeters. Decimals should have a leading zero.
It has inconsistent 'er' and 're' spelling. Make it consistent with the article's spelling status of US or nonUS spelling.
Lightmouse (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got all these issues. Anything else need fixing? :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the unit edits. It looks good from the units point of view now. Lightmouse (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The lead must not contain references, as it only summarizes the article (per WP:MOS). TGilmour (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (GermanJoe) Oppose for now, though the article will certainly be FA with a bit of changes. It has comprehensive information, good prose and structure in most parts. There are 1-2 very basic problems with lead (see WP:LEAD) and images and a few minor things:

  • Lead - "Cirrus clouds can form on other planets, including Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and [possibly] Neptune". ==> Main text doesn't state Neptune as a matter of fact, just as a possible occurence. Both statements need to be consistent.
  • Lead - "They range in color from white to a faint gray, and form at altitudes of 6,100 m (20,000 ft) and above." ==> Those facts aren't in main text (neither the color nor the altitude value) and seem to contradict several other altitude information in text: Lead last paragraph states, that high-etage clouds (all types?) can occur as low as 3,000 m above sea level. "Description" in main text states "The cloud's height above sea level can be anywhere from 4 km ...". If those differing values are due to different background information or measurements, this should be clarified. If not, the values should be made consistent.
    • Made consistent by offering explaining that they form at different altitudes at different latitudes. Reaper Eternal (talk)
  • Lead - Last two paragraphs of lead do not follow WP:LEAD guidelines, lead should be a summary introduction and all facts from lead should be present (with more detail) in main text. If this information is needed, it should be trimmed in lead and the main part moved somewhere to main text, maybe together with the diagram, which is a bit distracting in the lead.
  • Lead - The systematic listing of all cloud forms also strays away from article focus, are all those details really needed to understand cirrus clouds? A lot of this information may be better put into an article about clouds in general.
    • I added this because TCO wanted information about cirrus clouds as related to other clouds. It has been moved to its own section under the lead, but I am thinking it maybe should be moved to between the cirrocumulus section and the "ex-earth cirrus" section. Reaper Eternal (talk)
  • Lead - Generally all lead statements need to be checked: Are they summary style? Is lead information present and consistent in the main text?
    • I've rewritten the lead to have better flow, have more consistency, and be a better summary of the body. Reaper Eternal (talk)
  • Values - article switches between 4 km and 4,000 m several times. One consistent method should be used (no idea, if MOS recommends one of them).
  • Images - Probably not always possible, but placement of images should be improved, avoid sandwiching of text between 2 images (in sections "Optical phenomena" and "formation in cyclones", see WP:MOSIMAGES).
    • I'll do my best, but there are always going to be issues depending on what size screen is used. Reaper Eternal (talk)
  • Images - are 2 halo images needed? Moon halos aren't mentioned in text. Consider removing moon halo image.
  • Formation in cyclones - "the top reaches reaches the tropopause" ==> second "reaches"?
  • Description - the structure of first paragraph is a bit confusing. The article states all averages for certain cloud features in one list and then goes on to list the ranges of the same features again in a separate list. A structure combining average with range variations for each single feature would probably be easier to follow. GermanJoe (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rewrote this paragraph to keep the ranges with their corresponding averages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has undergone several improvements in regards to structure, i stroke the main concerns and will try to have another read-through before supporting.
  • Consider splitting up the first lead paragraph, it's overly long and not really "inviting" to the article with that much information at once. Not sure, where to draw the line to split, maybe start a new para with "Jet stream-powered cirrus ...". GermanJoe (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for splitting it! So is there anything else you see? I'll try to give it another copyediting pass today to improve the prose. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Atmoz

Oppose for now neutral I'd still like to look this over more, but I have no reason to oppose at this time. In my view this article does not satisfy criteria 1a and to a lesser extent 1b. I'll be editing the article to fix what I can and posting here for clarification on what I can't. -

talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll probably be adding more comments later. -

talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks! I look forward to seeing them! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note : I just went through and attempted to clean up the prose and remove redundancies. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will the person who is adding interspersed unsigned comments please stop it? Not only do we not know who wrote all of those one-liners-- they are unnecessarily increasing the length of the FAC. Please sign or add {{unsigned}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, they were all my comments. This is my first FA nomination, so I'm not too certain about how I'm supposed to format them. They should all be signed now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support (GermanJoe) Some more suggestions and minor prose tweaks (my previous comments were adressed):

  • Lead: "Cirrus clouds can form on other planets, including Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and possibly Neptune." ==> would it help to clarify, that some of those clouds are not water-based? Would also add to the length of the short 3rd lead paragraph.
  • Description: "The final measurement source is simply visual observations from either airplanes or the ground." ==> Calling observations "measurement" sounds a bit odd, maybe "Visual observations from either airplanes or the ground provide additional information about cirrus clouds." instead.
  • "Cirrus clouds come in six distinct subforms ..." ==> How are those subforms sorted (most to least common)? Also explain the subforms later in the same order (mixed up at the moment).
    • Now sorted alphabetically. Apart from cirrus fibratus, I am uncertain if any research has been done on the relative prevalence of individual species. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forecasting: "The random, isolated cirrus cloud does not have any particular significance. [A cirrus castellanus ... instability at the cirrus level.] However, a large number of cirrus clouds may be a sign of an approaching frontal system or upper air disturbance." ==> "However" probably relates to the first sentence, not the second one. Try to restructure to clarify the connections between those 3 thoughts.
  • "Within the tropics, 36 hours ... of the cyclone." ==> This would fit better moved to the 2nd paragraph, which deals with hurricanes.
    • Moved to first sentence of second paragraph, as it definitely fits better there. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Effects: "When cirrus clouds are 100 m (330 ft) thick, they reflect only around 9% of the incoming sunlight, [and yet] they prevent almost 50% of the outgoing infrared radiation from escaping." ==> a simple "but" is more formal. Avoid overly "narrative" or essay-like phrases.
  • Cirrostratus: "Cirrostratus clouds sometimes look a lot like altostratus clouds." ==> I don't like such comparisons as first sentence, as they practically explain nothing to the layman, who isn't familiar with either term. Maybe start with "Cirrostratus clouds can appear as ..." and then use the comparison as additional detail. Also "a lot like" is too colloquial, suggest "similar to".
    • I moved the comparison after the description and removed the colloquial phrasing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraterrestrial: "Cirrus clouds also occur on Mars." ==> A bit short and not really engaging to start the section, maybe "Cirrus clouds have been observed on several planets in the Solar System.", just add a bit more meat to the intro sentence.

I am looking forward to support this fine article, when the last round of minor improvements is finished. GermanJoe (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All points adressed, changed vote to support, 2 points not affecting the vote:
  • Images look fine, but image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CirrusField-color.jpg has a clean-up tag for out-dated copyright tag. The tag indicates, it's only a minor cleanup without affecting the basic copyright status, but it would probably be best to have an image expert look into it - just to be sure.
  • Be consistant, if you link planets or not - Saturn and Uranus f.e. are not linked (as planet articles usually have additional atmospheric information, i'd prefer to link all of them). GermanJoe (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are all now linked in the lead, where they are first mentioned. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting better. Was asked to relook at the article. From a quick scan, one major upgrade I would have for you is to tighten up the writing. You can be more definite (which will both read stronger and save words). Instead of c clouds can form many shapes, c clouds do form many shapes. Instead of "can take on a variety of shapes", -> "take on a variety of shapes", or "occur in many shapes". There was a place (not finding it know) where you said something like "it has been observed that blabla", when you could say "blabla". Similarly, "researchers of this phenomenon" -> "researchers". A front to back prose edit to clean up un-needed qualifiers and caveats would help this thing sing. Other than that, I'm not sure I will have time to really review it enough to support (nor did I before). I suggest getting another layperson, another general scientist, and another weather scientist to review it. I wish you the best and appreciate your hard work on the article! TCO (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I've gone through the article and attempted to tighten up the prose, and I think I've gotten most of the extraneous cruft worked out now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small bug. Ref. "Nucleation" got lost in the editing frenzy :) and is now broken in ref 27. Not sure, if you planned to replace the source completely, or i would fix it myself. GermanJoe (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops! I removed it from a place where the cited text was not given in that citation and forgot that another bit of text depended on it! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – but I think the prose could do with another pair of eyes to improve flow and remove redundancy. I have made a few edits [30] in the hope of reducing some of the latter. Please check my edits in case I have introduced factual errors. The few spot checks for close paraphrasing, and the like, that I have done have not revealed any worries, and the image usage seems sound. I love clouds. Thank you for an engaging contribution.

talk) 23:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks! And no, you did not introduce any factual inaccuracies. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is groovy and saucy.

  • I'm a bit puzzled as to why the lead discusses the shape of the cirrus cloud in so many different places: "characterized by thin, wispy strands, often bunched into tufts"; "cirrus clouds commonly resemble curly hair"; "they ... take on a variety of shapes"; "cirrus clouds can grow long enough to stretch across continents".
    • I initially discuss the appearance of cirrus clouds as a lead-in and to make mention of/establish context for alternative names for these clouds. I then go on to describe their location (altitude) and size (up to transcontinental). I did remove one unnecessary mention "take on a variety of shapes". Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "anvil" mean in this context? How about "fire rainbow"?
    • I wikilinked "anvil" to "
      Anvil cloud", as I am refering to the formation of cirrus clouds from cumulonimbus clouds (thunderstorms). "Fire rainbow" wouldn't make sense because cirrus clouds do not form from fire rainbows—light scatter through the cloud forms fire rainbows. Oops, you meant to wikilink Fire rainbow farther down. That's done now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • "a pattern of small cloud tufts which include droplets" Not sure that "include" is the best word here. How about "contain"?
  • The lead does not adequately summarize material from Use in forecasting.
    • Added mention of what the cirrus formation from thunderstorms and cyclones indicates. (This summarizes the forecasting section.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One question that should be answered in the lead: Do these clouds produce precipitation? Readers should not have to delve into the body or navigate to other articles to determine if this is the case.
    • Added mention of this. It fit in nicely after the discussion of what cirrus clouds indicate, since while they indicate the arrival of precipitation, they themselves make none. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Cryptic C62! Any other issues that need fixing? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm a happy clam! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: no doubt these are is a really stupid, but my knowledge of meteorology is only basic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • During the night, it determines cirrus cloud cover by detecting the Earth's infrared emissions.: why only at night?
    • A different method is used during the day, since the majority of radiation then is being reflected out (sun shining on the top of the cloud). At night, there is no reflection, so a different method had to be used. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can cirrus clouds form anywhere on Earth? Are there significant differences between, say, North American and European clouds?
    • I haven't found any studies that cover Europe by itself; I've only found ones for the US and the whole earth. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on satellite data, cirrus clouds cover an average of 20% to 25% of the Earth's surface worldwide. Is that year-round? Oh, and "Earth's surface worldwide" is redundant. ;)
  • However, in the tropical regions, cirrus clouds cover around 70% of the region's surface area. Does that mean they form in lower concentrations elsewhere?
  • Effects on climate: how does this compare/contrast with other clouds?
    • Hmm, I'll need to look for information on this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, so I've found some information on this. According to this, "the net effect of clouds on the climate today is to cool the surface by about 5°C (9°F)." As this describes clouds in general, I'll have to think of a way to incorporate this information. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The information is now added after the discussion on the heating effects of cirrus clouds as a mention of how cirrus cloud heating is in contrast to the average. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why are we describing something that forms in the air by the surface area it covers?
    • This is because the relative difference in the area of a circle at 30,000 feet of altitude compared with a circle with the same areal angle at ground level is 0.2858% larger. Additionally, the climatic effects are based upon the surface area covered. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does Cirrus clouds also are the remnants of thunderstorms. mean?
  • On the other hand is not a phrase I would normally expect to see in an encyclopaedia. It's a bit conversational for my liking.
  • Is the red link Benito Vines one that has a prospect of turning blue (ie is the link there because you came to the conclusion he's notbale, or because someone else put it there and you didn't feel like unlinking it)
    • I'm not certain yet if he's notable, as there doesn't seem to be much coverage of him (granted, he was alive in the 1800s, which makes sources hard to find). Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Times: AM and PM should be lower case, per
    MOS:TIME
  • the evidence does not support this: in plain English, does that mean the theory is bollocks, or that the hypothesis just hasn't been proven (yet)?
    • It's because the hypothesis has not been proven—it's a possible scenario just like the negative-feedback hypothesis. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and please check my copy edits in case I inadvertently changed the meaning of something.
    • I've undone one which kind of gave the impression that cirrus clouds only occur on earth. Thanks for the others, though! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images All seem to be in order and all are freely licensed. The source for File:Cirrocumulus4 - NOAA.jpg is a dead link, so ideally a link would be added to a previous version of the page or the image linked to at its new location if it's moved, but that's not a big enough issue to slow down the FAC imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A fascinating article and a good read. I'm happy that all my WIAFA-based comments have been addressed. I'd still suggest finding an archive URL for the image dead link, and I'll leave the comparison with other clouds fro consideration, but neither is essential, in my view, for promotion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Overall a good work that appears to satisfy the FA criteria. There were a few statements that needed refinement, but I performed a copy-edit rather than listing them here. Hopefully those revisions are to your satisfaction. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [32].

SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Friedrich der Grosse was the flagship of the High Seas Fleet for the majority of World War I and saw heavy service, including the Battle of Jutland; she was ultimately scuttled in Scapa Flow at the end of the war and later raised for scrapping. I wrote this article back in December last year; it has since passed a GA review a MILHIST A-class review. I feel this article is very close to FA quality, and any issues that are identified can be addressed during the review. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • DAB/EL check - There are no dead links but there are two dabs. GamerPro64 20:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. TGilmour (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. Parsecboy (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had reviewed the article at A-class review and have nothing to add here. But I still can't get over the fact that Grosse is spelled without the Eszett ß. Well done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The crewmen intentionally worked slow as a form of passive resistance" - source?
  • Smolke or Schmolke?
  • Be consistent in how page ranges are notated. For example, why "pp. 246–7" but "pp. 231–232"?
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations, and if so in what cases those are wikilinked. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does what is essentially a dictionary definition really require a citation? Would linking "go-slow" to Slowdown rather than using the footnote make everyone happy?
    • Fixed the rest. Thanks for checking these, Nikkimaria. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose & citation review -- prose generally appears to be good, and all statements appear to be cited; some points:

  • Friedrich der Grosse was assigned to the III Squadron of the High Seas Fleet -- is it standard in the German Navy to say "the III Squadron" and not simply "III Squadron" (as we tend to in the Commonwealth)? If it was "3rd Squadron" the definite article would make sense but appears not.
  • In early 1914, Friedrich der Grosse participated in additional ship and unit training. -- What is a "unit" in this instance?
  • At 17:45, Scheer ordered a
    two-point
    turn to port to bring his ships closer to the British battlecruisers and the accompanying fast battleships of the 5th Battle Squadron; a minute later, the order to open fire was given.     -- Was it Scheer who gave the order? Be nice to avoid the passive voice here and say that so-and-so did it.
  • The series of reversals in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and inverted the order -- What exactly do you mean by "inverted" here?
  • made clear to von Reuter -- Must admit I thought "von" was capitalised when not preceded by the first name but perhaps I'm wrong, pls clarify for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't actually know - I mainly have been doing that because it sounds right in my head (i.e., if one reads III aloud as Third)
    • "Unit" here refers to the III Squadron
    • Yes, Scheer gave the order - passive voice fixed.
    • Substituted "reversed" for "inverted" - is that clearer now?
    • I believe it should be capitalized just by itself if there is no name or rank. Thanks again, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re. "the III Squadron", I'm not going to make a fuss about it myself, main thing is that you're consistent
      • Re. "unit", that's fine, just wanted to make sure it wasn't equivalent to "ship", which would've been redundant
      • Re. change to active voice, tks
      • Re. "inverted", sorry to be a dog worrying a bone but in what way was the order "reversed" -- do you mean it was cancelled by whoever gave it, overturned by someone else in authority, or simply ignored by the fleet? I'm keen not just to get the nuance right, but also to avoid "reversed" appearing in the same sentence as "reversals"... ;-)
      • Re. "Von", tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's just that the order of the ships was reversed (i.e., SMS König led the line initially but afterward was located close to the rear of the formation). Parsecboy (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • OMG, you didn't mean "order" as in "command", but "order" as in "sequence"...?! Heh, sorry but earlier you had "Scheer ordered the fleet..." and I gathered it was this order (command) that was "inverted" (or reversed or overturned, etc). Okay, let's start again but clarify: how about The series of reversals in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and inverted the sequence of the ships (or The series of alterations in course and confused maneuvers disorganized the fleet and reversed the sequence of the ships) if that's what you mean. Don't you love the English language? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yup, gotta love multiple meanings for the same word that aren't exactly clear from context :) I opted for the first wording. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(OD)Support on reviewed criteria: 1(a), 1(d), 1(e), 2, and 4. Cool. In addition to the above, neutrality, stability, style, and detail criteria appear to be met. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 04:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images used in article are acceptably PD. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really meets the criteria. Brilliant article. TGilmour (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the article, but TGilmour is a blocked sockpuppet.
Wha? 02:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Parsecboy, could you please remind me whether you've had a close paraphrasing check in another FAC? I lose track, and we've seen many issues lately in MilHist articles ... not to pick on you :) Independent review is lacking, but it seems ships rarely get that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had one - I took a bit of time off from FAC (and Wikipedia in general) for a couple of months, which seems to have coincided with the close paraphrasing issue coming out. Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you ping Nikkimaria, she may do it, but the poor dear is terribly overworked :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I can - it's pretty much all print sources, most of which I don't have easy access to. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the actual issue/checking procedure, but here goes: Staff Battleships pg. 6 (not p. 14), Gardiner, Barrett and Halpern are mostly in Google books; I didn't see anything close with the Staff, Gardiner or Barrett refs, but with Halpern Citation 46 was ok, but 47 has close-paraphrasing.
Article: On 18 September, the order was issued for a joint operation with the army to capture Ösel and Moon Islands;... vs. Halpern p.214 The doubts were overcome, and on 18 September the orders for the joint operation to capture Ösel and Moon Island were issued.
Parsecboy, citation 3 doesn't say anything about a replacement for the obsolete coastal defense ship Heimdall, you probably need to cite that separately.
I can try to review Tarrant since its over half of the citations; the 1995 version is my library. Kirk (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does this change look re: Halpern?
There's still a lot of words (order, joint operation, capture, issue) in common but I can see the argument those are all technical terms. I'd ping one of the admins because I don't know exactly what they want to address - it might have been fine as is. Kirk (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a third opinion would be fine (perhaps Nikkimaria could take a look at this?) - I've always thought that paraphrasing had more to do with similar sentence structure than with word choice, but I could be wrong.
talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It's both, but in this particular case I'd say it's been sufficiently rephrased. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Ersatz" means "replacement", I was just spelling it out for non-German speakers. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, sorry about that! Kirk (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I can see why you thought that.
talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [33].

Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri

Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FAC nomination in over two years. The subject is a fairly unknown game by Looking Glass Studios—one whose poorly planned development and massive commercial failure helped put an early end to the company's self-publishing venture. This article is the third regarding this company that I've brought to FAC; I plan to make a habit of it in the coming months. It's passed GAN, it's been thoroughly worked over at peer review (special thanks go to User:Prime Blue for his help) and, in my opinion, it meets the FA criteria. However, as you're the ultimate judge of that, I'll just stop talking now and let the nomination commence. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with a minor nitpick, "With sales above 100,000 units, Terra Nova was a commercial failure; it did not recoup its development costs." Above 100,000? This reads strangely to me, wouldn't a game that does badly be described as selling below a figure, and how would that figure compare to other more successful games? Other than that I think this a a perfectly good article and deserving of that little star in the top right corner. Coolug (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks. I have considered the strangeness of that wording; however, the source I'm using places sales "above 100,000", and no sources I've found have compared its performance to that of other games. I've tried rephrasing the sentence many times, and this version is, in my opinion, the least terrible. If you have an idea on how to fix the issue, though, I'd love to hear it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe just remove the sales figure altogether? Something like"Terra Nova was a commercial failure, and did not sell sufficiently to recoup its development costs", I think if the information in a source is rubbish then there's no obligation to include it and I don't think that the article will lose out too much from missing this, the source is there should any readers want to delve any further into figures. Coolug (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eh, I'm not sure that's the best course of action. Removing fairly key information just to increase sentence flow isn't really my style. I try to get sales numbers whenever possible, and it's practically a miracle that they exist for this game. Looking again at the source material, it doesn't use the wording I thought it did; it's been months since I last looked at it. Here's a direct quote of the section: "Terra Nova, despite sales in excess of 100,000 units, never earned out." Perhaps I could change the wording to, "Although it sold over 100,000 units, Terra Nova was a commercial failure, and it did not recoup its development costs"? Tell me what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as peer reviewer. Found two small passages while rereading the development section, though: A release is given for System Shock – "(released in 1994)" – but not for Flight Unlimited. In the direct quote "there was a void to fill and I bubbled up to it", I think the "I" needs to be "[he]". Disregarding those minor qualms, you put a lot of work in the article and I support it as much as I can. Definitely deserves to be a featured article. Prime Blue (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! And I fixed the second concern. As for the date problem, Flight Unlimited's release is mentioned at the beginning of the final sentence in the first paragraph, directly before the sentence in question. I've wondered in the past if this could be made less jarring, but no ideas have come to me. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) [Translations added 13:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]

  • the ellipses (...) improperly had square brackets
    , but there may be other problems]
  • Is the game manual paginated? It (and several other print references) need page numbers [Does the game manual have page numbers? If so, you should include those for references to it. Other print (non-web, non-game) references also need page numbers]
  • Ref 7: page formatting [A single page should be notated with "pg." or "p." (pick one consistently), not "pp.", which is used for multiple pages]
  • Ref 8: don't repeat publisher (applies to similar refs) ["Looking Glass Technologies. Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri. (Looking Glass Technologies)." - the repetition of "Looking Glass Technologies" is unnecessary, and should be removed both here and in other refs that repeat it]
  • What makes this a high-quality
    reliable source
    ?
  • You seem to be using a relatively large number of primary sources - prefer third-party sources
  • In general reference format needs a lot of cleanup for consistency. [In addition to including all required information (publisher, title, etc), the formatting of each reference should be consistent]. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said above, I haven't nominated an article for FAC in two years. I'm not familiar with a lot of the shorthand you used ("issues with quotes", "paginated", "page formatting", "repeat publisher", for example), having been out of the loop for quite some time. If you or someone else could elaborate on the points you brought up, I'd be grateful. As for that source, it's an interview with the company's co-founder; as far as I know, there are special rules regarding reliability for those. Also, the primary sources are used mainly for the Plot section, which could not adequately be covered by anything else. You've got to understand that I've mined every possible third-party source here; there's not a lot to go on. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to come off as snippy, but have to come to Jimmy's defense a bit here. If an editor takes the time to source a plot section with primary sources (which most other users are too lazy to do), I don't think it should be held against him for using too few third-party sources – that is, unless you skimmed through the references and did not notice they were used for the plot section. As for the RPGDot reference: interviews fall under primary sources and are considered reliable by
      WP:VG unless there is reasonable evidence to doubt the source (e.g. interview looks fake, site is known for spreading misinformation). Prime Blue (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Support as peer reviewer- A couple of points I've found in this go-round:
  • Do you really need to break apart The Age's review score into 4 parts? Given that none of the other ones are like that, if they didn't use a summary score I'd just drop them from the table; their scores aren't far off of the others.
  • "The game's characters are procedurally animated via physics and..." animated via physics? Maybe animated via a physic model. Same goes for "Physics are also used to simulate weapon recoil" - it just sounds weird to me to refer to a science discipline as if it was a thing.
  • It's fairly typical for developers and game journalists to refer to a game's use of simulated physical models as merely "physics". I don't actually know enough about the concept to tell if that's strange or not, so I'll take your word for it. Changed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--PresN 23:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand why this Gamespot link is in the "External Links" section. As well, I have trouble looking at it. I don't know if its a url trouble or something. GamerPro64 21:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was there before I started working on the article. I never bothered to remove it, and it didn't have enough information to use as a reference, so it's just stayed put. I see that it's completely broken now, though; I've replaced it with an archive link. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No image review, no source check for adherence to sources and close paraphrasing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image specialist needed to look at the resolution/FUR on the screenshot image (the infobox image is fine). Also, the caption of the screenshot image is rather confusing, especially given that at least one of the acronyms is not defined until a couple of paragraphs later. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale on the image states, "To illustrate the gameplay concepts and interface elements described in the prose, which would likely confuse readers without a visual aid," yet after reading through the section on the gameplay, I find myself understanding the basic elements entirely fine (The article says "the HUD contains three "Multi-Function Displays" (MFDs); these may be configured to display tactical information, such as squad command menus, maps and weapon statistics" which is a pretty good description of the image already), so I actually don't think the screenshot is really necessary. It's beneficial yes, but not required. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty loath to drop the article's sole image of gameplay. Is there some way I could make the image relevant again by strengthening the rationale? I've always been fairly bad at writing them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also: readers entirely unfamiliar with video games would probably find the text impenetrable without the screenshot. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've found theft to be a useful skill in this regard; the fair-use rationale for Resident Evil 2 was praised in the nom above, so I copied the language there and modified it to apply to this case. I think it's better now, and I would fully agree that had I not played a game with a HUD like that before I would not really be able to visualize what it looked like without an image. --PresN 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help; I appreciate it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale does read better now, so it meets my satisfaction. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Also, Nikkimaria: I tweaked the caption for clarity. Take a look. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the actual text for the FURs is fine, although I think that you could shrink down File:TerraNovaLandscape.gif a bit more to maybe 480-540 pixels without making the text illegible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. One question, though: what would the second numbers of those resolutions be? I'm not particularly image-savvy. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A 520px image would have a vertical pixel count of 325; a 480px image would have a pixel count of 300. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Reuploaded the screenshot at 480px. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck for accurate representation of sources and close paraphrasing missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been asking on
    WT:VG for someone to do this, but no bites yet. Sorry it's taking so long. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Paraphrasing check - alright, I don't know where that plagiarism script is so I had to do it all manually, and I now have even more respect for the reviewers that do it a lot than I already did. Spotchecked most of the available sources; no close paraphrasing or misrepresentation of sources found. --PresN 20:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nitpicking, commence: —  
    TALK
Resolved comments on talk page

Support - Oh, noes! Nothing more to pick on :) Oh well, support, great job! —  

TALK 06:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Ha! Anyway, thanks for the support and thorough review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have about 20 citations to a 76-page range of a manual-- how are readers to find the individual pages cited in a range that large?

  • Hart, Dorian; Yaus, Jeff (1996). Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri manual. Looking Glass Technologies. pp. 1–76.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a general rule, I avoid breaking down print sources into individual page citations. I tried that once, but found it both unhelpful for research and unintuitive for article writing. And, as far as I know, there's no rule that says I have to do it—only one that says citations must be consistent, which is the case here. Anyway, I don't think that most people will feel the need to examine the manual; it contains nothing of interest to the average reader. I used it almost exclusively to cite gameplay information, the credits, and basic plot elements. All of these things are completely uncontroversial, and do not incite readers to "dig deeper", so to speak. I did not originally list a page range on the reference, since it's used from cover to cover, but Nikkimaria asked me to add one. As a result, I cited the manual's full length: 76 pages. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was sure print sources were to be cited with appropriate page numbers/locations. After all, how would one find where the supporting material is, even in short sources. On the other hand, I am fine with game manual being cited without page numbers, if it supports non-controversial material, such as plot/gameplay. I would have cited the pages myself, but that's my preference, which I think shouldn't be enforced. —  
      TALK 13:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Well, I was specifically referring to this style of referencing. It's how I would have to cite the various pages of the manual, and a ridiculous amount of them would be required (unless I added some 30+ individual page numbers to the current ref, which isn't much better). I always include page numbers/ranges for non-game manual print sources, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I went ahead and added page numbers to the current ref. They take up an absurd amount of space, even after eliminating those that fall in a direct range. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [34].

Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 12:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forget what you've read about stuffy old-fashioned Georgian social values, the truth was that if you wanted a bit of hows-your-father, London, specifically Covent Garden, was the place to go. And if, once there, you wanted to know where the best prostitutes might be found, from out-of-work actresses to rich courtesans to rotten old hags, then Harris's List was what you bought - if you could afford it. Harris's List somehow escaped the censors for about 40 years, before a society of busybodies realised that its publishers (who remain largely anonymous) could be done on a trumped-up libel charge. Few copies remain today, but those that do provide a valuable insight into the seedier side of Georgian London. Parrot of Doom 12:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Missing bibliographic info for Raven 1992
    • Done.
  • FN 32: seems like the italicization should be almost the reverse of what it is now. Same for FN 59
    • That's a function of the template used, however, I added italics to the titles and it seems to have fixed it.
  • FN 45: need dash in page range. Also, is 1970 part of the title?
    • I use whatever formatting the page sourced uses, if it uses a hyphen then so do I. I fixed the year though both.
  • FN 48: should note that login is required
    • Done.
  • Denlinger 2002: number shouldn't be part of the title
    • Done.
  • Location for Henderson 1999 and Cruickshank 2010? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inflation is fantastic, a guide on how to do it, "Priced in 1788 at two shillings sixpence, Harris's List was affordable for the middle classes, but expensive for a working class man." with footnotes. This contextualises any other use of 18th century figures adequately for a reader. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Covent_garden_c1720.jpg: use creation or publication rather than upload date

Licensing and captions are otherwise unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • So much for the shiny new Commons uploader. Fixed. Parrot of Doom 18:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments phoowaawwrrr - enough of that, I'll copyedit as I go and jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
published from 1757–1795 - looks odd combining from and a dash --> "published from 1757 to 1795"?
Agreed, fixed.
between 120–190 - ditto "+ and" instead of the dash..?
Changed to "about 120..."


frowned on --> "frowned upon"?
I think upon is a little formal for discussion of prostitutes and the like. The two words are interchangeable. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I'll pay that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some editions may have been written by Samuel Derrick (why the bold?)
Well, I was about to create Samuel Derrick for real, replacing the redirect, but someone else decided to restore it and bold the text, so I didn't bother. I'm not sure if things need to be bolded in that instance or not.
I de-bolded as it ain't in the lead...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Covent Garden was not spared, and the Shakespear's Head Tavern was raided. - lack of a time attached leaves the reader hanging a bit. Can any temporal addendum be added at all?
Same time as the general raids (hence, "not spared"). There's no precise date AFAIK. Parrot of Doom 09:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it can't be added then it can't be added....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise a fun read and eminently and imminently supportable :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead, "A Grub Street hack," In this context, "hack" is not easily understood, at least to me. Perhaps this is a bit of British English with which I'm not familiar? Repeated in "Possible authors" section.
    • Hack linked.
  • Commentary, "Some lists also contain defences of prostitution; earlier editions claim that the trade guarded against the seduction of young women, provided an outlet for frustrated married men, and kept other young men from "le péche [sic] que la Nature désavoue [the sin that Nature repudiates]", or sodomy." Some of this sentence seems redundant to the preamble described in the first paragraph of the Content section.
    • The point is to introduce the reader to the idea that the lists' authors were ambivalent toward homosexuality. The previous mention of the preamble is just a physical description of the first pages of each list.
  • Commentary, "and while generally, most entries in the lists look favourably on those women who refrained from swearing" I'm not understanding the need for the comma?
    • Breathing space.
  • Possible authors, "who lived with the actress Jane Lessingham," Is this actress well known in Britain? Because I have never heard of her, and so my first thought was "so why should I care that he lived with her?"
    • A notable actress who doesn't have an article yet. She has an OED entry.
  • Possible authors, "Born perhaps around 1720–1730," Is "perhaps around" redundant?
    • No, the date, or even the range of dates, is unknown. Parrot of Doom 07:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very nice (and very interesting) article on a publication that I had never heard of. I kept getting sidetracked reading all of the articles about the madams and prostitutes though - a treasury of Wikipedia information that I had not stumbled across before. A few comments above; when these are resolved I shall be happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the above. Everything else looks good, so changing to support. Great work! Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read through this some time ago, and I can't find any serious issues now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. I have a couple more sentences to add on the Roaches (publishers), but nothing critical. Just been a bit preoccupied lately with other matters. I'll do it in the next few days. Parrot of Doom 14:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A couple of prose points in the lead:-

  • "two shillings sixpence" is not idiomatic. It was "two shillings and sixpence" (I'm old enough to remember)
    • You're surely not 250 years old ;) The wording above is the same as that used by the source, but it isn't something I'm at all attached to.
      • Well, it's my birthday today, though I'm not quite 250. Notwithstanding the wording in the source, I think you should write in today's idiom, not that of 250 years ago. As written it looks wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "A contemporary report estimates in 1791 that it sold about 8,000 copies annually" is wrongly constructed. You could say "A 1791 report..." or "A contemporary report (1791) estimates that..." but not as written.

I'll try to read the rest in the next day or so, and leave further comments. An intriguing article, I must say. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [35].

Astonishing Stories

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing Stories was a relatively minor science fiction magazine, but it managed to publish early fiction by some of the biggest names in the field, such as

Robert Heinlein. It also launched the editorial career of Frederik Pohl, one of the most important sf magazine editors; he was only nineteen when Popular Publications hired him. It lasted for sixteen issues, from 1940 to 1943. The covers are out of copyright so I've been able to include several as illustrations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clute & Nicholls or Nicholls & Clute?
  • Shorten citations to Way the Future Was or The Way the Future Was?
  • No citations to del Rey
  • Where is Garden City? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Thanks for the source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support this excellent article, but inevitably with a couple of minor comments:

  • "Popular saved money by using whichever word count was shorter—the author's count or a recount done by Popular's staff. The result was a savings of forty to fifty dollars per issue. Some more space was saved by reusing snipped elements of black and white illustrations to fill space in the issue; multiple uses of the same artwork did not require additional payments to the artist." It wasn't exactly a "recount", as Popular's staff didn't do the first count, but more importantly is the emphasis of the third sentence. We're in a section describing cost savings, not space savings, therefore I think the sentence needs to be flipped around a bit to reflect that.
  • "Instead of replacing him directly, Popular assigned editor-in-chief Alden H. Norton to edit the magazines." I'm not at all sure what "replacing him directly" means.

Fatuorum 00:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Both reworded; let me know if either still seems unclear or inaccurate. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me now, hope you didn't mind my fiddling around with your opus.
Fatuorum 02:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Not at all; as always your copyedit was a big help. There's just one change you made that didn't look right to me: shouldn't "Norton offered Pohl a higher salary as an associate editor than he had received when he was the editor" be "when he had been the editor"? It's past perfect, isn't it, since we're talking about an event further in the past? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, the tenses didn't quite match. On the other hand I think that "he had received when he had been the editor" is a bit wordy, so my alternative offering is "Norton offered Pohl a higher salary as an associate editor than he had received as the editor". But of course it's ultimately up to you, I'm just suggesting stuff.
Fatuorum 14:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The Image - Astonishing issues grid.png is an image of a table. It's better to show tables as tables.
It says The colors identify the editors. Coding isn't accessible if it relies on colour.
Is it possible to produce the table as a table? Lightmouse (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article does include the same information, either in the caption or elsewhere in the article, so I think the information is still accessible to a colour-blind reader. For the general question, there have been previous discussions, and I set up a sandbox to show the best available table versus the image. The layout goals for a table are described on the talk page of that sandbox. If we can resolve those issues I would be happy to switch to a table but currently I don't think the presentation justifies it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I forgot our previous discussion about this issue. Can anyone else find a solution? Lightmouse (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across a good example of a table that may be a template for you. See 1952_Winter_Olympics#Calendar. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does that one solve the problem of text running too close to the table when you float the table so text runs round it? That's one of the ugliest things about the current floating tables. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, saw this on LM's contribs list. Ah yes, I remember this issue from when it was raised before. I must say, the general look of these screen-shot tables is not so good to me. The blue and yellow for the two editors is a nice idea, and to us non-colour-blind it's all rather a bore to clip our wings by not using colour-coding (apologies to LM); but I get the point. Perhaps a discreet asterisk for Norton's editions instead of the colour? Tony (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't create a myth that accessibility forbids colour on web pages. That's as false as saying it also forbids stairs in hospitals. See:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)
"Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information."
Lightmouse (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Tony meant it quite like that. Tony, I think the key for me is that this is a visual aid that is additional to the information. The whole point is to provide a visual presentation that can supplement the text; the image/table is not the primary presentation of the data. The asterisk would not be as good at conveying the information at a glance, and in many cases there are more than two editors, so multiple colours are needed. See Planet Stories, for example. I do want this to be accessible, but I think I have two bad options at the moment -- a table with layout problems or an image that is inaccessible to screen readers. I think the image is the better choice at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - ignoring the table discussion above, licensing appears unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support from Steve T • C. This is an excellent article; nice work on finding so much information about what was a marginal publication in the history of SF. My only real comments concern a couple of ambiguous points, and a few snippets of information that you may or may not wish to include. Feel free to disregard any of these; some of them merely provide additional detail (trivia, even) around points the article already makes, or may place too much emphasis on one author, so their inclusion or otherwise won't affect my support:
    • "Stowaway" appeared in Astonishing under the name "The Callistan Menace". Is there any reason you've gone with the former title here, other than that it was the story's first (and presumably, Asimov's preferred) title?
      I think I had a reason, but I can't remember it so I've changed it to the published title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In March 1940, Pohl told Asimov that the response to "Half Breed" was such that he felt justified in asking for a sequel, the first time that Asimov had been asked to write one. According to Asimov, "Half-Breeds on Venus" (at ten thousand words long) was the longest he had sold up to that time, and "Pohl's magazines were doing so well that his budget had been increased and he was able to pay me five eights of a cent a word for it – $62.50". Submitted to Pohl on June 3, "Half Breeds on Venus" marked the first time an Asimov story provided the cover art for a magazine.
      The financial details are captured in a footnote which you may have overlooked; I thought it didn't need to be more prominent than that, but let me know if you disagree. The point about it being Asimov's first cover story I considered but decided was not really necessary detail for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that's fine. The bit about the financial arrangements I'd spotted in the footnotes, but I didn't know if it was worth the very minor elaboration Asimov provided, at the expense of loss of focus. Same goes for the first cover point, so I'm fine with your choices in both cases. Steve T • C
    • "Heredity" (nicely pictured) was yet another that was rejected by Campbell at Astounding before finding a home with Pohl. Maybe the wider point about Pohl's willingness, and indeed enthusiasm, for snapping up rejected stories could be made clearer, but this might be harder to cite.
      I do have a sentence about this at the top of the Contents section -- do you think more is needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Ha. That's what I get for splitting my last read-through into two. Never mind. :-) Steve T • C
    • According to Asimov, Pohl was relieved of his editorship because his magazines had begun to sell poorly, which seems to conflict slightly with the implication in this article that Pohl left the magazine because his request for a raise was turned down.
      This jibes well with a comment in The Way the Future Was about Steeger having complaints; I've added that and put Asimov's supporting comments in a footnote. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      That seems fine, considering Asimov will likely have heard about this at a step removed from Pohl. Steve T • C
    • Also according to Asimov, Astonishing was actually killed by the World War II paper shortage.
      I missed that; I've now found a mention of it in The Early Pohl and added a cite to that, which I think is a bit better than Asimov as a source since Pohl was working at Popular and would have known the reason first-hand. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Asimov's comment was a bit of a throw-away, and I hesitated to recommend it in the first place; your cite to The Early Pohl works far better. Steve T • C
  • I'll gladly provide the citations to any of these if you need them; I'm being a little lazy by not typing them out right away, but you might not want any of this information and I thought I'd save a little space. They're mainly from The Early Asimov, a collection in which Asimov provides introductions to each story while giving a few comments about its background and history, especially with regard to his relationship with the magazines and editors of the period. (Unfortunately, I've mislaid volume one, which IIRC contains some possibly-useful information about publication of "The Callistan Menace" and "Half-Breed"—if you can access a copy, it may be worth the time.) But, once again, nice work. Steve T • C 20:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for these -- very helpful. I should have thought of going through The Early Asimov, but it never occurred to me. Let me know if you think more is needed on the points above; and thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me; I hoped to find something in I, Asimov too, but as he does with most subjects in that book, Asimov applies too broad a brush just at the points when fine detail would be useful to us. All the best, Steve T • C 00:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image issues resolved with their removals Oppose for image copyright issues: The copyrights for all issues of this periodical have been properly renewed; as such, the three (or any) covers (I have noted their registrations in their PUFs) are copyrighted material and would have to satisfy all 10 NFCCs if left in the article. Jappalang (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All cover images removed -- I don't have a sufficient justification to keep them if they're not free. I would very much like to know how you found these; I use this as my guide to finding copyright, and the Project Gutenberg listing linked there does not contain that renewal as far as I can see. I've used that to search for several other magazine renewals so I would like to recheck other articles I've written. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments: I have a few suggestions for the language in the first section.
    • "Frederik Pohl, a young science fiction reader, was looking for a job that year, and visited Robert Erisman, who was the editor of two pulps, Marvel Science Stories and Dynamic Science Stories, to ask for a job as an assistant."
      "Frederik Pohl, a young science fiction reader, was looking for a job that year. He asked Robert Erisman, who was the editor of two pulps, Marvel Science Stories and Dynamic Science Stories, for a job as an assistant."
      Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Erisman turned him down, but suggested ..."
      "Erisman turned him down and suggested ..."
      Not so sure, but I think suggesting an alternative is not necessarily a contradiction (or unexpected action) to a rejection?
      I'd like to leave this as is -- I think the underlying sense is that Pohl attempts to get a job, he fails, but he then gets an opportunity. The "but" is contrasting failure with possible success. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... new line of low-paying magazines ..."
      I think "low-paying" is redundant here (and hence can be removed for a smoother read), considering a fuller exposition is given later.
      Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Astonishing's first issue was dated February 1940; it was bimonthly, with Super Science Stories appearing in the alternate months."
      "Astonishing's first issue was dated February 1940; it was a bimonthly periodical, alternating monthly with Super Science Stories."
      I made part of this change -- I left out "periodical" as I think it's unnecessarily wordy at that point; the reader knows it's a periodical. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am favourable to support this article, pending the resolution of the above image issues. Jappalang (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review. I have a question about the svg you created (for which thank you); I'll post that at your talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No problems, I have answered your query. As for this article it was an brief, entertaining, and educational read. Pohl's actions as an editor who buys his own stories does raise my eyebrow on his ethics—and if he was discovered, but I do not think this is necessarily part of the coverage for this periodical. So I am now supporting this article for FA. Jappalang (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. Re Pohl: I'm sure I've seen a comment in his memoirs to the effect that one reason he used a lot of pseudonyms was to conceal from Popular how many stories he was buying from himself. If I can find that I might add a footnote; it implies he was doing something he shouldn't, but I think it was also clear from context that Popular expected him to do it to some extent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [36].

Resident Evil 2

Nominator(s): Prime Blue (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the previous nomination, the article underwent an extensive peer review by JimmyBlackwing, during which the prose was largely reworked to fulfill criterion 1a of the featured article criteria. I think that this addressed the concerns of those who opposed the last time, so I am giving Resident Evil 2 another shot at FAC...before the inevitable remake comes along. Prime Blue (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - You are right that most of that is preference. I read through the rest of the article, and (I have played the game) and understood everything and find it to be written very well. You have earned my support.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your prose review and support. Prime Blue (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as peer reviewer. It's, in my opinion, a comprehensive, neutral, nicely written and well-researched piece of work that should definitely be featured. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media mostly checks out (kudos for the detailed and accurate rationales on the screenshots) but the rationale on the sound file could do with a cleanup (a more explicit purpose of use, tied into the article text, as with the screenshots). J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the cookie-cutter fair-use rationale and wrote a stronger one. Prime Blue (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I was happy with it last time, and it qualifies still WRT prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is fraught with Japanese text/letters, is it necessary? TGilmour (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only noticed Japanese characters in the lead translation of the game's title. Are you referring to the characters used in the quote-refs? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, in the refs. They seem superfluous. TGilmour (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I included the Japanese and German quotes in accordance with
          WP:NONENG ("When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote"). Prime Blue (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Understood.

Has there been a source review or spotchecks yet? Karanacs (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 1: page(s)?
  • Does Suleputer provide catalog numbers for album notes?
  • Ellipses shouldn't use square brackets unless the quote uses ellipses
  • You seem to be relying rather heavily on Resident Evil Archives
  • Ref 32: pages?
  • Ref 35: check formatting
  • There are a number of print sources missing page numbers, which are required for verifiability
  • Why are some of the "(in Japanese)" notations in a different colour?
  • What makes this a high-quality
    reliable source? What are the author's qualifications? Same for this and this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Source of ref 35 does not have page numbers. Worked off of scans for some other references – which did not specify the exact page numbers within the works (I guess some do not have page numbers either). Forgot catalog numbers for albums, added. Had no idea that added ellipses do not use square brackets on Wikipedia, changed. Usage of single sources might have seemed a little heavy because I had a habit of sourcing consecutive sentences with identical references – removed those now. Outside of a few design comments in the development section, Resident Evil Archives is used exclusively for plot-related information. Ref 35 formatting fixed. {{
list of reliable sources. Thank you for your checks. Prime Blue (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Have spotchecks for close paraphrasing and correct representation of sources been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, someone wanted to check it, but I guess he hasn't gotten to it yet. I requested a review on the project talk page. Prime Blue (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing spotchecks - checked most of the most-used online references; no close paraphrasing found. --PresN 02:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The article looks to be well researched and maintained to be a Featured Article. GamerPro64 22:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [37].

No. 79 Squadron RAAF

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the history and current role of one of the Royal Australian Air Force's most interesting squadrons. No. 79 Squadron saw combat in World War II between 1943 and 1945, was reformed to be deployed to Thailand for six years during the Cold War, was briefly active as a fighter unit based in Malaysia in the late 1980s and has provided initial jet aircraft training to new RAAF pilots since 1998. The article passed a GA review in January and a military history wikiproject A class review in March and has since been further improved (including through a copyedit conducted by Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs)). As such, I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • EN 3: why include title here?
    • Because it's a website with no page numbers, but I agree that it's not needed (as a note, the website was created by the author of the book Darwin Spitfires to publish additional material and appendices to expand upon the print edition. The book was professionally published by the University of New South Wales Press, so the website is a RS).
  • EN 46: need endash in page range
    • Done
  • EN 51, 58: don't repeat RAAF
    • Done
  • EN 55, 56: page(s)?
    • Done
  • Where is Weston Creek?
    • In the ACT, added
  • Sadler: volume, issue, pages? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added (the magazine uses a combination of date and number to designate each issue). Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. (Caveat: I didn't check the new subsection No. 79 Squadron RAAF#Butterworth. Also, in No. 79 Squadron RAAF#Current status, it seems odd to be using the present tense with 2004 ... do you have any more recent information?) - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Re the 2004 information about the duration of training courses; unfortunately not. This isn't the kind of thing which is frequently published outside of official government reports. It's likely that the course structure hasn't changed much (if at all) since then. I've fiddled with the wording to remove the tense issues. Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- good work as usual, from memory I reviewed this at MilHist ACR but have gone through it again from top to bottom:

  • Prose: Completed my usual copyedit but generally looked fine -- no further issues as far as I'm concerned.
  • Structure: Looks good, just not sure why you don't employ your usual (and for me preferred) "Citations" instead of "End notes" or, more particularly, "Bibliography" instead of "Works consulted".
    • Not sure either; I imagine that it made sense to me at the time. I've changed the headings. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing: All points cited, all references look reliable, just slight inconsistency in the bibliography since you include retrieval dates for Pathfinder and NAA, but not Cooper and Fruhling.
    • Fixed
  • Supporting materials: Image licensing, captions, alt text look okay.
  • Detail: Thorough without being overpowering.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments and edits Ian Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:CartwheelAreaMap.jpg - is the author known?

Licensing and captions are otherwise unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it's signed 'F. Temple' in the original (available here). I've just updated the image's record on Commons to reflect this. Thanks again for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Comments by Rodw

  • What do the phrases "These raids did not eventuate immediately" & "No air threat eventuated" mean & could they be put more simply?
    • Done
  • The link to Mitsubishi A6M Zero has the text A6M "Zero" with speech marks around Zero which doesn't seem to be used for other aircraft types. Is there a particular reason for this?
    • 'Zero' was the Allied fighter pilots' reporting name for this kind of Japanese fighter, which has since morphed into its common name in the west (and in Japan as well, I think). I've also provided the reporting names for the other Japanese aircraft mentioned in the article (eg, "Tony" for the Kawasaki Ki-61). English-language sources tend to use both the Japanese name and the World War II era reporting name, so there's a need to include both.
      • The speech marks for "Tony" are outside the wikilink which is probably why I didn't spot them. Not sure if this needs to be made consistent.— Rod talk 07:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement "flying was hampered by a shortage of spare parts" isn't supported by a reference. Do we have evidence this was the reason or is it speculation? Ref 14 or 16 a few sentences later may apply but this is unclear as they are separated by a bit about the death of the Squadron Leader.
    • That's supported by reference 14. I've repeated the reference at the end of this sentence though as I agree that it could be clearer.
  • Who/what/where is "Butterworth" & what is the connection with "Malaysia's policy of neutrality"?
    • RAAF Base Butterworth is specified as being in Malaysia when its first mentioned in both the lead and the body of the article. Malaysia's neutrality towards the perceived threat to Thailand is noted in the third sentence of the first para in the 'Ubon' section.
      • Sorry I missed this - you are right it is clear on second reading.— Rod talk 07:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are battle honours for WWII & Thailand given out so many years after the deployments?— Rod talk 19:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good question. The Ubon honour was issued as part of series of new battle honours to mark the RAAF's 90th anniversary (I've added a note to the article on this), but I'll need to look into the rationale for the World War II honours. In the last couple of years the Australian military has handed out quite a few retrospective battle honours, and I presume that this is part of that process. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not having any luck with finding the reason for the delayed World War II honours... Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support It would still be nice to know about the delayed honours but I can't see any other issues so I'm happy to support.— Rod talk 06:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [38].

London Necropolis Company

Nominator(s):  – 
iridescent 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Depending on your point of view, the LNC was either a visionary attempt to use new technology to solve a public health crisis and to introduce the concept of dignity to funerals for the poor, or it ranks alongside Mirabel Airport and the Atmospheric Railway as one of the great examples of harebrained overengineering schemes. If it's remembered at all today it's generally only as the operator of one of the world's more peculiar railway lines, but it had an enormous impact; the LNC was directly or indirectly responsible for the world's largest cemetery (since overtaken, but still the largest in the UK), the introduction of cremation to England, one of the most important military memorials in the Commonwealth, the resurrection of the cult of King Edward the Martyr, and the creation of the town of

iridescent 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 21: why include "(News)" here?
  • Note 22: ref link appears to be broken
  • Use a consistent date format. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations to The Times traditionally have a different citation format than citations to other newspapers, for reasons lost in the dim-and-distant past; the section and column number (in this case "News" and "D") are always included, whereas they're not for other papers. It's why we have the separate {{Cite newspaper The Times}} template. It is worth keeping the section-and-column in, as those are what the Times archives are organized by so it makes it much easier for readers to check the sources for themselves.
  • Fixed a missing anchor; should work now.
  • As far as I can see, it is consistent (D M Y in text, yyyy-mm-dd in references). Can't see any deviations on a skim-through, but point them out and I'll fix them. – 
    iridescent 17:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Fixed it, thanks—an artefact of the "helpful" new editing interface which autocompletes the accessdate field. That's the only online citation in the article, so there shouldn't be any other instances. – 
    iridescent 17:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Perhaps you have your reasoning, but I was confused as to why the first image did not have a description or a caption that translates its latin motto (which I was intrigued about, and think others might be too). I've translated the motto very approximately and done as per my suggestions above, but obviously revert both if it wasn't what you intended. Good luck with the article, it seems an interesting subject. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such thing as the "Logo of the London Necropolis and National Mausoleum Company", in 1852 or otherwise; AFAIK they never used an emblem of any kind other than abstract ornamentation. The concept of "corporate logo" didn't exist until much later (the first is generally considered to be the Bass Beer triangle, trademarked in 1876). This image is the seal of the LNC; I don't see any point in captioning it, but have no strong opinion either way on it if you think it's useful. I'm not sure where your translation has come from, but it's wildly out; "mortuis quies vivis salus" translates to "a good (or healthy) life and a peaceful death", not "rest is the salvation of the dead"; I've changed it. – 
iridescent 18:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
To be fair, I think the idea of that being a logo came from the filename... It is an interesting set of symbols. A
sand timer where the sand has run out (with obvious symbolism), and a worm ouroboros. It was a seal they would have used on company documentation? Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, the idea of it being a logo came from the file description, which I believe you yourself uploaded. The translation came from my bog-standard Latin knowledge - I'm glad that yours is better than mine. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support following the comments and discussions below, which have addressed the minor points I raised. The only slight concerns I still have is that the article is a tad long, and the division of the content between different articles is not 100% clear yet (though this will undoubtedly become clearer as the supporting articles are polished up). Overall, a very interesting, informative and well-written article. Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a brief comment, as the mention in the FAC blurb of a military memorial meant I just had to read this article and find out more. The major CWGC memorials in the UK that I've heard of are at Chatham, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Southampton, and Tower Hill, and it's nice to be able to read here (and in the cemetery article) about this one as well, but I'm puzzled as to why this CWGC memorial is being given prominence in an article about the London Necropolis Company. I can understand the article giving details of how the land owned by the LNC was disposed of, or set aside for other purposes, but why have a paragraph (in an article about the LNC) giving the subsequent history of that land while under the management of another organisation (the CWGC)? Did the LNC have anything at all to do with the design and construction of the memorial, or with the military cemeteries in general, and/or did the company get any income or other advantage (e.g. contract work)? I looked at the following CWGC links: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. But those don't really go into any detail. Do your sources have anything to say about the relationship between the LNC (or the later cemetery owners) and the CWGC and ABMC? Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The land was sold to the CWGC (and the US, French, Czech etc equivalents) in 1917 and 1947. (The CWGC didn't exist until May 1917, hence the delay.) The LNC built the American cemetery and the LNC's exhumation division handled the 1949 operation to exhume all Belgian casualties buried across the UK and rebury them in a single plot at Brookwood, but I'm not certain if the CWGC used their own contractors for the main cemeteries and the Brookwood Memorial. To the best of my knowledge, the LNC didn't have any direct benefit from the maintenance of the military cemeteries (there may have been the odd bit of masonry work, gardening etc, and the stations in the cemetery were used as temporary military mortuaries on occasion). There would have been indirect benefits in terms of increased publicity, people visiting the military cemeteries and deciding they wanted to be buried in the civilian cemetery, and so on, but all of that's impossible to quantify. I don't really want to go into too much detail on the military cemeteries in this article, which is explicitly about the company—however, I think they ought to be mentioned, both as an explanation for why the LNC land holdings shrank by 37 acres, and because they're the part of the Brookwood complex with which people are most likely to be familiar so I think people will expect a mention. (The Brookwood Memorial isn't well known these days, but it's a very significant one—its status as the symbolic "grave" for the missing means it's the official memorial site for the all the SOE agents who died in concentration camps, among others.) – 
    iridescent 21:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I've expanded the section slightly to try to clarify the relationships between the LNC, IWGC/CWGC and ABMC. It's a fine line; a lot of countries have cemeteries there and I don't really want an "and the Czech Military Cemetery, and the Belgian Military Cemetery, and the Italian Prisoner of War Cemetery, and the Memorial to Commonwealth Casualties in Russia, and the Free French Military Cemetery, and the Polish Military in Exile Cemetery, and the Sepoy's Cemetery…" laundry list in what's already a very long article, but equally the US and Commonwealth (particularly Canadian) cemeteries are the best-known parts of Brookwood so people will expect to see them mentioned.

    This is explicitly an article on the company, and not

    iridescent 15:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  • I looked at the sources, and noticed that most of the article is sourced to two books by John M. Clarke. I found a page on the 2004 book here. Not sure if there is a need to include the full title: 'London's Necropolis: A Guide to Brookwood Cemetery'? But what I did want to check is whether these two works, this one and the 2006 work 'The Brookwood Necropolis Railway', are the definitive guides to this company and cemetery? I also looked for a bit more about Clarke, and found this page which says he is the "founding chairman of the Brookwood Cemetery Society and author of three books on the site". My question is whether anyone else has done anything on the cemetery and company comparable to these works by Clarke, or are they the definitive guides? Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not aware of any authoritative works on the LNC other than Clarke's two books. Brookwood Park Ltd (the former LNC) has a list of publications on their website, and that doesn't mention any other histories of the company as opposed to the cemetery or railway. There are a lot of mentions in fiction and memoirs as a piece of period detail, and a lot of passing mentions of the railway in books on railway history, but to the best of my knowledge there's never been a published history of the LNC other than Clarke's. I see "A Guide to Brookwood Cemetery" as a subtitle rather than part of the title; while it's on the cover it's in very small print, and not on the spine. Worldcat seems split about whether it constitutes part of the title or not. – 
    iridescent 2 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Few more general and mostly minor comments:

  • Edwin Chadwick linked twice, referred to as Sir once and the Sir is dropped the other time (in the image caption as well).
  • Miasma explained in parentheses twice: (i) "the belief that airborne particles released by decaying flesh were the primary factor in the spread of contagious illness"; (ii) "disease-carrying vapour". Do you need both explanations?
  • After his initial introduction, Broun is mostly referred to as 'Broun', but there are three instances where the full name creeps back in in different forms, which is an inconsistency: (i) "Sir Richard Broun lobbied vigorously"; (ii) "suggested by Sir Richard Broun"; and (iii) "Although Richard Broun had calculated". The first should be just 'Broun', the second is distant enough in terms of text from the previous mention to be OK, and the third is very distant from the others, but should probably have a 'Sir' added to be consistent.
  • Is the 'Waste of Woking' mentioned in an earlier section as the intended purchase for the scheme the same as the actual purchase of the 'Woking Common' mentioned later on? Article is not clear on whether the purchase made was that envisaged by Broun and Sprye. The implication is that it is the same land, but the different name used is confusing.
  • Repetition in burial estimates: (i) "The business had been established on the basis that the cemetery would handle between 10,000 and 50,000 burials per year, but the number never exceeded 4,100 and over its first 20 years of operations averaged just 3,200"; (ii) "Although Richard Broun had calculated that over its first century of operations the cemetery would have seen around five million burials at a rate of 50,000 per year"; (iii) "Although at its founding the LNC had hoped to handle 50,000 burials per year and even without being granted a monopoly on London burials had planned for 10,000 per year". Is there a way to reduce this repetition. By the time I read this for the third time (fourth, if you include the lead section, fifth if you include another mention of the 50,000 per year figure), I was getting the distinct (and correct) impression I'd read the figures earlier in the article. Also, the "5,830,500" figure seems to be repeated in the later mention of "5,000,000" (except it has been rounded down).
  • Southern Railway (SR) is not linked. Is it the same as the (linked) 'Southern Region of British Railways' mentioned later? Actually, you say in a later bit "British Railways after 1948". I suppose it is South-West Trains now, getting back more to the LSWR days?
  • The "in terms of 2011 consumer spending power" bits grate a bit in the main text - can they not be relegated to a footnote?
  • Repetition of British Railways bit: (i) "SR (British Railways after 1948)"; (ii) "The LNC continued to lobby the SR and its 1948 successor British Railways".
  • Station history repetition: (i) "South Bar continued to operate as a refreshment kiosk"; (ii) "Following the suspension of railway services in 1941 South station had been renamed South Bar, and remained in use as a refreshment kiosk."
  • I had thought "The last operators of the refreshment kiosk in the former South station retired in the late 1960s" was repeating the earlier bit, but I see that the earlier bit about the Dendys retiring was the North Station refreshment kiosk.
  • Might be worth mentioning that Ramadan Guney died in 2006.
  • Hyphenation: should "first class" and "second class" and "third class" be hyphenated in some instances? Other possible hyphenation: "ten year window" (twice), "five year extension" (twice), "83 year old" - there may be other instances as I stopped looking at that point.

OK, most of that is minor nitpicking, but I hope it helps in polishing things up a bit more. Overall, on the second reading, it is still long, but still readable and enjoyable (though I would quail at a third reading), and can't find too much wrong with it. Will wait to see what others have to say, but will likely support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed the double-link to Edwin Chadwick. I've removed the use of "Sir" throughout when referring to knights, other than Lt. Gen. Sir Henry Goldfinch, where I've used his full title. With Richard Broun I've removed "Sir" from the text, but kept it for the explanatory biographical footnote on him, as it compares the real life Sir Richard with the fictional Sir Vavasour. I've also retained the title in the citation to Broun, as that's the name on the book.
  • I think the miasma theory (airborne transmission of toxic particles emitted by decaying corpses is the primary cause of disease) and the definition of miasma (air contaminated with such particles) are both concepts so unfamiliar to modern readers that it's worth defining both of them, even though it does mean a slight "didn't I just read this?" moment. Not sure what others think.
  • For Richard Broun, I've used his full name in those instances when he hasn't been mentioned for a while. To my eyes, that's less jarring than assuming readers at the bottom of the page will still remember who he was, while avoiding constant repetition of his full name.
  • Broun wanted a site at Brookwood, but hadn't specifically selected the site which was actually bought. His original plan was long thin cemeteries of roughly equal size, on both sides of the railway line. After Broun and Spyre left the LNC the plans were changed to include the railway line, which meant that a single cemetery extending a long way from the main line was more practical.
  • I know that "planned 50,000 burials per year" is repeated, but can't see an obvious way to avoid it; each time it's used (other than in the section on the original LNC scheme) it's used to contrast the optimistic projections with the 5% of capacity reality. (The "5,000,000 in a century" figure is actually only repeated once. The 5,830,500 is a different figure; that's the theoretical maximum number of individual plots at Brookwood. Because traditional English practice has always been for husbands, wives and children to be buried in the same plot, it doesn't mean that had the cemetery worked to capacity it would have been full in 117 years.)
  • Linked
    Southern Railway
    , which was the artificially-created company which operated the former LSWR between 1923–48 following the forced amalgamation of most of Britain's railways. South West Trains was created in the 1990s to take over services out of Waterloo; these include about 50% of the former SR.
  • Inflation is always problematic. I've intentionally used CPI as the index here, as that's what railway tickets and funeral costs most closely relate to. Because this gives slightly odd results when talking about capital expenditure, I think it's necessary to spell out in full which index is being used. (Using two different indices would I think be too confusing to the reader.)
  • I think the repetition of British Railways is probably necessary. It needs to be explained that the SR was only temporary, but I don't really want to introduce railway nationalisation too early as it distracts from the narrative.
  • Reworded to remove the repetition.
  • Reworded the part about the post-closure cemetery stations to try to make things clearer. The detailed history of these is given on London Necropolis Railway, so I've tried to keep the history on this article to a minimum.
  • I'd like to avoid going into detail on the Guney family. Cyril Tubbs's death can be seen in hindsight as marking the start of LNC decline, but the succession from Ramadan to Erkin Guney didn't have any impact on how things were run. Plus, there are certain BLP issues if the Guneys are discussed with any degree of detail.
  • I don't really like hyphenation in general. In these particular cases, my thinking is that the LNC didn't hyphenate "first class" etc (and likewise, nor do the present day Network Rail), so hyphens aren't what people reading articles on British railway lines expect to see. – 
    iridescent 18:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just a few more points, to respond to some of what you said:
  • (i) I agree that repetition of the 'Southern Railway (soon to be succeeded by British Railways)' bit is needed, as I now see that the first bit is funerals and the second bit is tickets. But this raises another question. The matter of cheaper tickets you tie up by saying that the LNC abandoned attempts to get cheaper tickets from the rail companies in the 1950s, but I don't think you say when the matter of permission for funerals ended. You say that "coffins were carried in the luggage space of the SR's coaches" - do your sources say when this ended? Have the LNC and its successor companies technically always been permitted to convey coffins to Brookwood on the railways or was the 13 May 1946 agreement about carrying funeral parties on the trains rescinded at some point? (Presumably it is unlikely that anyone nowadays would want to arrange for their last mortal remains to be conveyed by train to Brookwood from London, but you never know).
  • (ii) The impression I'm getting is that Woking Common was an area that was part of the 'Waste of Woking', with the latter being larger than the former. What would help, of course, is a map showing the boundaries (if known) of these areas, and also showing the extent of the land originally purchased by the LNC, and what happened to it over the years, and where the current cemetery is located within that. (In colour and animated to show the changes over time would be nice, but might be pushing things a bit far). Do the books you have contain any such maps, or does the text give some indication of the extremities of the land so that people can look it up on a map and get an idea of the bounds or shape of the "2,200-acre tract of land stretching from Woking to Brookwood"? I can see the land extended east from the current cemetery to Woking, but what shape was the land? Maybe say how far it is from Brookwood to Woking if the land stretched all the way to the then-boundaries (which have obviously changed since)?
  • (iii) My point about the CPI is not which index is being used, but the formulaic use of 'in terms of 2011 consumer spending power' three times in the main text. It disturbs the flow of the narrative (for me at least). What I was suggesting was that all three calculations and the set wording be made into footnotes accessed by links to the 'Notes' section (or even a separate 'monetary comparisons' notes section). Compare what you are saying in the CPI parentheses to what you are saying in the notes. If the stuff in the notes can be placed there, why can't the CPI stuff also be placed there?
  • (iv) Hyphenation: I accept what you say about class of tickets (and have struck that), but the other examples are less easy to justify lack of hyphenation. I think most people would hyphenate in the examples I gave. Above, they are un-hyphenated, the hyphenation I am suggesting is: "ten-year window", "five-year extension", "83-year-old". Elsewhere in the article, you correctly hyphenate "1,500-acre" and "2,200-acre" and "200-acre". And going back to classes (of graves this time), you hyphenate "third-class grave" once (search for '-class'). Article probably needs just a quick check for things like that.
  • (v) Repetition: I stand corrected on the 5,830,500 figure. I hadn't realised the 5,000,000 figure is mentioned twice, but now you mention it I see it is mentioned once in numbers and once in words. Maybe the '5,000,000' second mention should be written out in words like the first mention ('five million')?
  • (vi) Loose ends: Since the 'logo' is actually a seal, should the file (
    File:LNC logo.jpg
    ) be renamed to avoid confusion (as seems to have been the case above) and the image description amended so it is not saying it is a logo? The other loose end is the comment I made above about the sources used for the article. Pointing these two comments out in case you missed them earlier.
Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The details of how, when and why funeral trains were discontinued is covered on the London Necropolis Railway daughter article; by this time the costs and revenues from railway operations were minimal, so I don't really want to give them undue weight on this parent article. After the formation of British Rail new regulations meant coffins needed to be carried in a dedicated coach and couldn't be put in with other freight or passengers, so it meant attaching a goods van to the train purely to carry the coffin. As Brookwood station wasn't designed to handle goods vans, the coffins then had to be unloaded at Woking and driven the last four miles by car. By the time all that cost and inconvenience was factored in, there was no advantage to using the railway. In 1985 British Rail (and its successors) formally stopped carrying coffins. (Dedicated funeral trains are still sometimes used to transport mourners, in cases where the funeral service is a long distance from the burial site and the number of mourners is so high that it would be impractical to travel by road—Princess Diana is an obvious example—but the coffins are transported separately by road or air. A special dispensation was given for the funeral of Jimmy Knapp in 2001, but that was in honour of his links to the railway industry.)
  • I can do a map, but it might be more confusing than enlightening. "Waste of Woking" was a derogatory nickname owing to the uselessness of the land for farming, not a formal placename, so doesn't have a "boundary" as such.
  • I'll wait to see what others think about the inflation figures. I know some people strongly support making it extremely clear in the text exactly what index is being used, to avoid anyone being misled into confusing capital inflation, wage inflation and price inflation.
  • Neutral on hyphenation; my personal preference is to minimize their usage as much as possible. The "200-acre" etc in measurements are an artefact of a template which another user keeps re-adding to this article despite it conferring no benefit.
  • The image probably ought to be renamed, but MediaWiki in its wisdom doesn't allow file renames. I've fixed the description on the image page. – 
    iridescent 2 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Image review

  • Were unearthed remains scattered or stored? Be consistent between captions and article text
  • Some of the captions are quite long - consider incorporating into article text
  • Captions that are not complete sentences should not end with periods
  • "The rate of burials by the LNC was much lower than anticipated and around 80% of graves are unmarked, making Brookwood distinctively uncluttered when compared to other cemeteries." - source? On a quick scan I couldn't find this in the article

Images themselves are unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've clarified that slightly; the charnel houses (bone storehouses) were themselves overwhelmed and bones began to be scattered wherever they'd been dug up, or tossed into pits. The pre-industrial English attitude to death was radically different to today; the belief was that the soul left the body after burial, so other than the relics of saints dead bodies were just considered refuse and treated as such.
  • I disagree; the two long captions are explaining the layout of detailed schemes, which aren't obvious to viewers without explanation.
  • I can't see any fragmentary captions with periods, unless you mean "Third class coffin ticket, issued between April–September 1925." which I think looks odd without a period.
  • That the rate of burials was only 5% of that projected is cited (repeatedly) in the article, as is the fact that 80% of those burials which did take place were in unmarked pauper graves. If the objection is to the statement that other cemeteries are cluttered, to me this is a cite-that-the-sky-is-blue situation. English cemeteries are notoriously overcrowded; the burial crisis the LNC was meant to solve has never been resolved. (This article is a fairly accurate summary of the reality of London burials, and here's a citation that English cemeteries have hit 100% of capacity and the old practice of new-graves-above-the-old has had to be revived.) If you think it's too WP:SYN, the caption could be shortened to "The rate of burials by the LNC was much lower than anticipated and around 80% of graves are unmarked", and allow readers to fill in the blanks. – 
    iridescent 2 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Replying here to Nikkimaria's last point above (leaving room for Iridescent to reply up there). On the 80% figure, that bit of information is in this sourced sentence: "While the majority of burials conducted by the LNC (around 80%) were pauper funerals on behalf of London parishes [...]". The pauper burials were unmarked, as far as I'm aware. The bit about the rate of burials being much lower than anticipated is present several times in the article text (search for '50,000' and '203,041' - both appear together twice). Or are you asking for a source for 'distinctively uncluttered when compared to other cemeteries'? Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I worked at Brookwood Hospital many years ago and therefore was vaguely aware of the cemetery, but I had no idea about the LNC & this article has provided a comprehensive, well written and referenced insight.— Rod talk 15:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with just a few niggles.

  • Lead:
    • "Formally" or "formerly"? If the name was only until 1927, it doesn't make sense (to me) to use "formally" here, since it's not NOW known that way formally.
    • Does cemetary REALLY need linking?
  • Background:
    • Again, really don't need the link to cemetary here. Or graveyard.
    • "Decaying corpses contaminated the water supply and the city suffered regular epidemics of cholera, smallpox, measles and typhoid..." this implies the the cemetaries were the sole source of the epidemics - they probably contributed, but the living conditions also had a part in the epidemics. Can we reword this to avoid the implication that the cemetaries are solely responsible?
  • Formation:
    • "The former Woking Common, owned by the Earl of Onslow at Brookwood was chosen as the site for the new cemetery." Is there supposed to be a comma after Brookwood? It just looks weird to me with only one comma.
  • Tubbs:
    • "The LNC was hired by the US government to landscape this area and build a chapel, creating American Military Cemetery (later the Brookwood American Cemetery and Memorial), the only burial ground in Britain for US casualties of the First World War." shouldn't it be "...creating the American Military Cemetary..."?
  • End:
    • The second paragraph repeats a great deal of information found in the fourth paragraph of the Closure section - any way this duplication can be eliminated?
    • What is a "day return ticket"?
  • Legacy:
    • "The Guney's efforts to attract new custom..." do you mean "Guney's efforts..." or "The Guney family's efforts..."?
    • "...and the principles established by the LNC influenced the design of many other cemeteries worldwide." What principles are these?
  • General note - why are the footnotes duplicated? I noted this, "On 13 April 1927 Cyril Tubbs died, after almost 40 years as surveyor, general manager and later a director of the LNC.[2] Shortly afterwards, during meetings of the LNC's shareholders on 16 June and 14 July 1927, the words "National Mausoleum" were formally dropped from the LNC's name, the company being officially renamed the London Necropolis Company.[2] On 28 December 1927 George Barratt, who had worked for the LNC for 63 years and been Superintendent of Brookwood Cemetery for 41 years, also died.[2]" but there are other spots where the refs could usefully go at the end of consecrutive sentences, which you've done elsewhere in the article. There is another run of this sort in "after the takeover", first paragraph.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Formally", not "formerly". It was officially the London Necropolis & National Mausoleum Company until 1927, as it was created by Act of Parliament and that was the name the law decreed, but because the National Mausoleum never existed they never used the name and all their documents, signs etc just read "London Necropolis Company" or "London Necropolis". There's an explanatory footnote linked from the initial sentence, but I don't really like to clutter the lead with a long explanation of the name;
  • Yes, "cemetery" and "graveyard" definitely need linking. The distinction between a graveyard and a cemetery is absolutely critical, since it was the banning of graveyards and their enforced replacement by cemeteries that led to the LNC's creation in the first place. Because graveyards have been illegal in London for over 150 years and very few remain, and given that a disproportionate number of this article's readers will presumably be in London, a lot of readers won't be familiar with the concept;
  • Reluctant to reword that. We know now that the graveyards weren't responsible for the epidemics, but Western medical orthodoxy at the time was the miasma theory, in which graveyards (and other sources of decayin flesh such as slaughterhouses) were the sole cause of contagious disease, hence the rush to abolish graveyards and replace them with cemeteries;
  • Reworded;
  • Fixed;
  • A day return ticket is a ticket for travel to a place and back on the same day. If I include an explanation it will look very strange to most readers, since it's the standard ticket type in Britain (single tickets usually cost the same as a day return, so are rarely sold) and it will look as incongruous as giving a definition of "horse" on every racehorse article;
  • "The Guney family's". Reworded to make it clearer;
  • I've cited each sentence rather than single-citation-at-the-end-of-the-paragraph in places where I think it's reasonably likely subsequent editors will add further information in between. I know some people dislike it, but to my mind it makes an article more stable as there's less risk of facts becoming detached from their sources. – 
    iridescent 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Changed it to "return tickets for same-day travel from London to Brookwood and back", although I'll wager someone will change it back. – 
    iridescent 17:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support with the following niggles:

I think the above issues I raised should be easy to address or resolve, so I am not withholding my support here. I had not read an article about a graveyard before, and this one had an interesting past. It made me wonder what would be the situation now if the venture did take off and 5,000,000 bodies are piled in that location... Jappalang (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, removed;
  • I think "some parishes did arrange" is more accurate in this context than "some parishes arranged". The difference is subtle, but it exists;
  • Added "Commissioner and sanitation campaigner" to Chadwick; I don't really want to go into too much detail on him as he's a fairly tangential figure (his rival scheme was rejected);
  • The wording "the private Act of Parliament authorising the scheme bound the LSWR to carry corpses" is correct. The Act which authorised the LNC, compelled the LSWR to work with it;
  • No; commissions of enquiry are "Commission on topic", not "Commission set up to look into topic"—c.f.
    Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals in Canada, Royal Commission on London Government
    etc etc;
  • No, "poorly suited as" is correct;
  • "Railway arch" is absolutely standard British English for "the space beneath an arch supporting a railway line". When Transport for London offer to sell you a railway arch they're selling the space beneath it, not the actual bridge;
  • Reworded;
  • Can't see the problem here, but feel free to add a comma if you think it's necessary;
  • Same reply as previously on the semantic difference between "chose" and "did choose";
  • To my eyes "had led to the sale of only 15,000 of the 25,000 LNC shares" is a jump to US grammar which would grate in a Br-Eng article, but I've no strong opinion;
  • Fixed;
  • "Able to be sold" isn't a synonym of "for sale"; the current wording is deliberate;
  • No. "After selling 214 acres they struggled to sell the remainder" implies a chronology of events which isn't accurate;
  • They wanted a "monopoly on London burials", not a "monopoly on London"; a comma would be misleading;
  • I don't think SVG files containing text should ever be used; they look terrible in a lot of browsers. I wouldn't use this particular one regardless, as it's subtly but distinctly inaccurate. (The actual seal uses varying font sizes to slightly reduce the prominence of "London" and "Company" and emphasise "Necropolis & National Mausoleum"; plus, the SVG is displaying in the wrong font on my browser at least.);
  • I definitely don't want to list the directors, since the LNC in this period was going through repeated changes of board; it would look very odd to list one set but not any of the others, but listing all of them would mean a huge laundry-list. I don't think it's particularly useful to mention the £150,000 raised from the initial stock issue, since it was never the primary source of capital and the other income streams aren't quantified. – 
    iridescent 17:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [44].

Javan slow loris

Nominator(s): – 
 talk » 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC), Ucucha, Sasata[reply
]

I am nominating this for featured article because we feel this article meets the FA criteria. This article is another product of the

 talk » 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check alphabetization of literature list
  • Could you please clarify your expectations because to me, the literature list is alphabetized. The Nekaris refs are a little tricky, but I've sorted them by last1 -> year -> last2 -> last3, etc. If that's wrong, what is the proper way? – 
     talk » 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Use of retrieval dates seems inconsistent. In what circumstances do you use them? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nikkimaria, I have fixed the order and removed two unnecessary retrieval dates. Sasata (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see more slow loris here. [from J Milburn]

  • "its fur, morphology" Would its fur not be an element of its morphology?
    • Yes, removed "fur". Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't this technically use Australian spelling? It's not something I'm concerned about, but I can imagine someone may be...
    • Well, Java isn't in Australia, and I don't think we do spelling according to the closest English-speaking country. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Javan slow loris (Nycticebus javanicus), was" lose the comma?
    • Yes.
  • Category:Animals described in 1812?
    • Yes.
  • The lead implies that it was always considered part of a different species until recently (or that's the impression I got)
    • Added a little.
  • Does the genus "Bradylemur" still exist? It would be worth a link if so.
    • I believe it's a synonym of Nycticebus; it's certainly no longer valid. The name was also reused for a subfossil lemur, now considered a synonym of Archaeolemur. People liked to change names around at that time. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Nekaris and Jaffe" Full names would be nice, along with links/clarification of who they are
    • Removed that piece; it was redundant. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a 2000 field guide on Indonesian primates" Do we know the title/author(s)? In any case, this is, surely, wrong- Saint-Hilaire saw it as a separate species!
    • Yes, they are cited, but I'm not sure we want that much detail in the text. I added an "again" to address your second point: they were likely the first ones since the early 20th century at least to recognize it as a species. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a tiny bit of overlinking to other species, I feel. You "introduce" them (with common name, specific name and a link) several times apiece.
    • I could only find the Bengal linked twice; removed the second link. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from six specimens rescued from the illegal wildlife trade in Java," I'm not sure this information is necessary. It doesn't feel massively NPOV.
    • Not sure. The information that this is based on captive specimens may be good to have, because captive specimens may show different features. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The block of stats doesn't read too well either, but I'm not sure how you'd get around that, so this isn't really a helpful comment...
    • Unfortunately, the source just lists the stats, making it hard to elaborate from that. Sometimes tables help with long lists, but in this case, I don't think that would be appropriate. – 
       talk » 22:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Are the "forms" actually forms? You never give them names, nor link the term; the reference to them in the third para of Anatomy and physiology is confusing in this regard
    • We don't know what they are. Form (zoology) seems an ill-defined topic. We do actually give names to the morphological variants (javanicus and ornatus); not sure where the unclarity is. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a "transition towards Cheiroptera, Carnivora, and other inferior Mammalia" from" Per the MoS, links in quotes should be avoided
    • Reworded to avoid the quote. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its unique form of locomotion, which does not involve jumping" Unique to what? This is the only loris which doesn't jump?
    • Lorises in general don't jump, as far as I know. I've removed that piece, which seemed to have little specific to the Javan. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribution is perhaps worth merging with the above section; there's some information about its distribution which you've lumped in with "behaviour".
    • Moved some sentences around. Ucucha 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "incessant poaching" - "incessant" is inherently a negative term. "Continuous"? Just remove it altogether?
  • "In Indonesia it is sold as an exotic pet more frequently than it is used in traditional medicine, despite myths of it having magical and curative properties." The phrasing implies we (the readers) were expecting it to be mostly for its magical "uses". How about something like "In Indonesia, it is sold primarily as an exotic pet, though it is also used in traditional medicine as there are myths of it having magical and curative properties." or something. That's not perfect, but I think you'll get my point.
  • Do we know anything about the magical stuff attributed to it? That's potentially interesting.
  • "although "effective law enforcement with respect to wildlife protection laws is all but non-existent in Indonesia"." I think this is the kind of quote which should really be attributed in the prose. Who's saying this, and on what authority do they make this claim?

Sorry if this is a little overcritical. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and don't worry about being overly critical. I prefer it. It makes me see the article from a completely different perspective, which ultimately makes the article stronger. Anyway, I'm busy at the moment, but will work on addressing any lingering concerns later this evening. – 
 talk » 21:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Support. I am happy that the article is ready for FA status. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Just one question from the conservation section: Population data for the species is sparse,[25] but a few studies have shown a low population density of 0.20 to 0.02 individuals per km2.[1]. The population density is literally less than one, am I correct? ceranthor 02:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the researchers typically have to search an area of several square kilometers to see a single individual. Thanks for the support. Sasata (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I read this some time ago, thought I'd already supported — I'm getting to be as slow as a loris. After J Milburn's thorough review, I can't see anything to query Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple comments:
  1. There are still some animals being introduced in too much detail. For example, "The species is a host for the parasitic flatworm, Phaneropsolus oviforme (class Trematoda, order Plagiorchiida)". Wouldn't it be better to just say the name of the species and then create a stub for Phaneropsolus oviforme with the class and order? We don't need extraneous information on an unrelated species in a FA.
    Removed the order and class; it's unnecessary. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm pretty sure the more common term for Dieng Mountains is Dieng Plateau, but they may be separate. Could you double check?
    From the maps in
    doi:10.1046/j.1365-3008.1998.d01-24.x, it seems the Dieng Mountains are a somewhat larger area. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. This seems a little awkward. "He argued against grouping strepsirrhines with Insectivora (a now-abandoned biological grouping) and noted that the brain had features transitional between other primates and "inferior" mammals such as bats and carnivorans." Perhaps "He argued against grouping strepsirrhines with the now-abandoned Insectivora and noted that the brain had features transitional between other primates and "inferior" mammals such as bats and carnivorans." However, I am still on the fence about whether or not Insectivora's abandonment is pertinent to the article.
    It is, because we need to summarize Flower's piece and do so in comprehensible terms. An explanation of a subject in a few words is not off-topic. I haven't used your edit, since it does not make clear that Insectivora is (was) a biological grouping, a taxon. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Are you quite certain that "It was first recognized as a distinct species again in a 2000 field guide on Indonesian primates" (an issue raised above) should not state the author directly, or at least the place of origin of the field guide? The fact that it was recognized as a separate species in 2000 by an Indonesian scientist may be pertinent, as their findings are sometimes debated by foreign scientists.
    I've added the names. Ucucha 00:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty good so far, but there are still a few issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support after the above fixes and comments by Ucucha. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [45].

Indian Head eagle

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. The sixth in a projected ten article series about the Great Recoinage of U.S. coins between 1907 and 1921, we return to the initial battles which we saw in Saint-Gaudens double eagle between sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, Mint Chief Engraver Charles E. Barber and President Theodore Roosevelt, who went so far as to threaten Barber with decapitation (a certain appropriateness there, what with Barber's cutting name). Since it covers the same time period as the double eagle article, I went to some effort to not use the same quotes or images (excepting one) which are used in the double eagle article. This has passed GA and received a PR. Enjoy it. Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Missing bibliographic info for Vermeule
  • FN 16: which Burdette?
  • FN 31: formatting should match Bibliography entries. Also, GBooks links don't require retrieval dates
  • FN 35: check author. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it is not required, I prefer to do it, as who knows what Google will do tomorrow. Thank you for the check, I will fix the items you mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support – I peer reviewed this article and such very small quibbles as I had have been addressed. I leave comment about the images to those who police such matters, but in all other regards, this article seems to me to meet every FA criterion. Interesting even for those of us to whom numismatics is a closed book. The article is a credit to Wehwalt and will be a credit to Wikpedia. – Tim riley (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review - Just about everything checks out from a copyright standpoint, my only concern is that the name of the source publication for

Wha? 20:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Pt eagle.png handled.
Wha? 20:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The source was in there but it was lower case and not italicized, my apologies. I was only going to have the one mint medal (Preston) but both of my photographic images of Roberts are left-facing and I needed an image that would work on the left. If the quality is poor, I can rescan them, though I won't be home for a couple of weeks. Thanks for working on the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two mind medals look blurry, most noticeably on the edge lettering, with Roberts being especially bad. Either the scanner moved while it was being scanned or the image itself was artificially enlarged too much. Everything left of Roberts' ear is pixelated heavily, especially the back of his coat across from the GE of George. I don't know what the answer is, I don't want to hold this for weeks at a time. Being that they look fine in the article itself, I suppose it's okay to let it go until you can do a rescan, and not let it choke up the review.
Wha? 05:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, probably has to do with the high relief of Mint medals. I may go back to using a camera on them, as I have a small collection of about ten Mint directors and one Secretary of the Treasury.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me about the new images Wehwalt. The wire rim checks out
Wha? 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
As I thought. All these materials are in a public archive, they are open 1030 to 5, or if you called the librarian, it could be verified that way. Not saying you're going to do it, but it is verifiable. I probably wound up with about three hundred coin images that if I had the patience to upload all of them would have similar license tags. Kagin's, Steve Ivy, and MTB were the offenders who did not copyright their work! Very pleased, I put in a hard two days work there. I should be able to replace many of the images on wiki of coins that have defective copyrights.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportLeaning to support: I have a few minor issues with this otherwise characteristically informative coin article:-

Lead
  • "...but in 1907, Roosevelt decided to use a model that the sculptor had prepared for the cent instead for the obverse of the eagle". The "instead" is awkwardly placed, though other placements are equally problematic. I've made lots of attempts to reframe the sentence, but can do no better than: "...but in 1907, Roosevelt decided to use a model for the obverse of the eagle that the sculptor had intended for the cent" - which may not be much better.
  • Can ending a paragraph and beginning the next with "Saint-Gaudens" be avoided?
Inception
  • Pipe-link "Liberty Head" to
    Liberty (goddess)
No, on the first, they had different designers, yes on the second.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...had remained the same for 25 years..." → "...had remained the same for more than 25 years..."

Longer, I think. This is always a pain to explain, which is why I put the quote from the law in the dime article. Once you are in the 25th year, you can replace the design. You don't even have to strike coins in the 25th year, the Mint had no intention in 1916 of striking any Barber pieces, though they eventually had to with a silver shortage and delayed designs.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations
  • I'm not sure what the "collar" is in coin terms, and I am baffled by the wording "the Mint's machine shop worked to invent the collar." Invent?
That is per source, but I will work for a better phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you couls also exclaim what is meant by "rim"
Design
  • I'm a bit concerned by the double hyphenation in "olive-branch-wrapped". But can anything be "wrapped" in a branch?
Perhaps "with"?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Release and production
  • Small point: you mention that the eagle series had begun in 1795. I think this quite significant piece of background information should be mentioned in the lead.
Collecting
  • Conventionally, "forty" should be "40"
I would have, but with a year following, I think you will agree that "forty 1933 eagles" is better than "40 1933 eagles".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "satin proof" mean?
  • The long image caption, which elaborates on information given earlier in the text, displaces the References section. Would it be better to have the expanded information in the text, and a short summary caption?

I see no difficulties resolving these and look forward to fully supporting. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All those things are done, with slight variations, except as noted above. If I missed anything, please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with these responses (I think I understand what a "collar" is, now). Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Support Tony (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC) —1a, MoS, referencing.[reply]

  • "Both the obverse and the reverse were designed by sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens, though he did not live to see the coin released"—opening not logical.
  • "President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the use of new, beautiful designs on US coins"—where is this referenced? I might have missed it below, but it's a key claim, and "beautiful" can't be found elsewhere. It's an interpersonal epithet, which is slightly uncomfortable, whereas "new" is a normal epithet.
  • "originally" twice in five seconds, and then again, and again.
  • "intended ... intended" ... can't the second one be binned?
  • "US coins which were then"—should there be a comma, and possible a semicolon after 1907?
  • "the President decided on a design featuring a standing bald eagle which had been originally intended for"—this is a good example of why the Chicago MoS says to favour "that" rather than "which" (so there's no doubt about comma/no comma). "that was originally" is possible, and neater. Or "bald eagle, originally intended (or "first intended").
  • We have "ten-dollar coin" and "twenty-dollar piece", but "ten dollar gold piece" in the very first line.
  • "and months were occupied with design modifications"—this is a bit uncomfortable. Aren't the workers occupied with the task? It's possibly a matter of idiom, not logic.
  • Probably "differed".
  • "When the new coins reached the public"—just once, we lose the chronology.
  • "the modification and small changes to the design"—unclear.
  • "stopped production"—for phonological reasons alone, consider inserting "the".
  • "at the direction by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933."—direction of?
  • "and the 1933 issue is a great rarity, as few were distributed". Is "great" encyclopedic? I'm not exactly sure. "Few" issues? There's a clash.
  • Infobox: consider a nbsp before "eagle". Why do Gold and Copper have initial caps? MoS: closing range two digits. Space poor, better "stars (1907–11); ...". Better 13 than spelled out in a space-poor infobox. " An eagle standing on a bunch of arrows; the arrows are wrapped by an olive branch." possibly neater as "An eagle standing on a bunch of arrows that are wrapped by an olive branch." I tried without "that are", but maybe it's necessary to include those two words.

I haven't looked beyond the lead. I'm surprised to find so much to discuss in so short a text that was written by an expert in the topic, and a prolific FA writer for whom I have a deal of respect. Tony (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion moved to talk. Summary: Wehwalt has made some changes in response to Tony1's points; Tony1 wants him to either make all requested changes or provide reasoning for not doing so. Tony1 also requests that SandyGeorgia recuse as delegate on this FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded there, informing Tony that his comment was so offensive he is conflicted out from reviewing the article, and has no right or interest to demand a delegate recuse.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Raul has now expressed on his talk page his confidence in Sandy's ability in this matter. That ends it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Self-serving twaddle. You need to address the review points in good faith. I've changed to "Strong oppose", and will scrutinise the article now beyond the lead. There is no way that SandyGeorgia could do anything but recuse from this nom: she has prejudiced herself on my talk page and elsewhere. Tony (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I believe that all of the points Tony raised above have now been addressed with the exception of one with which I don't agree:
  • "New pieces were given to the President on August 31, which differ from the coins struck later for circulation.". I think that "differ" rather than the suggested "differed" is correct, as the coins still exist and still differ.
    Fatuorum 17:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support on criterion 1a but with some minor concerns:

  • Here, "proposed the use of new, beautiful designs on US coins", would "introduction" be better than "use", which would make "new" redundant and stop the clash I hear, but cannot explain, of "new" and "beautiful"?
  • Here, "prompting the Mint to hire Saint-Gaudens to create those pieces, why not write "them"?
  • Here, "proved in too high relief for the Mint to readily strike", why not say "was in too high", or am I missing some nuance?
  • I would prefer "finished" to "finalized".
  • Here, "Saint-Gaudens foresaw resistance from Barber in the question of the new coinage". Should this not be "on the question"?
  • Here, "Roosevelt was impressed by some models Saint-Gaudens had prepared for the cent", would "designs" be better?
  • Something seems to be missing here: "The Saint-Gaudens studio moved quickly on revised images." Is it just the definite article?
  • I think "utilize" is an ugly word and prefer the more humble and friendlier "use".
  • How about a simple "and said" (or wrote) rather than "stating that". I think the verb to state is overused and should be confined to courts of law.

Thank you for another engaging contribution in this series. I might want to add a few more nitpicks following a second reading, but I do not see any reason to not support this. Well done.

talk) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

You are welcome. I will try to get to your comments as soon as I can. Frankly it isn't easy right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you've addressed the matters I raised above, there are a few more things. I must say, the rest of the article is on a much better level than the lead. Why?
    • Trivial, but a dot is missing from the metal model caption.
    • MoS: no need to square-bracket a case change: instructing him to "[h]ave this matter .... I see another instance of this. It's much smoother to the reader to remove the clutter-brackets.
    • "About five hundred pieces"—can't this be in numerals?
    • newly-designed. MoS breach.
    • "Roosevelt desired to omit"—I'm trying to think of a more comfortable wording. "wanted to"?
    • Comma splice: "The House of Representatives passed a bill ordering the use of the motto on the new eagle and double eagle (which also lacked the phrase) in March 1908, the Senate followed suit in May, and Roosevelt, finding public opinion against him, signed the bill into law that month."
    • You might consider removing one comma to make these pretty long sentence easier to parse: "During World War I, with gold coins commanding a premium above face value, and many gold pieces returning from Europe to pay for war materials, there was little need for new gold coins, and coinage of eagles was discontinued after 1916." It's a more subjective thing, but this could be more arresting and drive home the trajectory of the sentence: "there was little need for new gold coins: coinage of eagles was discontinued after 1916." Generally, you might consider slightly carefully reducing the use of commas in just a few mid-sentence places ("and" is the trigger). Here's another (consider the bumpy effect and the fact that the psychological subject of the sentence casts over the second half as well): "Many of the gold coins seen today had been exported to Europe before 1933, and repatriated once restrictions on holding gold were ended."
    • "prior to 1920"—please consider "before 1920", which is much more natural to English. Tony (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Sandy has asked me to at least consider Tony's comments, I made several changes, where the points seemed to me to be valid. Where they seemed to me to be merely stylistic (I prefer to have numbers spelled out when MOS allows me to do so, as it does in this case: "five hundred" is three syllables) matters of word choice, and I felt my choice was as valid or superior, I have ignored them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy is headed towards a very bad place. "asked me to at least consider Tony's comments": no, you need to address the comments in exactly the way you do for other reviews. I see no explanations, no evidence, here. The Strong oppose stays until you stop this nonsense, abetted, apparently, by SandyGeorgia. Tony (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think that all the valid points raised by Tony have been addressed either by Wehwalt or by me.

Fatuorum 17:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for your review and your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, you're being Wehwalt's servant, are you? But this corrupt system will still encourage Wehwalt to aggressively assert ownership over the article, in breach of the Pillars. Why does Saint-Gaudens double eagle open with "twenty-dollar gold coin", but the hyphens are missing from this article? I've already pointed out this issue. It seems to be the only matter outstanding. Tony (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You had, as I understand it, asked for it to be consistent, so I removed all hyphens. Fine, I'll put a hyphen in all three.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I not infrequently try to make helpful edits to FACs, but it's the first time I've been called a servant for doing it. Are you suggesting that the article should be allowed to fail because a few hyphens are missing? I've made quite a few edits to this article before today in fact, and Wehwalt has never exhibited any signs of ownership as a result. I can only go by what I see.
Fatuorum 02:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Good, well let's fix the problem at the opening, so this article is consistent with the others of this topic that Wehwalt owns. Tony (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fixed now isn't it?
Fatuorum 02:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, thanks. Tony (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly owns; RHM22 has done major work in the area. Thank you both for your work and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • "As his successor, San Francisco Mint Superintendent Frank A. Leach, did not take office until November 1, former Mint Director Robert Preston served as acting director in the interim.[14]" – should be "As his successor, San Francisco Mint Superintendent Frank A. Leach did not take office until November 1; former Mint Director Robert Preston served as acting director in the interim.[14]"; that would make sense yes you are right; I understand the meaning of the sentence after re-reading.
    • "With Landis on vacation,[17] Cortelyou passed the President's letter on to the acting Philadelphia Mint superintendent, Dr. Albert A. Norris, instructing him to "have this matter taken up at once and the President's instructions carried out; and everything possible must be done to expedite the work."[18]" – capitalicize "superintendent" for consistency I now understand
    • "Norris, in his subsequent letter to Acting Director Preston noted that the Mint had been having trouble with the collar, which would strike the edge of the coin and impress 46 stars, representing the number of states there would be after Oklahoma's already scheduled admission to the Union later in 1907." – "Norris noted in his subsequent letter to Acting Director Preston that the Mint had been having trouble with the collar, which would strike the edge of the coin and impress 46 stars, representing the number of states there would be after Oklahoma's already scheduled admission to the Union later in 1907."; this is correct thank you. You now see why the point position is of big importance.
    • "A total of 32,000 eagles were struck using the Barber-modified Saint-Gaudens dies, for the most part using ordinary coinage presses." – not sure, but shouldn't it be "Saint-Gauden's"?
    • "With the admission of New Mexico and Arizona as states in 1912, the number of stars on the edge was increased from 46 to 48. [40]" – no space after period
    • "LLC" or "L.L.C."; I would say "LLC"
    • "Victory and peace" or "Victory and Peace" (in the caption)?--
      Power[citation needed] 19:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • It is still inconsistent. In the caption it says "Victory and peace" and in text "victory and peace". Sorry, I know it is a nitpick, but I believe this article should be excellent and should not even contain the smallest things you could ever thing of (for example the "space-to-much" comment above).
Thanks for the comments. I am not totally convinced by the first one, do you feel that a semicolon is the way to go there? The others I'll get to tomorrow, I've been spending a hard day on research and would prefer to get some sleep, hope you don't mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think a comma is better, however, I do not consider this a big deal, and am happy to consult with other editors on this. "Superintendent" is properly lower case due to that comma (had there been no comma and all of that was grafted onto Norris's name as a title, then it would be capitalized. "Saint-Gaudens" is proper in referring to the design like that, for example Saint-Gaudens double eagle, the companion to this article. All others are done as per your suggestions. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Will support after nitpick resolved =).--
Power[citation needed] 11:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Taken care of.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your thoughtful review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Nice piece! Way more interesting than I thought it would be. HA! Both the content (personality and art) as well as the way you write it up. Kudos. I only skimmed it, so can't support or oppose. Just some surfacey thoughts, FWIW:

  • Concerned that there has been little reviewer engagement/discussion of the content itself. Huge engagement on the writing, but I am already comfortable with your ability there (even though I think the nits have mainly been "right").
  • I wonder (not a strong suppositiong, something to check) if the part at the end about circulation and collecting could use more info. Seems like we hit the history really hard and well and your article will be a fun and good resource for that, but want to make sure we cover the more analytical aspects well also.
Once the coin is released, it usually ceases to make news, therefore there is not much to be said, excepting the design tweaks. If a coin runs a long time, like the Lincoln cent, there are things to discuss, if not, well, not. Eagles didn't really circulate that much anyway, they were used as reserves for gold certificates and in international trade transactions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest getting a few reviewers to read the thing and comment on it from different perspectives and perhaps engage a bit more in the content. Some possible slants (Project USA and kumioko, a main contrib to the TR article, sculptor (irl or someone who's done good Wiki articles there, another currency person (ideally not just your compadre) or maybe a stamp-collector, biographer, layperson).
Always glad to hear new angles. I own the major bios on TR and I've been disappointed they don't talk about coins. The story isn't over yet, there was more conflict over the smaller gold coins ($2.50 and $5), which will be covered when I get to those coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Halperin book on coinage of Saint Gaudens (Ivy Press) at all additive?
Not terribly. It is mostly discussions of each coin by date and mintmark, rarity, market discussions, sometimes auction results for the rare dates.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that is the aspect of content that (I wonder if we) are light on. Could be the problem and the solution...;-) TCO (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The things I have said are the highlights out of such books that do individual treatments of the date and mintmarks. The thing is, for the general interest reader, it gets too technical, while for the collector, he doesn't want to hear it from us, he'll either have or review the books.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Layout of images is really crisp, congrats. I do wonder about using the images for the sculptor and engraver as their medals. You can't see them as well as in a real photo. (It really is a picture of the medal, not the man and we lose contrast and detail.) I guess you were trying to keep it all coins, but I almost wonder if we end up appreciating some non-coin-y images.
I understand. I had started with an image of Roberts, but it's left facing, and as you may notice, almost all the images are left facing, even the birds! The Roberts medal is at least right-facing. BTW, inclusion of the medals serves a more serious purpose: it lets the reader see Barber's work, the only opportunity in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wire rim eagle image is fuzzy. Also small. Should we not display at same size as regular coin (for comparison)?
Better than what was there until yesterday (you might want to check to see if what you saw is what is still there).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was going off the old one.TCO (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wonder if we had some more analytical image somewhere towards end, for visual appeal and also to describe some of the stuff that is easier scanned that way than only in prose (a table, a chart; perhaps of numismatic value or circulation numbers or mint mark versions or the like).
I'm open to suggestions, but I don't have that kind of image talent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I's have to read it to figure it out, but think about if you were giving a presentation at work using a Powerpoint. I suspect something like numbers produced per year per mint, and current valuation, etc. would be helpful in a table format. (maybe a bar or line chart, or even a pie). (I really think it would be good for you to take a hack at it, in terms of what content would be good. As far as making the image...MissMJ will do that for you, very well, if you just ask nicely.) Think of the kind of reader who will skip to those sections. Also that in general comparing numeric data is hard in sentences, but easier in tables or graphs (keep the sentences too, just give another way to absorb and process the info).TCO (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Layout is really nice, again. But if you want to show more or are having text wrap or siding issues, there are some tricks that can be done with gallery or tables of images (and not the junky galleries at the bottom with lots of white space).
I hesitate to move anything!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I side with Tony, not Malleus on the tense of the coins differing. Just because we use past tense does not logically mean that we think the coins died or no longer differ, and I doubt the reader gets that impression. Plus the past-present-past within that sentence is an akward shift. (It's really a small deal, just my two cents.)
I favor "is", as well, but believe in not jumping up and down on the FAC just to see if it will break :)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe an angled or side image would be cool. I don't have any gold coins and was intrigued what the stars look like, we can barely see them on the heads and tails shots.
If I ever get to photograph one from the side, I certainly will.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, nice work and good luck! Peace...TCO (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [46].

Suillus pungens

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suillus pungens is a (barely) edible mushroom found in coastal California. I think this article is up to par with the other three featured articles on Suillus species, and would like for it to join its fungal brethren. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media: Something of a worry: File:Suillus pungens 69689.jpg is currently listed on MO as NC only. Neither File:Suillus granulatus.jpg nor File:Elfenbeinroehrling.jpg have English descriptions. J Milburn (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a read through:

  • "Bishop pine" Why caps?
  • "one meaning of which means "pungent"" rephrase?
  • "Ponderosa Pine" Caps?
  • "the "pine spike" (Chroogomphus vinicolor)" Why common name? Also, note that the link goes to the genus article because of a redirect
  • "Gardes and Bruns" Perhaps give them something of an introduction the first time they're mentioned?
  • "Bonello and colleagues" Same

This is a very well written article; I think you get the balance of technical terminology with accessible English just about right. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review JM. I've taking care of most of the above comments (will fix that redirect soon by making a stub for the pine spike). About the image, this is another case of the user changing the license post-publication. I emailed the tech guy at Mushroom Observer to complain about this, and he agreed to start logging license changes so it will be less hassle for us to track what was licensed when; I'm not sure if the logging feature will work retroactively (I hope so, one of our featured pics by the same photographer is now apparently cc-by-nc). At any rate, I've removed the image for now and substituted another in its place. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The logging at MO would be the best solution; what I thought of was a system similar to Flickr on Commons- that is, a bot or trusted user "confirms" the license. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • Ref 10: page(s)?

Sources appear appropriately scholarly, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will have to get back to you on this, it's an online reprint and they haven't included the page #'s from the original edition; I can probably track down someone with a paper copy though. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All issues resolved. Ucucha 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]

  • I think you are significantly overinterpreting the phylogenetic study of Kretzer et al. (1996). The tree shown in the article is apparently based on the
    neighbor-joining
    tree in the source—an algorithm whose only virtue is its speed. The source also shows a maximum-parsimony tree, which is less well-resolved, but should preferably be used. However, I would actually prefer that no cladogram be included. I think we should have a cladogram when there is consensus in the literature about a certain pattern of relationships; otherwise, we are effectively presenting a poorly supported hypothesis virtually as fact. The tree currently in the article is based on a single, 15-year-old molecular phylogenetic study, and most branches shown had very little statistical support even in that old study. I can't see how the statement "The results indicated that S. pungens is most closely related to S. collinitus and S. granulatus" in the text is supported by the reference.
  • I've been doing some reading about this very topic recently, and I agree completely. I've removed the cladogram (and will soon do so for other Suillus articles it's in). Regarding the statement, S. collinitus and S. granulatus are on the closest branches to S. pungens, and therefore, are the most closely related of the tested Suillus species. Am I overinterpreting this too? At any rate, I have reworded to hopefully avoid generalizing. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I would think "most closely related to" usually means "sister to", so even the current statement seems too much to me. The MP tree placed it in a polytomy with a whole lot of other species; perhaps those should be mentioned.

Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that's a better solution—done. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inequilateral in profile"—what does this mean?
  • added profile view (to distinguish from face view mentioned just before), is this sufficient? Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "inequilateral" a word you would expect the reader to know, though? Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "ixotrichodermium" merit a link?
  • Don't think so, it's a subtopic of pileipellis (already linked in close proximity) and not worthy of a separate article. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a separate paragraph on chemical tests, but the previous paragraph already mentions a chemical test on the cystidia.
  • The paragraph describes macrochemical tests that can be performed in the field (rather than under your microscope); have made that explicit. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the taste of dishes cooked with the mushroom will assume its unpleasant odor"—the taste will assume an odor?
  • Well, it is more or less what the source says ("The harsh odor does not disappear upon cooking but rather becomes the taste of your dish."), but I've reworded. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Ponderosa pine not linked?
  • I'm sorry, I decided to add the link myself and then forgot to remove the item here. Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really need to link "field studies"?
  • "A 1998 study by Pierluigi Bonello and colleagues showed the latter explanation to be true."—perhaps it would go into too much detail, but I think it would be interesting to add how he determined that.
  • To me, that doesn't explain why they thought the carbon-efficiency explanation was true. Reading the paper, it looks like they say that if it would invest more energy in fruiting and less in vegetative growth, you would expect small and transient genets, and if it is better at gathering carbon than other species, you would expect large, persistent genets. The latter is what they found. Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added some words to this effect. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gather it hasn't been found outside California? You don't explicitly say that, and its host pines apparently do reach Baja California.
  • Haven't seen any source that says its in Baja California; I haven't been explicit about where it's not because the sources just give where it is. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently says it's in the "Northwestern United States"; shouldn't that just be "California" in that case? Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 02:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly for your incisive review! Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support and comments Usual high standard, I removed what looked like a redundant "the", couple of queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isolates — link or gloss, since this looks like a technical usage
  • broadly convex to convex — I'm not sure what this means
  • Support. I really can't find fault with this, it's an excellent article.
    Fatuorum 01:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment - So a source previously mentioned on this page's comments states that the dishes containing the mushroom will assume the odor of the mushroom. Does that mean that the taste could be "pleasant, resembling bananas" (a possible smell of the mushroom cited within the article) as opposed to unpleasant? Should the article be edited to reflect this? Also, is the source stating that the dish could assume the odor of the mushroom still in use in the article, out of curiosity? Micromann (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been edited to indicate that it "will assume an unpleasant taste"; the same source is still in use to cite this (Kuo's "100 Edible Mushrooms"). Sasata (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments Hello, this is the first time I've reviewed a featured article candidate and here's what I've got: (1) According to WP:Manual of Style#Serial Commas we should make a decision on the use of the serial comma in the article. (2) I made a small change to the prose but nothing major I don't think. (3) I changed "Iron sulphate" to "Iron(II) sulfate", but I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do. Wouldn't the American spelling be used since the rest of the article is in American English? (4) A "see also" section might be a good addition. Overall, it is a great article and I love to see more biology/science featured articles! Great work! Scientific29 (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Scientific29, thanks for the comments and support, and welcome to FAC reviewing! Replying to your points: (1) I'm a serial comma user, so if you see any violations, please point them out (or feel free to fix them yourself); (2) your prose tweak is fine with me (3) Yes, you are correct, I missed the Brit Eng spelling of sulfate—thanks (4) Do you have any suggestions for links to include (that are related to the subject but not already linked in the article?) Sasata (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [47].

Deusdedit of Canterbury

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because as usual, it's time for a bishop/archbishop. This one is a rather obscure (even for a pretty obscure field) early Anglo-Saxon archbishop of Canterbury. In fact, he was the first native holder of the office. Not much is known about him, and a large chunk of what is written about him concerns the controversy over his death date, so this article is a bit more "historian-centric" than many of my nominations, as it is mainly concerned with the historiography rather than the poor guy's life. Passed a GA review a while back, has had two separate copyedits by Malleus. I've pretty much mined anything about this guy out, unless someone knows of something else - which I would gladly incorporate. The pic is also my own, it's not the best, but there aren't many others that will work, as his tomb doesn't survive. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Re the pic, the caption should tell us precisely where this location is, geographically. This information doesn't appear to be in the text of the article, either. According to ODNB it is "the porticus of St Gregory in the abbey church of St Peter and St Paul, Canterbury (later St Augustine's)". Also, you refer to the marked graves of three other guys; are the markings the three rectangular stones to the right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)
  • The lead and the text say "he was considered/regarded a saint". By whom was he thus regarded? I imagined that sanctification was a rather more formal process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)
    • Formal canonization by the papacy wasn't required until the 11th century, and only became "normal" in the 9th-10th century. Prior to that it was a very informal process - people (including the laity) would consider someone a saint and if cult was paid, they were a saint. That simple. We don't know why Deusdedit was considered a saint, but likely it was because he was considered holy in his life. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose nitpicks
  • I wonder about the appropriateness of the "Legacy" heading, since there seems to be none. In any event the first sentence of the section looks misplaced, and perhaps should be located at the end rather than as the opener. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)
    • I'm open to suggestions on other headings. I've used the legacy heading for most of my biography articles where there is stuff to discuss after the "death" Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balance: It is a little odd that the section dealing with historians' arguments about Deusdedit's precise death date is considerably longer than the section that deals with his life and works. I am sure you've wrung every last bit of information about him from your considerable sources, but the extent of dates and calculations relating to his death is a bit overwhelming, and quite hard to follow. I wonder if any simplification is possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)
    • It's already considerably simplified, and unfortunately I need to follow the sources, which mostly discuss him in terms of his death date - which tangentially has an impact on the dating of the
      Council of Whitby, a major event in Anglo-Saxon history. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]

These are mainly minor points that can be quickly disposed of. A separate comment on the sources appears below. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, let me know if there is more I can do to resolve these concerns! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have one outstanding prose point - see above. I can't offhand think of a better heading than "legacy"; if I come up with an idea, I'll let you know. I take your point on the "balance" issue. So, another bishop done and only 1,500 to go. Good writing! Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: All sources look fine, no formatting issues. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blackwell Encyclopedia or Encyclopaedia?
  • "the name of a recent pope,[1] Pope Deusdedit, who was pope from 615 to 618" - can this be rephrased to avoid so many popes?
  • Who was Bishop Colman?
  • "The main argument was put forward by Grosjean, who argues" - avoid that tense shift
  • "was translated to the new abbey church" - probably better to wikilink translated here rather than in the next sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've got all of the above - I did link the Colman although I generally dislike linking in the middle of quotes. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

  • The caption for the infobox image needs clarification, both in the article caption and the image description page. In the article caption it mentions that Deusdedit is buried in an unmarked grave in the image. Where? Between the top two stones, the bottom two, off to the side? In the back? Out in the grass? Since we can't see it ourselves we need to be told it. Also, the fact that Deusdedit is buried somewhere in that image isn't even mentioned in the image's description page.
  • Is there a painting, statue, bust, death mask, etc. of what this person looked like when he was alive? If so, that needs to be put in.
    Wha? 20:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The location of his grave is not exactly known - he was buried near these guys, but where in relation isn't known exactly. I can't say more than that he's somewhere in the area. The guy died in 664, there ARE no paintings that would reflect what he looked like - anything I'd add would not be contemporary. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Oppose?)

  • The article mentions that he is a saint, however it does not mention anything of how he became one. I'm not Catholic, so I could be totally wrong, but I was under the impression that sainthood was only granted after a lengthy (and well documented) series of steps. His notability is derived from his status as an archbishop or his status as a saint, however the coverage of both of those points is minimal. What did he do in nine years as archbishop? What led to him becoming a saint? It seems like this article dosen't give good coverage to important parts.
    Wha? 20:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support from Ucucha, with some comments:

  • Why are the other people with graves nearby not linked in the image caption in the infobox?
  • Does the hagiography survive? I understand it is likely unreliable, but perhaps some of the details it would provide are relevant for inclusion in this article; they might tell us about the way he was revered as a saint.

Ucucha 03:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the review - I'm stepping out this moment for an art fair and will get to these two things tonight. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've linked the names, and added a tiny bit on the Santco, or haigiography. It's such a late date that it's generally considered a completely useless bit for the actual facts of Deusdedit's life. THe fact that it was written is useful, but mainly for the 12th century, rather than the 7th. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. Even if it's useless for D's actual life, some summary of the hagiography's contents could be useful to expand on whatever limited cult may have developed around him. Ucucha 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • As far as I can tell, it's not been published, just exists in manuscript form, so I don't really HAVE access to it. (The fact that it's listed as a manuscript in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is a strong indication of its still unpublished status). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, in that case you can't do much with it. :) Ucucha 13:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [48].

Californium

Nominator(s): mav (reviews needed) 23:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been some time since the last FAC. Since then the article has been promoted to PR and the remaining issues left at FAC where copied to the article's talk page and addressed there. What else is needed for this article to be FA quality? mav (reviews needed) 23:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The +4 oxidation state creates strong oxidizing agents and +2 state creates strong reducing agents — do you mean "is" rather than "create"? If not, I don't understand the sentence.
    • A the got dropped somehow. Now reads "The +4 oxidation state creates strong oxidizing agents and the +2 state creates strong reducing agents --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blue-linking publishers and journals seems like overlinking to me; there's even less point to red-linking publishers.
    • That was done specifically in reference to a request during the last FAC, that linking or not linking should be consistent. It also helps readers evaluate the veracity of the source. But I'm not too attached to the links. If you feel strongly they should go, then I'll remove them; it is just a lot of work for something that I don't feel is too important either way. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Weeks ref seems to be both a book and a journal, please clarify or correct
    • It is a book published by a journal b/c the chapters in the book started as journal articles. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I really don't like the blue haze, but it's not grounds for withholding support for an article which is otherwise comprehensive and strikes a fine balance between technical content and readability. A very good read. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the support! I removed the publisher and journal links; it didn't take that long and I've never much cared for them. --mav (reviews needed) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, pending clarification on the alloys. I enjoyed the read earlier when I first reviewed (which I found while working on my own FAC).

  • "It forms alloys with lanthanide metals." - that seems like a very short idea that could be expanded. Is it with all lanthanides? Some? Any more likely than others?
    I'll have to get back to you on that one. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The cited source just says that they exist but are not well-characterized; no examples are given. I added a note about the lack of info in this area and will take another look at my other references to see if they say anything. --mav (reviews needed) 02:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you split up the first sentence of the second paragraph of "Physical properties"? I got a little tripped up when I read "that exists below 900 °C with a density of 15.10 g/cm3 and a face-centered cubic form..."
    No problem. Split. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The resistance to uniform pressure, called the bulk modulus, of californium is 50 ± 5 GPa, which is similar to trivalent lanthanide metals but smaller than more familiar metals, such as aluminium (70 GPa)." - that reads poorly, particularly beginning the clause with "of californium is..."
    Sentence broken-up now between the note about what bulk modulus is and the info about Cf.[49] --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "119 µg" - I don't see that symbol anywhere else in the article. I know what it stands for, but you might want to clarify somewhere else.
    Unit linked. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a little quibble, but units that are used once generally shouldn't be abbreviated, per MOS. I'll let someone complain about that, though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - good point. Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 02:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1982, most californium-252 was used in reactor start-up" - I was confused what that meant at first, but after reading it several times I understood it. You might want to make it clearer.
    Sentence copyedited to hopefully make it more clear. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for commenting. I'm at work right now, but will start to address each point after I get home. --mav (reviews needed) 16:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Several reference books still say that californium metal has not been prepared." - this is probably subject-specific knowledge, but a ref or two would be helpful
    That was a hell of a fact to confirm before due to competing sources. The trouble though, is that I could not find a single source that mentioned the confusion; just different sources either talking about Cf metal or saying Cf metal had not been prepared. For now, I have removed the sentence since it could be seen as a synthesis violation. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 8: need dash in page range
    That is not a page range, it is a page number. The CRC handbook uses a section-page page numbering scheme. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay, never mind then. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 46: publisher? Also, while you are not required to include "(PDF)", other PDF refs do - be consistent
    Publisher and format added. All other PDFs now have formats too. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16: why the different author name order here?
    An oversight. Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 28: page(s)?
    Added. --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how you notate authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In..."). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I used the cite book template. Could you point out an example of inconsistent use? --mav (reviews needed) 23:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "In Clifford A. Hampel" vs "In Geller, Elizabeth". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Stone fixed that and I just confirmed there were no other cases. --mav (reviews needed) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCO review. Nice work. An interesting element and a nice article. I clicked through to the Seaborg book and that was interesting as well. Guess you would be getting some nice insights for all the actinides. Comments in article order:

  • Infobox needs sources, in particular for the nuclear data.
    There is a link to
    Chemical elements data references under the "r" on the infobox, but I agree that is not a standard way to list references and is likely suboptimal in an absolute sense. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to do that and will hopefully start to experiment soon. The trouble comes when whatever is decided needs to be implemented on 120+ articles. --mav (reviews needed) 16:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Testing process started at User:Mav/Sandbox, --mav (reviews needed)
  • What is the "quickly deteriorating" at 300 deg C? Is this a chemical reaction? If physical, doesn't make sense wrt structure discussion.
    The metal vaporizes. Text updated. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How the heck does it vaporize at 300 deg and then have a structure at 1 ATM above 900 deg C?TCO (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Vacuum, now mentioned. --mav (reviews needed) 04:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't understand the last sentence about oxidizing and reducing properties. Is strong really proper description here? And if +2 is strong, then zero would be even stronger, no? Also, I am a little worried the reference will be definitional of the concept here, rather than explain the redox of this metal. (Could not see the page on Google books though.)
    Now reads "Compounds in the +4 oxidation state are strong oxidizing agents and those in the +2 state are strong reducing agents". Source does not explain why though. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Remain concerned on that source. Does it really discuss redox chemistry of Cf specifically?
  • The image in production is a beautiful image and I like how you have centered it. License permission seems a little unclear (was the uploader really the creator in 1975 of that drawing)? Also, maybe have the Image Improvement help desk give it a little brushup to make it sharper.
    Simple presentation of factual data in a table or chart is not eligible for copyright, IIRC. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We should maybe get the description to expalain that then. FS may have an insight also.TCO (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I'm at work right now, but will start to address your points after I get home. --mav (reviews needed) 14:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got a late start, but will do more during the weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'm a layman in the subject. Here are my impressions after a first read.

  • does 'bombarding' need to be linked?
    Not sure to what; seems to be clear from context. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'and is one of the highest atomic mass elements' -> can you be more specific, as in the first part of the sentence
    I would love to, but that is what the source says. Sentence commented out until a better source is found that does not use weasel words. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • does 'crystalline form' need to be linked?
    Yep. Now linked to Crystal structure. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The most stable of californium's twenty isotopes' -> isn't there theoretically more than 20 isotopes?
    We only know what we know; "known" added as modifier. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Californium is one of the few transuranium elements' -> a little vague
    In what way? --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Unlike many other elements heavier than plutonium' -> a little vague
    Sentence removed. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • '900 ±30' but '50 ± 5 GPa' -> be consistent with spacing
    Fixed --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'with an estimated melting point of 900 ±30 °C' -> 'estimated' seems redundant here, considering that there are error bounds
  • Fixed. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of 'Physical properties' is rather technical. I didn't understand much on first read.
    Copyedited. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'as a fluoride, oxalate or hydroxide' -> it seems the Oxford comma is in use in the article, missing here
    Added. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'If problems of availability of the element could be overcome' -> I find the phrasing a little awkward
    Changed to "If more of the element were available for testing" --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'and the majority of these have half-lives shorter than 20 minutes' -> again, please be more specific
    In what way? This article is not the place to list the half lives of each isotope; that is what isotopes of californium is for.. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'due to its habit' do atoms have 'habits'?
    Changed to "tendency" --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The discoverers named the new element for California and the University of California' -> the University is already linked just above
    Not the same thing; Berkeley is one campus of the University of California. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Californium-249 to 252' -> should it be '-252'?
    Fixed --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • '[33] [note 5]' -> there seems to be an extra space
    Fixed --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'includes several isotopes of plutonium, americium, curium, and berkelium and the californium isotopes 249 to 253' -> is there one too many 'and'?
    Extra "and" removed. --mav (reviews needed) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the rest later. 131.111.216.60 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support based on my concerns from the previous FAC being addressed on the talk page before this re-nomination. Will also try and follow this review and comment where needed to see if my support is still justified (which I'm sure it will be). I will comment briefly on the 'blue haze' issue in the references on this FAC talk page, if anyone else wants to discuss that there (or indeed take that discussion somewhere more relevant). Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Support—I did perform a PR on this article and my concerns there were satisfied. Another read through revealed a few issues that should be easy to address:

  • Many of the element articles list a Mohs hardness. Any chance the Mohs hardness of Californium can be dug up (particularly since the article says it can be "easily cut by a razor")?
  • I'm confused about the fact that the article says Californium has a melting point of 900 °C but it vaporizes above 300 °C. Is this an error?
  • Note #2 that begins, "The three lower mass transplutonium elements...", uses spaced em-dashes, which conflicts with
    MOS:EMDASH
    . Please use either unspaced em-dashes or a spaced en-dashes. The sentence "...first californium compounds - californium trichloride..." should also be modified to follow this usage. (I.e. replace the ordinary dash.)
  • I had no success trying to follow the citation for the 1960 production of californium compounds. Please consider inserting the following reference:
    "Submicrogram Chemistry Gives Cf Compounds". Chemical & Engineering News. 38 (52): 38–39. December 26, 1960.
    doi:10.1021/cen-v038n052.p038
    .

Otherwise the article seems to be in good condition. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the edits and comments! Hardness added, mentioned that Cf metal vaporizing requires a vacuum, and removed spaces from em dashes. As for the compounds cite; I don't have access to either source, but yours looks better, so by all means, add it if you have confirmed it verifies the text. --mav (reviews needed) 04:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An outstanding article! I looked at it between two FACs, to find only very minor things, listed at article's talk. Now, I see one more thing:

  • Why U.S. level 1 subdivisions (states) are given for U.S. places while those of Russia aren't? I'd understand if it was Andorra or something like that, but Russia is huge, too... even huger than U.S... than anything else. (If it was Germany, the question would still be. Not Poland — it's quite centralized, but Russia isn't (that) centralized, at least on the paper)

Support. Anyway, it's very minor. Nothing important to fix for me, support.--

talk) 18:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Support with reservation. There's a small discrepancy about the initial price of californium. I've documented it on the talk page. Essentially the current source says Californium first went on sale in the 1970s for $10 per microgram, but multiple newspaper sources report that it went on sale in 1968 for $100 per tenth of a microgram. It's a small discrepancy, but should probably get cleared up. Other than that, it's looking good. Sir Nils (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support and edits! I removed the impression that it first went on sale in the early 1970s at that price and added the most recent RS-documented price, from 1999, in the ref note. Non-RS sources do indicate a price of $68 per microgram in the mid to late 2000s but I could not verify that. More explanation on the Cf talk page. --mav (reviews needed) 03:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new feedback! I will address all remaining issues this weekend. The infobox is now fully cited where needed but some cites are hidden for presentation purposes that are being worked on and a few more properties need to be added. --mav (reviews needed) 12:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Really a little gem of an article in content and prose. Made me interested in what I thought would be a boring, scientific curiosity. Gave it a pretty close read and had a fair amount of comments, now on talk. Looked at the section in G&E Chemistry of the Elements (hard copy) and we cover this topic properly in content and no prose copyvios (in that source.) My big concern on citations for the properties was adressed. There are a couple other nits left. Would advise the author to address, but does not hold up my support. Kudos, mav! TCO (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [50].

Dengue fever

Nominator(s):
Doc James

I am nominating this for featured article because I think that after the work done by

Graham and myself earlier this year it is now worthy of being considered for featured article status. It is a viral tropical disease that is not as well known as malaria (the WHO considers it a "neglected tropical disease"), but it affects 50-100 million people per year, and has been linked to thousands of deaths (often in young children). During the GAC process it was expanded quite a lot by James and myself, and Graham contributed some more technical content that we had overlooked. I am most grateful for comments on readability offered by Colin in January. JFW | T@lk 19:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

This article reflects the most recent understanding of this condition. Well deserving of a FAN.--
talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Organizations like World Health Organization shouldn't be italicized
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Check for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Why give state for Philadelphia and not San Diego? Why note location in FN 20 but not in WHO reference entry? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response by JFW | T@lk 23:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have altered the citation template calls to ensure WHO is given as publisher; this stops it being italicised
      • All full dates are formatted YYYY-MM-DD, unless I missed one
      • I found one instance of a double dot; let me know if I overlooked anything
      • Cleared up specific inconsistencies that you kindly pointed out.
        • Okay, looks good (will reply to your other question on my talk shortly). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support– As the nominators have said, I made some edits to clarify some of the virology and contributed to the section on laboratory diagnosis. The virology is accurate and the prose is up to FA standard now, although there are a few stylistic choices that I would not have made.

I would prefer the "Virology and serology" subheading to read "Laboratory diagnosis" because there already is a "Virology" heading above, and this looks confusing. With regard to the opening sentences of "Signs and symptoms", (which I will paste here to save you having to open another tab) People infected with dengue virus are commonly asymptomatic or only have mild symptoms such as an uncomplicated fever. Others have more severe illness, and in a small proportion it is life-threatening. Is it possible to be more precise? I have a review article here that says, "As many as 80% of all dengue infections are asymptomatic...usually less than 5% can be severe and a fraction of these may be fatal". (Free article reference; Reiter P (March 2010). "Yellow fever and dengue: a threat to Europe?". Eurosurveillance. 15 (10): 19509.

PMID 20403310
.)

The "Epidemiology" section seems a little short. There is no mention of the three maintenance cycles: the forest cycle of canopy-dwelling mozzies and lower primates; the rural cycle in which other Aedes species are involved and the urban cycle, which the article focuses on. I think a sentence or two is also needed on how urbanisation and increased air travel have changed the epidemiology.

talk) 15:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Support—Thank you for another quality, informative medical article. My concerns were satisfied or demonstrated as unnecessary. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment—Overall the article is in good shape and I'm close to support. I did have to make a few edits to address some minor issues; hopefully these meet with your approval. Here are my remaining concerns:
    • The Commons description for the "File:Dengue fever symptoms.svg" image (Summary/References) seems to be somewhat malformed. Can that be cleaned up?
    • The NIH web page on the subject refers to a "second rash, which looks like the measles, appears later in the disease". This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. NIH also mentions fatigue and swollen lymph nodes as symptoms.
    • The WHO web page on the topic lists an upper limit of 41 °C for the fever. This article says "frequently over 40 °C" but does not give an upper limit.
    • Is it worth mentioning long-term symptoms?[51]
    • The writing seems to make excessive use of parentheses in a few places, which several writing guides mention as something to avoid.[52][53][54][55] As a heuristic, no more than one pair per paragraph would be good, but I know it sometimes can't be avoided.
    • The article uses unspaced em-dashes "mosquito species—Aedes albopictus" and spaced en-dashes "female aedes mosquitoes – of species". Please be consistent and use one style.
    • As a minor nit, I noticed the 'sfn'-style citations are lacking terminating periods. (Example: Gubler (2010), p. 379) This is inconsistent with the other citations.
    • Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response - thank you RJHall for your ever helpful comments
      • I have tried to tidy up the commons page.[56]
      • The lymphadenopathy and various descriptions of the rash are not noted in this form in any of the other sources. We mention both the flushed skin and the petechiae, which is the way the WHO 2009 document seems to describe it. With regards to the fatigue, this is a subjective and nonspecific symptom that - if my memory serves - is not mentioned directly in the other sources. I concede that it is often encountered.
      • It is pretty unusual for any fever to exceed 41°C (although this is sometimes seen in young children). Above this level, the term "
        hyperpyrexia
        " is used. The WHO page actually says "can be as high as", and I don't think an upper limit is definitely intended here.
      • I'm puzzled by the mention of this in the Mayo clinic page. Anyone who has had a severe illness may take some time to recover; in dengue there is no particular reason why this should be the case. All our sources are quiet on this, so I would struggle to provide a
        WP:MEDRS
        for the claim.
      • I will do a cleanout of parentheses.
      • I will sort out the dashes situation.
      • I will ensure we are consistent with periods in the referencing apparatus. JFW | T@lk 11:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have eliminated quite of few of parentheses, but I could not found that many instances. I think the last few remaining ones are functional, and breaking the subclauses out of the parentheses would disrupt the flow of the sentences in question. JFW | T@lk 17:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have been reviewing this article for several days and am confident it meets all of the
    WP:MEDRS; the images are appropriate, encyclopedic, and free. The edits made in response to RJHall's comments above dealt with any formatting issues I would have complained about :) I do have some nitpicks, but they are so minor as to warrant no mention here—I have instead raised them at the nominator's Talk page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. This one has come together really well. I made some minor changes but can't see any prose deal-breakers left. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! Agree with the simple point that the guppy is a fearsome warrior against dengue![57] JFW | T@lk 10:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've gone through this article carefully and after a few tweaks I think the prose is fine and generally lay-friendly (there are parts that are excellent in this regard, and there are always a few areas that could be improved further). I've checked a number of facts against the sources where I'm able to and didn't find any significant problems, nor would I expect to given the folks involved. I haven't checked the comprehensiveness and this probably isn't something I could judge without significant study on my part -- though other reviewers are more able here than me. Good work! Colin°Talk 22:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --WS (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images and spotchecks done by Fvasconcellos and Colin respectively (bolding for delegate benefit). The only suggestion I have here is to slightly up the size of the symptoms schematic to make the text slightly more legible. Also, don't end captions that aren't complete sentences with periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It depends on someone's thumbnail size settings, but I have slightly enlarged the default thumbnail size for this image to make the captions legible. Thanks for pointing this out. Graham has already exterminated the stray period. JFW | T@lk 10:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [58].

Into Temptation (film)

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated once before, and failed mainly due to some

WP:LINKROT issues and a lack of reviewers participating in the FAC. I think the former has been resolved now, and I will try to engaged the WikiProject Film and ping a few editors to try and prevent the latter. It's a short article but I believe it's comprehensive, and I'm ready to address any concerns that remain. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Need page numbers for print sources with no weblinks and for multi-page PDFs
    • I've added page numbers to the PDFs and print sources (or, in some cases, added URLs that I found but weren't included before). One problem, however, is that I cannot find a page number for the Hollywood Reporter source (#11). The link here isn't available to view except for subscribers, and this Highbeam archive link doesn't have a page number in the copyright info. Any thoughts on how I should handle this? — Hunter Kahn 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could either add the archive link (assuming it has the text?) or contact someone with a subscription, either through
        WP:LIBRARY or some other venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • What makes this a high-quality
    reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support - The page looks good to me. There may be some very minor things, but I did not notice them on my first read through. If they exist I'm sure they'll be taken care of, but for the most part the page is pretty well developed for what essentially boils down to a straight-to-dvd film (though I know it was released in a handful of theaters). The only thing I would suggest would be putting "Themes" after "Release". There is not a set structure to films articles (though I am away that "Themes" currently sits high order wise on the
    WP:MOSFILMS page...there is discussion about moving it to the "Secondary Information" section), but to me it always seems weird to discuss films from an interpretive standpoint when there is still objective information like distribution and awards still to come. Since a lot of the "theme" discussion are extensions of the critical reviews, to me it seems more appropriate to have that last. Either way, it has no bearing on the page meeting FA criteria, so it doesn't impact my support in the least.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: Hi, great article. Since the the film was released in some theaters, it still received a box office gross of $97,457. (see The Numbers) This should be included in the article. —Mike Allen 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the link! I've added this info to the article and the infobox. — Hunter Kahn 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article is well referenced, well written and comprehensive (for an independent film). TheNumbers.com usually has DVD sales, but doesn't have any data for this film. A cast list (or lack of) is aesthetic and doesn't have any barring on the quality of the article, IMO. —Mike Allen 00:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is well-referenced and reads well as a whole. I did some minor copy-editing. One concern I have with the article are some of the quotes from the cast and crew. We have to be cautious with using quotes. Some will provide insight about the film, while others can be fluff. For example, in the "Casting" section, Sisto's explanation is insightful, where Baumgartner's quote about not being able to put down the script is fluff. Two other examples are, "Oh my God, we've been looking for that," and "the best indie film to come my way in some time". Would it be possible to remove these quotes and leave it to the critics to comment on the film's quality? [EDIT: In relation to this, is there any kind of overview reference you can use to back the claim of "generally positive reviews"? I assume that the claim is based on 5 out of 6 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes being positive, but an overview reference would be better.] Erik (talk | contribs) 16:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed what I believe are the unnecessary quotes, but if you feel others need to be removed, let me know. Regarding the "generally positive reviews" claim in the lede, my feeling is that the lede is supposed to summarize the entire article, and this statement is meant to simply summarize the "critical response" section. As you can see from reading the section, most of these reviews are positive, so I felt the "generally positive reviews" for a summary in the lede statement was in line because it is verified by that section. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn 03:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My thought is that it helps to have a critical consensus backed by a secondary source, which can then determine the tone and balance of reviews in the Wikipedia article. I was suggesting a source that could adequately capture the overall reception, especially in retrospect. For example, with so few reviews here, it's easy to determine the balance yourself. Six isn't the best sample set. It's certainly not panned, but it could be more universally acclaimed or more in "average" territory. Is there anything that could be used? Not a dealbreaker, as I already lent my support, but it would help. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added the Rotten Tomatoes link that you had mentioned earlier. It's not perfect, but since it shows an 83% positive rate and a summary of the positive reviews, I thought perhaps that combined with the sourced info in the "Critical response" section should hopefully be adequate. (I looked for Metacritic as another alternative but Into Temptation isn't on there.) Do you think this helps? — Hunter Kahn 19:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the actors are mentioned within the plot summary. While we have had reviewed articles that do this, I think it would be better to have a cast list apart from the plot summary. It seems unnecessary to go through the summary to identify the actor behind each role, when we can list them for easier navigation. Basic cast lists aren't bad per se; well-written prose is recommended whenever possible, and I think you've accomplished that in the rest of the article body. Is that something you would consider? You could have a simple "Cast" section with the image from the plot summary in that section to break up some white space. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erik, what exactly would you be looking for in the "Cast" section. I've always been one to dislike just a basic list of the actors and the characters, because that's pretty much what IMDb does. The "casting" section pretty much covers most of the cast that are relevant.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a basic list is a bad thing. One benefit at IMDb in listing the cast is that one can click through and navigate actors' pages. We do the same thing on Wikipedia with all our blue links, but I think that kind of cross-navigation is tough when the actors are embedded in a plot summary. One particular weakness of embedding is that the plot summary would not necessarily mention all the characters (and the actors who play them) even though they could be relevant outside the film itself. Some films just have a large cast of major characters, while others will have cameos of note. I also think that identifying actors is a kind of interruption in reading the plot summary, especially beyond the opening sentences. The opening sentences can help identify leading roles, but I think that afterward there's a certain obligation to mention the actor behind each explicitly identified character that made it into the current draft of the plot summary. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find that simple lists distract from the rest of the page, because there is this big blank space that sits in the middle of the page. Those lists appear to have very little value beyond simply naming who was in the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you mean the white space to the right of the list? That's why I recommended having the image from the plot summary in that space instead. I agree that the space can be an issue, but I think it is more beneficial to list the cast members than to embed them in the plot summary. It's more directly presented for the benefit of identification and navigation. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get that, but to me it seems counterproductive to the message we're sending at
    WP:MOSFILMS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - Hi I would generally support this article, however, I'm not sure about the 'Themes' sub-section. The section explains what the film is about (and to it's credit with lots of sources) but sets these themes out as fact. Wouldn't the article read better by instead of saying "Into Temptation is about etc etc" saying something like "John Smith in The Film Review said Into Temptation was about etc etc"? Coolug (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V#Neutrality says, "Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: 'John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y,' followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say." I think that implies that unless there is a contrast, attributing via in-line citation is sufficient. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Support Hey, thanks for explaining, I'm relatively new to FAC so I'm not up on all the policies yet, therefore with this in mind I should state that I support this article being promoted. Good work. Coolug (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pending, and adherence to sources and close paraphrasing check pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues still pending, and still waiting for a spotcheck on close paraphrasing and adherence to sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "(pictured)" is unneeded in the context you're using it
  • File:Red-light_district_scene_from_Into_Temptation.jpg - what is the copyright status of the mural in this picture? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure. The director of the film has released the photograph itself through a GNU license, but the mural never came up. How could I verify this? Or perhaps I should crop the picture so most of the mural would be removed? — Hunter Kahn 17:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I honestly did not even notice the mural in the shot. If it is part of the background, is there really a concern of copyright? I'm trying to review pages like Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and Wikipedia:Public domain and can't seem to determine anything about a background element possibly being copyrighted. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You might contact the director and ask about the mural. As for the background issue, I would argue that since almost the entire thing is visible and it's a fairly obvious part of the scene, the potential for copyright is not ignorable. YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've e-mailed the director, will write back here when he responds. — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The director responded: "The mural was created by art director James Bakkom and we have all rights to it." — Hunter Kahn 17:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of 7 sources found a few issues:


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [59].

1952 Winter Olympics

Nominator(s): H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. I have moved this article through the paces and I'm ready to take a run at FAC. It has been reviewed by multiple editors and I've worked hard to get it up to snuff. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 12: page(s)?
  • Ref 51: parenthetical part not needed here
  • Be consistent in how publisher locations are notated
  • Retrieval dates not needed for convenience weblinks to print-based sources (like Google Books). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image check.

  • File:Holmenkollbakken_1952.jpg: Needs a US copyright tag. Unfortunately, you're going to struggle because copyright would have been restored in the US in 1996 (though such a restoration is dubiously legal). Even so, having dubiously legal images in an FA seems inappropriate.
  • The caption for the Infobox image seems to be more ALT-text than a caption.

Otherwise looks good, legal wise, though one wonders if the image quality could be improved. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bummer on the copyright image but I understand, FAs have to held to the highest standards. I tried to update the caption on the info box to make it less alt textish. I agree it was too much like alt text. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Alpine skiing: Typo in third sentence of section with "apline".
  • Nordic combined: "won the gold and bronze bronze respectively." One word too many.
  • Figure skating: "This marked the first time computers were used to tabulate the judge's scores." Should the apostrophe in "judge's" be at the end of the word?
  • Ice hockey: Try not to have a sentence start with a number like in "1952 would mark the end of the Canadian hockey hegemony...".
  • Bandy: "and instead selected bandy, had never been included on an Olympic program." Missing word after the comma?
  • References 58 and 59 appear to be to the same site. Why not combine them? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for catching those typos and missing/too many words. I made the fixes you suggested above. Thank you for your review. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

talk) 00:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC) another nice article about the Winter Games - I'm happy to see this endeavor continue! I have a few comments and nitpicks that I'd like to see resolved.[reply
]

  • Consistency needed per MoS Numbers. Numbers of 10 or below should be written, those higher presented as numerals, except I'd leave events such as 4 x 10 as is. I saw some cases of numbers written (twenty-two in the lead) and presented in as numerals, (50 kilometers in cross country skiing).
  • The article mentions that they only had the long jump event - I think you should add the length of the long jump, for people who are unfamiliar.
  • In the cross country section it mentions a switchboard at the finish line - I'm not clear what that is. I think of a switchboard as having to do with telephones.
  • Alpine skiing - it mentions later in the article, but not in the Alpine section, that Oslo was the first time GS and downhill were Olympic events. I think this should be mentioned in the Alpine section. Also, before Oslo, I seem to think there was a combined event that was discontinued. Maybe see if the sources say anything about that.
  • There's a bit of overciting. It's not strictly necessary to cite each sentence if the next is from the same source. I saw a few places where there were multiple sentences in a row that probably only needed a single citation.
  • Linking - is a bit confusing. At first I thought you were linking years and nationalities and I didn't want to follow the links but then I realized they were linked to subarticles. Might be a better way of doing that to bring people to the subarticles. I found a few instances of overlinking (I fixed one), so check for those per
    WP:Overlink
    .

Note to delegates - I've reviewed and spotchecked H1nkles' work before and everthing was fine. I spotchecked here, and everything was fine.

talk) 21:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you very much for your review, edits and support. I've made most of the fixes you suggested. I was unable to find the tow rope length in the source. Good catch on the downhill/GS fact, downhill had been done before but not GS. I corrected that fact and removed some instances of overciting and overlinking. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to add the length of the long jump, just for information, and it mentions that there wasn't a short jump that year. I didn't mean the rope tow.
talk) 18:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh ok, I misread it. I updated the length of the jump run and there was only the one event. Thanks again! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 02:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

The copy is very "buggy". I'm finding typos, MOS problems and other issues, which I'm fixing. Specifics I can't do myself, below.

  • Is "beat out" correct and encyclopedic language in AmEng? It sounds horrible to my anglo ear, but I'm mindful of ENGVAR.

More later, --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review and the fixes, I appreciate a reviewer who takes the time to make the changes. Often it's easier to edit than write all the fixes down here anyway. I did change "beat out", which is more sports jargon and not very encyclopedic. Unless you find the article unfixable during the review I'd appreciate suggested fixes rather than a straight oppose if you don't mind. Thanks H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Sorry for the hiatus - I plan to resume looking through the article today. --Dweller (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm currently minded to oppose the article, because the text is just too buggy. I found a number of issues, some minor, some more worrying, in my review of the lead and first section. But it looks comprehensive and well sourced, which are the two real biggies... and I like your attitude. Can I suggest a third party copyedit (maybe if you ask Casliber?) and then let me know when it's done? --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have put in a request for Casliber to do an independent copy edit. I hope together we can cover this final big hurdle and get it to FA. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - going through now - will jot queries below: looking much more polished now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...from 14 February to 25 February 1952 - can we say "from 14 to 25 February 1952", or is there some MOS rule governing this?
which were held at Norefjell, 113 km (70 mi) from the capital, and Rødkleiva. - odd that you give the distance of one but not the other. If the latter is actually only just outside Oslo, then something like "which were held at nearby Rødkleiva, and Norefjell, 113 km (70 mi) from the capital." or something else similar.
That was my fault I'm afraid. The lead originally said that the alpine events were held at Norefjell, but the text said that some were held at Rødkleiva, so I added that.
Fatuorum 03:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd link "bobsleigh" in the lead.
and three dormitories were built to house the athletes and coaches, a forerunner of the modern athlete's village. - subject discrepancy - maybe "and athletes and coaches were housed in three custom-built dormitories, foreshadowing the athlete's villages of later games."
First 3-4 sentences of Host city selection section need a definite rejig.

Oppose. I have to oppose this for now as I think the article needs a lot of work to meet the FA criteria. The content is good but the presentation isn't so good. I've made some suggestions to H1nkles on my talk page.

Fatuorum 22:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I peer reviewed this and was going to review it now, but see it is in the midst a major capyedit - could someone please post here when that is done? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the copy edit is done if you'd like to comment. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I got busy IRL, but should be able to make my review in the next 24 hours or less, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • I don't understand something about the torch. Were there two torches, one lit in the stadium and one elsewhere? Seems confusing anyway.
  • One flame that lit up the torch in the stadium. I tried to reword it so it isn't so confusing.
  • Due to scheduling conflicts, there were scheduling conflicts?

More to follow, next week. --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch This looks pretty good to me and I have made some copyedits as I read just now. I am leaning twoards support, but have enough quibbles to want to see them addressed first.

  1. The copyedits have improved the prose greatly, but seem to have introduced an error in the lead. Rødkleiva is just north of Oslo, not 113 km away: Oslo had all the venues for the competitions in the city metropolitan area, except the alpine skiing events were held at Norefjell and Rødkleiva, 113 km (70 mi) from the capital. Similarly in the Alpine skiing section, I would clarify which event(s) took place at which venue.
    Since Rødkleiva is in Oslo, does it need to be mentioned separately in the lead? So perhaps tweak the current sentence to something like All of the venues were in Oslo's metropolitan area except for [two of] the alpine skiing events, which were held at Norefjell, 113 km (70 mi) from the capital, and Rødkleiva.
  2. Can Athlete's village be linked to Olympic Village in the lead? I would also link East Germany there.
    Done by H1nkles.
  3. I know the preceding sentence says Winter, but should that be added here too? The flag, which became known as the "Oslo flag", has been displayed in the host city during each subsequent [Winter?] Games.
  4. In Politics, would it help to state that Norway was occupied by Nazi Germany for just over 5 years during WW II? Many readers will know this, but as it now over 70 years since the start of the Nazi occupation of Norway, it might be useful to mention explicitly.
    Done, I (H1nkles) tweaked the lead sentence in the para to encorporate the German occupation of Norway and added a ref. Not sure if it meets what you were recommending.
  5. Would adding the date here help clear up the two torches confusion mentioned above? The Olympic torch was lit [on 13 February] in the hearth of the Morgedal House, birthplace of skiing pioneer Sondre Norheim.[1]
    Yes and done by H1nkles.
  6. In the Cross-country skiing section, I would explicitly say where the events were held (Holmenkollbakken) since the Ski jumping section follows this (currently says they were held next to the ski jump). Also my guess is most readers will not know gender from names here, so men's or women's should be added to 50-liometer race in these sentences: Veikko Hakulinen won the 50-kilometer race to inaugurate an Olympic career that would garner seven medals, three of them gold.[39] Hallgeir Brenden won the 50-kilometer race and helped Norway take the silver in the 4 × 10 kilometer relay.
    Update - apparently there not two 50-km races, but one 50-km and one 18-km, both for men. Since I got this information from the athletes' Wikipedia articles, this needs to be confirmed by someone familair with reliable sources. I assumed the two 50-km races were for men and women before. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch! There was some confusion here perhaps in my writing or in the editing. I clarified. There was only one 50km race for men and a 10km race for women. There was also an 18km race for men. I think I've sorted it out.
  7. Need to be consistent on use of hyphens - in Cross-country skiing it is "50-kilometer race" but in Nordic combined it is "18 kilometer cross-country race" - shouldn't these either both have a hyphen or not between the number and kilometer?
  8. Seems awkward Canada had won all but one Olympic hockey tournament thus far, but 1952 was the last year before the Canadians faced competition from the Soviet team which began to compete in 1956.[60] Perhaps Canada had won all but one Olympic hockey tournament thus far, but in 1956 the Soviet team began to compete and ended Canadian dominance.[60]
  9. Is the Oslo flag brought to each Winter Games, or a replica? The article seems to say both: The flag, which came to be known as the "Oslo Flag", has since been preserved and a replica is brought to a new host city. The original is kept in a display case, with the name of every Winter Olympics host city engraved on brass plaques, and is brought to each Winter Games to be displayed.[67]
    The writing was clear so I (H1nkles) polished it. Let me know if it makes more sense. In short - two flags, the replica is used during the closing ceremonies and the original is on display at each Games. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. In Venue, capitalize stadium names consistently - so Bislett Stadion, but Tryvann stadion and Hamar stadion

Hope this helps. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ruhrfisch - I think much of this was introduced in my copyedits last night. Unfortunately I ran out of steam with the intention of returning today. I think I'll make the fixes to errors I introduced, and then leave the rest for H1nkles to finish, if that's okay.
    talk) 20:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I've fixed mistakes I've introduced: #1, 3, 7, 8, 10.
    talk) 20:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I have switched to support. It might help to add the year to the Antwerp flag (since not everyone will know those games were in 1920), so [Since 1920, T]he "Antwerp flag" was passed from host city to host city during closing ceremonies for the Summer Games.[66] Your call - thanks to everyone for their work on this, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead needs to be tweaked as Rødkleiva is in Oslo. While it is correct that some of the Alpine skiing took place there, it is only Norefjell which is located 113 km away. Rødkleiva is even within walking distance from a metro station.
  • How can the ski hill be 270 meters long? The current world record is 246.5 and in 1952 it was 139.
  • Perhaps link Norway national bandy team etc for the national bandy teams, given, of course, that this actually is the national teams competing.
  • Jordal Amfi did receive artificial ice, but it was not rebuilt with a roof until 1972. (I can find a source for this if necessary)
  • Could there be a consistent use of upper or lower case for 'stadion'. In Norwegian, it is unambiguously correct to use lower case. Right now, the article names are rather random whether they treat it by Norwegian or English grammar. Both are arguably correct, but consistency is preferable.
  • Don't have higher precision for the converted unit than the original unit.
  • There is a difference between Holmenkollen National Arena and Holmenkollbakken. The latter is the hill itself, while the former is a rather modern name for the whole complex, including all the cross-country skiing trails. When discussing the upgrades to the hill, using the term Holmenkollbakken is much more accurate.
  • "...located on the same mountain as Holmenkollen at the Frognerseter hill." Frognerseteren is a rather small area and stating that Holmenkollen or Rødkleiva is part of Frognereteren is wrong. The three are distinct areas located beside each other. The area in general does not as such have a name, although it is part of the somewhat larger Nordmarka. It is fine saying that they are on the same mountain.

Arsenikk (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • See my comments above. I believe I may have introduced some of these inaccuracies.
    talk) 20:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I have made edits based on Arsenikk's comments. I moved the jump length to the venues as I was referring to the length of the hill not the length of the actual jump. It was not clear. I capitalized all refs to Stadion. I think the "at" should have been an "and" in the sentence about Forgnereteren. Does that clarify it or am I still off? It now reads, "...located on the same mountain as Holmenkollen and the Frognerseter hill." Thanks for the review! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see I have to do some of this myself. Ski jumps are measured in the length of the out-run and never include the length of the in-run. According to the source, the out-run is 87 m. The only place I see 270 m is the length of the in-run in feet. Arsenikk (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support all my comments have been seen to. Arsenikk (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry my ignorance of winter sports is on full display. Thank you for your support and your reviews both here and at GAC. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments—looks good on initial viewing. A few twiddlies:
    • You could remove the second "February" from the opening sentence.
    • "losing to Germany, who had"—I think should be "which". "The Soviet Union had intended to enter a team in the ice hockey tournament, but they applied too late to join"—You can remove "they".
    • Better to move "built" to before the parenthesis? "To accommodate the influx of athletes and coaches, quarters for competitors and support staff were designed and constructed, with three new facilities (forerunners of the athlete's villages of later Games) built."
    • Germany at the 1952 olympics, piped to just "Germany", appears again and again. First time only would be better, and you might consider a more explicit list of links under "See also" instead; but I suppose the reader will get it if they hover over the first country-name link.
    • "500–meter race"—hyphen, not dash. There are more. "18-kilometers, 50-kilometers, and a relay"—unlike the next one, where X-kilometers is the compound adjective for "race", these ones have no hyphen. 18 and 50 are the adjectives.
    • Table: those colours are a bit garish in my view, but I suppose it's ok. I'd tone them down, but it might be my system. Very functional colours, though. Tony (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, H1. I'd support, but I've been torched by the delegate for giving a so-called "green light"—in fact, my honesty has been impugned for doing so. I'm fearful of exposing myself again. So no go. Tony (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, it speaks to the esteem with which many of the delegates hold you. Sorry that people would question your honesty or integrity that's a shame. Your time in reviewing is appreciated. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Tony won't say it but I will. All of my earlier concerns have now been addressed Just one small point though:

  • "The result was criticized in the Soviet press ... Teams from North America were criticised for their rough play". Which is it to be?
    Fatuorum 20:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [60].

John McCauley

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a remarkable series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of the

John McCauley, Frederick Scherger, Val Hancock and Alister Murdoch. Scherger went through FAC a while back, and now it’s time for the rest, starting with McCauley, whose article has recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews. Hancock and Murdoch, also GA/A, will follow (you've been warned)... ;-) Thanks in advance for any input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether shortened citations use the title of the volume or the entire work
  • Ref 23: you're citing one sentence to over one hundred pages?! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks -- well-spotted as usual... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Spot check only I spot checked 3 sentences sourced to 3 difference sources, and found no close paraphrase or plagiarism. I do have a concern: How does Odgers, Air War Against Japan, p. 194 support "As a result, RAAF Headquarters increased the supply of pilots and equipment to the group, which was then able to meet, and later exceed, the rate of effort achieved by comparable US Fifth Air Force units."? I can't read the page as supporting the assertion. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The passage in Odgers p.194 relating to the article sentence above is:

After considerable interchange of signals with R.A.A.F. Headquarters, the Deputy Chief of the Air Staff personally visited the Group (Air Commodore McCauley arrived at Nadzab on 4th March) and was convinced by General Whitehead that either our units flew the hours required of them or they would not be given aerodrome space in the forward areas. As a result of this visit, the number of pilots per squadron was increased to thirty and the number of aircraft to twenty-four, with a further thirty-six in immediate reserve at a repair and service unit. It was gratifying to find later that the steps taken by Air Force Headquarters to build these units to a level where they were capable of rates of effort comparable with those of the Americans, resulted, later in the year, in the squadrons of No. 78 Wing consistently outflying similar American units.

I deliberately trimmed and paraphrased this into one succinct sentence but of course it's possible I inadvertedly altered meaning. Re-reading it, though, it still makes sense to me so can you be more specific about how the source doesn't support the sentence as I have it? Is it that I've used the overarching "group" rather than "78 Wing" (the wing being one of the major formations operating within the group)? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I had a hard time working through the AWM prose (it is a particular and technical style I don't often encounter), and wasn't reading the sense properly. Your quote let me see it perfectly! Fifelfoo (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, thanks for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Already reviewed at the A-class review. Some more comments, ignore them if you like:

  • He prevented RAF headquarters from dissolving No. 21 Squadron and using its personnel as a labour force on Sumatra, instead arranging their transport as a unit to Batavia What happened after that? Did they make it back to Australia or spend the rest of the war working on the Burma railway?
  • The British had actively sought him for this particular appointment This comes out of the blue (so to speak) as he never attended staff college and had little staff experience. The reader is left to presume that it was a result of his defeating the Japanese (or not) in Malaya. Anything more known?
  • It seems that such an important post is worth more than one sentence. Is anything more known about 2nd TAF operations in 1945?

Cheers Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many tks mate. Yes 21SQN did make it back to Oz, so added a bit. I think you or others raised the question re. 2TAF but I'm afraid I still have the same answer -- nothing more in sources I've already used, nor in Trove, and I'm afraid I can't think of anywhere else right now. Tks for stopping by. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image check:

In theory, these images are not in the PD in the US. However, the Government of Australia implies that they are in the public domain worldwide. Certainly, that is the rationale File:P01152.001McCauleyDuntroon1919.jpg. If their statement is accepted (we accept the British government's explicit statement to the same effect, for example), then it should be easy enough to copy across a similar rationale - most easily via a special licensing tag. Other images look OK. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 21:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The age of this article means some of its image tagging dates from liberal times on WP, however the pictures are certainly PD according to Australian law so utilised a similar tag to the Duntroon file -- thanks for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and created a special licensing tag that accepts their release as applying worldwide. What do you think? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind it but I'm not sure why we need another template when the second one in the Duntroon file, which highlights how the PD applies "worldwide" and which I've added to the others you've mentioned, has always sufficed up till now, for instance in the last RAAF officer article I submitted to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a major concern; that releasing works into the public domain in Australia would lead to their being copyrighted by US companies. There has been talk about setting up an Australian Commons, where we can upload images without reference to their status in the US. I would not upload an AWM image to Commons because they have the AWM watermark. I have had images deleted from Commons because of that. Always best to keep them on the English Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would only (personally) prefer a template so it's clear that we're relying on their assertion. It highlights where the dependency in a clear way. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (ignore it if you like) For all the Royal Australian Air Force 1939–1942 and similar PDF sources, why don't you link the title instead of both the title and the page ranges? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 09:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I appreciate it when anyone comes along to a FAC I've nominated, so I try never to ignore a question... ;-) I link the page numbers as well as the title to indicate that it's not all one big PDF to which the citations are referring, that the links are a bit more granular than that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose per standard disclaimer. A few comments: - Dank (push to talk)

  • I notice that "Nos. 1 and 8 Squadrons" has a full stop but "Nos 21 and 453 Squadrons" doesn't.
  • What does Macquarie say about "emanating" [from the base]? I would have said "originating".
    1. –verb (used without object) to flow out, issue, or proceed, as from a source or origin; come forth; originate.
    2. –verb (used with object) to send forth; emit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It sounds from Hawkeye's post that it's okay (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not actually against "originating", I just always thought the current wording was appropriate and a bit different. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The connotation I've always seen (though I have a strong AmEng bias, so my sense of the word may not be very relevant) is "flow out" or "emit", with a connotation of "oozing". - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sure I've seen the expression "flights emanating from so-and-so airfield" in my time, but if one other reviewer thinks it sounds odd I promise to change it to "originating"...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he stated his reason as being that there was" feels wordy to me.
  • "being followed by Air Marshals": I think I'd say "followed by Air Marshals".
  • "though in the event the French Dassault Mirage III was purchased": Almost no Americans will follow this. Can you substitute "in fact" or some other expression for "in the event"?
    • (Checks with American.) It is understood okay. The term is used in all the airline safety talks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? Did the American think it meant "though if [it] was purchased"? Because that's not what it means. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've always understood "in the event that" to mean "if", whereas "in the event" simply means "as it happened" (which I didn't use because it sounded a bit informal), "as it transpired" (which sounded a bit old-fashioned), or "in fact" (which has generally been frowned upon in WP in my experience). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've met very few Americans who know what the expression means. I've asked at
            WT:MIL; it's possible that military folks are more aware than others. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
            ]
      • Used it in a few articles without issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "front-line 'bare bases' across Northern Australia": These should probably be double quotation marks, since
    WP:MOS#Quotation marks
    recommends them, and since you're using double quotation marks everywhere else.
  • "became its first Chairman": I'd lowercase "chairman". - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done,. Thanks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the status of this FAC, it's been 9 days since any comment was made, from what I can see the article meets the FACR. —
    Talk • Contribs) • 9:23pm • 11:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support with comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we know his children's names?
  • "ordering units to draft doctrine relevant to their combat roles" - as a non-specialist I'm not sure what this means
    • Could be worded as "write policy..." I guess, if necessary. Hawkeye, do you see a big diff between "policy" and "doctrine" in this instance? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the pre-war Air Force" - but this is the inter-war period, so if you want to use that phrase you likely should specify which war
    • If someone only served in one world war I think it's okay, and I see military writers use the term in similar circumstances without qualifying it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "handed over" a military term? I would be more used to reading "handed it over" or similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pilots and co-pilots talk of "handing over / taking over" control of an aircraft, and the expression seems to be applied to the transfer of authority re. commands as well. I didn't set out to use military terminology but as an air force brat and former defence contractor it probably creeps into my everyday speech/writing. Anyway, hopefully it works in context. Thanks a lot for your review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues unresolved, but I can't force reviewers to engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [61].

Vidkun Quisling

Nominator(s): - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a

Universism does redirect back to the article, it redirects to a specific section, in line with WP:Summary style. Thanks and happy reading, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

You failed to transclude this page to
WP:FAC. I will add it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 23:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Did I not? Oh, gee, sorry about that. Thanks for covering. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 08:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 93: page(s)?
  • Be consistent in what information is provided for publisher locations

Sources appear to be appropriately scholarly, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the citation to Shirer; it was added a long time ago and I couldn't find it in the "snippet view" of Google books. The statement was also explicitly in the Time reference anyway. I have also standardised the locations. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 12:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check—issues I was only able to spot check online sources. Yourieff 2007 is clear. "Justice—I". Time Magazine is clear. Cohen 2000 p 279. "He was cremated and his ashes interred in his native Fyresdal." is close paraphrase, please reword. What can reassure us regarding close paraphrase in relation to offline sources? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Parts of Dahl's book are available online at Google Books. I have used a few Norwegian books as sources for details, dates, etc., but never for real prose, so the only unintentional close paraphrasing would come from either the Dahl or the Høidal biography. My local library has copies of the English translations of these books, so I can of course do a spot check sometime. --Eisfbnore talk 07:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reworded that phrase (not sure who added it, it certainly wasn't me). In terms of reassurance, I suppose one indication would be the heavy level of copyediting the article has received and another would be the high level of condensing the Dahl biography received; but I agree your best bet would be to compare some Dahl items to the preview of Dahl available on Google Books. (Incidentally, all Høidal citations come from the snippet view of that book available on GB.) Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 10:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll selectively spot check those two sources in a bit. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:Oppose for the moment. The research looks sound, and the article seems very comprehensive. My problem is with the prose, which does not look up to FAC standard. I have only read the first third of the article, so the list that follows is by no means exhaustive. Someone needs to give the whole article a thotough prose check.

Lead

  • "The son of a Church of Norway pastor, Quisling blended Christian fundamentals, scientific developments and philosophy into a new theory he called Universism". This sounds as though you are recording an achievement, but in the main text it is clear that this theory gained no significant ground. It would be better to modify: "he attempted to blend"
  • "Before ... before" in the same sentence: "Before going into politics, Quisling proved to have strong military potential before joining the General Staff in 1911". As he didn't enter politics until 1930, the sentence doesn't work anyway.
  • "For this he was awarded the British Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE)..." The correct wording is "For these services he was appointed a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE)..." - and you need to say who appointed him.
  • "vicious" is POV
Lead in better nick now. I don't entirely agree with your argument (below) about Universism, but I'm not pressing the point. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "On 1 November 1911, he joined the army General Staff and was sent to Russia in March 1918 as an attaché at the Norwegian legation in Petrograd..' " You cannot just ignore seven years of life (and a world war) by means of a simple "and".
Much better as written now, but your mention of "peace movement" requires a little explanation Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travel

  • "Quisling left Norway once more... followed in the next line by "Quisling left Norway once again..." Vary your phrasing
  • "Quisling found the situation much improved and consequently of less interest..." Why of "less interest"?
"less satisfying" would be a preferable phrase to "more boring" (which sounds a little Gauche). Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quisling apparently married Pasetsjnikova in Kharkov on 10 September 1923, although no legal documentation has been discovered." So what is the basis for the assumption that they were married on that date in that place?
My concern here has not been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paris, Ukraine and Norway

  • Why did Quisling go to Paris? Was he taking, in modern parlance, a "gap year"? You mention "a further temporary discharge from the army", but I don't remember reading anything about a previous discharge.
  • "Increasingly bitter over his treatment by the military, he eventually took up a post in the reserves on the reduced salary of a captain, and received a promotion to major in 1930." This information might be better given in a footnote, to avoid disrupting the chronology.
  • "their stay": No "their" has been established in this paragraph
  • "Quisling's stay in Paris did not last long, and in late 1923 he started work on Nansen's new repatriation project in the Balkans, arriving in Sofia in November." This conflicts with your earlier statement: "...from the summer of 1923 onwards they spent a year in Paris." (my emphasis)
  • "Although Quisling promised to provide for her, his payments were irregular and missed a number of opportunities to visit her." Grammar.
  • "Back in Norway, and to his later embarrassment..." This sentence goes on and on, and must be split into at least two. How is "to his later embarrassment" worded in the source?
  • We have "Movement" and "movement"
If "Movement" is part of the organisation's title, e.g "Norwegian Labour Movement", the capital is required. General reference the "movement" need no capitalisation Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other random points

  • "Quisling had arguably become..." Argued by whom?
  • "in order to" is an unnecessarily verbose formulation
  • "went so far as to say that" is non-neutral language

Brianboulton (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some done already (some by me, some by Ian). - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 11:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Good responses to most of my points, so I've struck the oppose. I note that further ce has taken place. Unfortunately I don't have time for a detailed readthrough but the article is certainly moving in the right direction. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I meant to respond to some of your points for which no change was made, but then didn't. I apologise. "peace movement" is as much detail as we get in Dahl, the only copy to which I have full access. Obviously I can guess at what it means--I assume Norway's movement was similar to other countries'--but it would be a little on the OR side. Any thoughts on the best way forward? Regarding the marriage, the date is inferred from the fact that that's when they celebrated their wedding anniversary (mentioned in the next couple of sentences); not sure about the place, I assume that that biographers have assumed they got married near where they lived and worked. There were a couple of sources online that used "Labour movement... the movement", but I see those are really outnumber, so I'll change to "labour movement... the movement". Thanks for you comments. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review/copyedit

  • I copyedited the article during its MilHist ACR but that was quite early on and some things have obviously changed, so I'm happy to do so again.
  • Re. Brian's points above, I've actioned many of these from a prose perspective in the course of my copyedit. Others, however, require a familiarity with the sources used and those I've left to Jarry.
  • The only one where I disagree with Brian is his very first point re. Universism. Whether the movement was successful or not, if Quisling used these elements to derive his philosphy, then I think he indeed "blended" them (rather than "attempted to blend") and therefore the original wording is fair. I note Jarry's changed it in the lead but "blended" remains in the Universism section and they should be consistent -- IMO the original wording.
  • Completed my copyedit and almost ready to support on prose. Outstanding points as far as I'm concerned, apart from the above:
    • Quisling remained a target for scandal, unable to prove his credentials as an orator -- Why would lack of credentials as an orator keep you a target for scandal? Do you mean he couldn't properly defend himself in speeches, or what?
    • That Quisling understood the realities of the final solution is suggested by some authors without evidence. -- The "without evidence" phrase seems a bit sudden, and if indeed "some authors" (who?) have suggested it without evidence then I think the point needs to be gone into a bit further or at least reworded.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no view on "blended" vs "attempted to blend", and I await further comment on that issue. All the other issues outlined above have now been resolved, I think. Re "How is 'to his later embarrassment' worded in the source?", Dahl writes that "[Quisling] got involved in something he would later come to regret deeply: his association with the revolutionary leaders of the Norwegian Labour movement" (page 289). I feel the article conveys the same emotion despite the slight difference in word choice. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with your responses to my points (and to Brian's) but re. the "blended" vs "attempted to blend" bit, while I don't feel that strongly on it either, it should be consistent in both lead and main body -- if you can choose one or the other for now I'm happy to support on prose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back to "blended". It may carry slight overtones of undue success, but it's technically correct. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 10:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on reviewed criteria: 1(a), 1(d), 1(e), 2, and 4. Works for me. In addition to the above, neutrality, stability, style, and detail criteria appear to be met. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Hey, I've stuck in a few alt texts, may do some more later if I have time and no-one else has got there first. Coolug (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've stuck alt texts in for the remaining pictures. Coolug (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - for what it's worth, I think this is an interesting, thorough and well written article that meets the featured criteria. Coolug (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support. A few minor quibbles, none of which affects my support but they might, perhaps, be looked at.

  • Background
    • Following recall – definite article omitted?
  • Travels
    • a young and inexperienced peddler's daughter – two points here: it is ambiguous (who was young and inexperienced, father or daughter) and the OED admits "peddler" but prefers "pedlar".
  • Paris, Ukraine and Norway
    • General Staff&nbasp;...Something has gone awry here
  • Russia and the rouble scandal
    • Prytz's firm Onega Wood – Why the italics?
    • In the autumn of 1928, Quisling's wife joined him – have you established that she was his wife?
  • Defence minister
    • Quisling retained his post as Defence Minister – post gets capital letters here but not elsewhere
  • Popular party leader
    • Quisling called for the Prime Minister to stand down – ditto
    • Though Quisling remained unable to prove his credentials as an orator – you mean he wasn't one?
    • approximately two per cent of the national vote, and about three and a half percent – per cent (yes please) or percent (yuk!)?
    • and it ultimately failed – ultimately?
  • Fører of a party in decline
    • After the underwhelming election results… – delicious prose, but isn't "underwhelming" a touch informal for an encyclopaedia article?
    • Without a leader in Parliament – upper or lower case for "parliament"? You use both in the article and ought to be consistent.
    • when they had only fielded candidates in half the districts – clearer as "when they had fielded candidates in only half the districts"
    • four thousand dollars – and other monetary references here: I like the way you have rendered the sums, but the WP manual of style would have us render it 4,000, i.e. in numerals.
  • The coming of war
    • Minister of Domestic Affairs – upper/lower case (ulc) again
    • Nazi intelligence officers who tapped him for information – rather slangy term?
  • German invasion and coup d'état
    • Prime Minister Johan Nygaardsvold …President of the Parliament… Government – ulc?
  • Head of the government
    • cultural programs – sudden incursion of American spelling
    • the country harbouring the king-in-exile, England – it grieves me to say it, but England has not been a country since 1707
    • to the country … whom he no longer saw – which rather than whom?
    • The executions were later seen as a watershed moment, dividing the occupation into its more innocent and more deadly phases. – citation needed for this.
  • Minister President
    • That February, Quisling – new section so best to restate the year
    • A similar débâcle emerged – do débâcles emerge? And do they need accents? (the OED prefers them without)
    • Quisling made what would be his final trip to see Hitler – does the subjunctive add anything here?
  • Arrest, trial and legacy
    • "fine line between truth and falsehood", and emerged from it "an elusive and often pitiful figure". The quotes here could do with an inline attribution.
    • An October appeal to the Supreme Court was thrown out – slangy: perhaps "rejected"?
    • The court process has however been judged as "a model of fairness". – You might say in the text who so judged it.
  • Personality
    • "Quisling was a dictator and a clown on the wrong stage with the wrong script." – Better to say in this sentence who said this.

A top flight article, in my view. Well balanced, clear, good prose, and comprehensively referenced. Tim riley (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all done, only a couple of disagreements. For me, "underwhelming" is fine, but if some strongly objects then I'm happy to change it. I believe "four thousand" is actually supported by the MoS; or, at least it was, when I last checked (4000 looking too precise; whilst four thousand is a short phrase in words, unlike three thousand nine hundred and seventy six, say). Most of the ulc (or should that be ULC?) issues I agreed with, with the exception of Minister of Domestic Affairs, and others where I have retained the caps when using it as a pseudo title ("Prime Minister Tim Riley said..." vs "Tim Riley, the prime minister, said..."). I hope this is a logical distinction.
I quite like the "would be" in "Quisling made what would be his final trip to see Hitler", because it wasn't clear at the time that it was his final trip. It wasn't as though they planned it to be, as it were. Everything else changed. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Support already assured, and quibbles above now struck through. Tim riley (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support for half of it on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped during the A-class review, at Vidkun_Quisling#World War II. I've reviewed and tweaked the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions need some fixing - complete sentences should end in periods, "(pictured)" is not needed in the place that it's used, etc
  • File:Quisling's_office_at_the_Royal_Palace_1945.jpg and File:Quisling_library.jpg - does Norway have freedom of panorama? What is the copyright status of the furniture, artwork and architectural details of the rooms? Are these rooms open to the public? Finally, the template on the image pages suggests attribution is required - is this the case? The same attribution template appears on File:Villa_Grande_Quisling-5.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Captions fixed. Norway has FoP for buildings but not artworks where they are the main feature of a photograph (clearly not the case here). Furniture would only attract protection if were an "[phttp://www.kopinor.no/en/copyright/copyright-act artistic work]". The closest example provided is "pictorial woven tissues and articles of artistic handicraft and applied art"; clearly very unlikely to apply to furniture in this context. Architectural flourishes are too insignificant to attract protection, surely. Will check attribution later. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the template in question is fairly clear that the archive has asked for attribution, but that there is no legal requirement to give it. We ourselves quite clearly attribute both photographer and archive, all things considered. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 19:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now gone ahead and removed the attribution template, as is it is definitely not required (Wilse died 62 years ago). Must have had copied it from somewher else. --Eisfbnore talk 19:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A better term than today (per MOSDATE#Precise language) is needed:

  • Today,
    traitor
    .

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there four articles in "See also"? FAs should be comprehensive, meaning typically articles worthy of mention are linked within the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS check needed, see my edit summaries. Also, why (1931–1933) instead of (1931–33). Military time is mixed with non-military time. I stopped there, samples only, thorough check needed, also

WP:MOSDATE#Precise language-- we don't use "today". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey Sandy. I have made the language of the "Quisling as a noun" section quoted explicit and cited it. I assume you mean 24 hour vs 12 hour? I have rectified that. I have no preference of 1931-1933 vs 1931-33.
I disagree with your interpretation of WP:MOSNUM with reference to "two thousand pages", however.
The place for "See also" in an FA is not something I am familiar with. All of those issues and their intersection with Vidkun Quisling is comprehensively covered, but their topic is such that they may still be of interest to the reader. What is the prevailing thought on whether to include that sort of S.A. or not? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 19:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The theory is that, if they are worthy of being included in See also, for a Featured Article to be comprehensive, they should somewhere be mentioned and linked in the article-- otherwise, why are they there? Or, why aren't they mentioned and linked in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all properly merged in and "See also" deleted. Also, I changed the date ranges to two digit second terms per the MOS. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—RJH (talk)
    Comment—For the most part, this lengthy article satisfies the FA criteria and I'm leaning strongly toward support. However, there were a few points that left me asking questions:
    • "...although his weight problem eased during 1944." This issue of his weight suddenly came up and it left me wondering when this problem originated.
    • "...Quisling be treated like any other murder suspect." It does not clarify the murders was he charged with.
    • I did find the statement that "he combined humanity with moral seriousness" to be a bit odd, if not disconcerting, given his ambiguous marital status, his overt racism and some of his other negative preferences mentioned in the text. Is this a quote?

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RJH. I have reworded the weight section slightly to give the date the problem started (1942).
Okay, I fixed the format issue. Thanks. RJH (talk)
Regarding what murders he was accused of, Eilifsen is mentioned later in the same sentence. I would move it forward, but I'm not sure I have a cite for that. I guess it was just "murders in general", as it were, with regard to perceived war crimes in Norway.
I see. Well it's not quite perfect, but it resolves the issue. Thanks. RJH (talk)
That paragraph should be read as "To his supporters, ... he combined humanity with moral seriousness". Now I come to think of it, I think I went there with Dahl's exist words (all three of them: "humanity", "moral", and "seriousness") because I didn't know how to paraphrase. Now, though, I think I can paraphrase it. I went with "Balanced and gentle to a fault, he cared deeply about his people and maintained high moral standards throughout." What do you think? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 16:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added "they believed" to add continuity. RJH (talk)

Support I can easily not participate here, since Jarry and I are both in the

CUP – in fact, we're in the same pool – but I can't ignore the nom's good work and outstanding fruit. ThatPeskyCommoner a few weeks ago used the GAN process of the article to help me with my Neil Armstrong GAN, and I know what teamwork between the Jarry, Chzz, and Pesky can produce. Good luck Jarry! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 12:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

(Partial?) source spot-check I know spot-checking your own articles is highly irregular, but time ticks, and hopefully this will ease an independent verification. I have randomly selected references 23, 56, 115 and 133. Here goes:

Okay, not much there in the end to compare, but it's a start. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 21:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should note that I am going away from a week from tomorrow, though I have notified Eisfbnore and hopefully (s)he will be able to mind this FAC while I am away. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 10:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we have got six supports, two spotchecks, one source and one image review. What more needs to be done? Eisfbnore talk 18:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review still lacking, but I can't force reviewers to engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [62].

Kenneth Walker

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another in the series on the commanders in the South West Pacific Area during World War II. Also another medal of honor winner. Kenneth Walker remains a controversial figure for his advocacy of strategic bombing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I do have a few minor quibbles, but nothing worthy of an oppose All quibbles addressed. 14:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC). All in all, an engaging and interesting article on a man with a distinguished career. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a reason for not mentioning his rank in the lead?
    • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. I've noticed some editors don't start with the rank, particularly on American officer biogrpahies and was just wondering if there was any particualr reason. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could not find the relevant section in the MOS. Somebody else may know. It could be a British thing, as many British people are known only by their titles
  • 'regular Army' means different things in different countries, so an explanation is required
  • The lead seems a little short to say the article is well over 3,000 words
    • The article would be longer if he had not got himself killed in 1943. Expanded the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely the reason for the MoH is worth mentioning in the lead?
    • To tell the truth, I came to the article writing up the generals of the Southwest Pacific rather than Medal of Honor winners (another editor is doing that). But you're right; it should be mentioned. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does he added combat observer to his command pilot rating in 1922 mean?
    • Meaning he qualified as a combat observer as well as a command pilot. Do you have a suggested better wording? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused: He received his Aircrew Badge in November 1918 and was commissioned as a temporary second lieutenant in the United States Army Air Service on 2 November 1918, but then it says received a commission in the regular Army as a first lieutenant on 1 July 1920 but was reduced in rank to second lieutenant on 15 December 1922
    • Meaning that he had a temporary commission, but later received a permanent one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes perfect sense! Could you clarify it in the article or am I jsut being dense? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re-worded. Not being dense, just sometimes it's hard to imagine how others might read it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • never demonstrated the "emotional exhilaration toward flying a high performance machine that is so typical of fighter pilots according to whom?
  • Is truly staggering a quote? If not, you might want to find a drier, more encyclopaedic phrase
  • Support - I would suggest moving the inline citation that is currently in the lede (since the lead just summerizes the information in the article there usually is no need for a citation in the lead. The lead also seems a bit long. Other than those 2 minor things I didn't see anything else. --
    talk) 01:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Image review

  • "This bomber promised to provide the technical capability to implement the Air Corps Tactical School's doctrine." - source?
  • File:Genwalker.jpg - is there a date available for this image?
    • It could only have been after he was promoted to brigadier general in June 1942 and before he was killed in January 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:03_walker_macarthur.jpg: two issues with this. First, if it was taken in Papua New Guinea why does the copyright status in Australia matter? Second, per the template instructions, "please provide information of where the image was first published and who created it."
    • The picture was privately held. A great deal is known about circumstances surrounding the the picture, as it is from MacArthur's visit to Port Moresby in October 1942. It is part of a series of photographs taken by C. Bottomley, an official photographer. Papua was an Australia territory at the time. Because it was taken before 1955, it is in the public domain in Australia.
  • File:Ken_Walker_at_his_headquarters.jpg: if this is "in the field", how could it be "created in Australia"? What is "OWI-979-ZC"? In what year was this picture taken?
  • File:Knwalker-gravesite-photo-august-2006.jpg: since the stone is 3D, the photo has a copyright distinct from that of the stone. Which - the stone or the photo - is covered by the existing licensing tag, and what is the status of whichever is not thus licensed?
    • The copyright notice refers to the stone, which is a work of the US government. It was taken by Russell C. Jacobs in August 2006. I don't know what the American rules are for copyright over a photograph of something that is in the public domain. I have removed it from the article for now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:COMMAND_PILOT_WINGS.png has insufficient source information
    • A Wikipedian claims to have created it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but a) the description doesn't say that, only the file history does, and b) presumably the Wikipedian in question didn't design the original medal but copied it from a (PD-US Army?) design, in which case he/she would not be the sole copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Heinkel_He_111_during_the_Battle_of_Britain.jpg: according to this site, a license is required to use this image on a website. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Please reduce wiki links. Here is a problematic excerpt:
The family moved to
Denver, Colorado, where Kenneth attended the Maria Mitchell School from 1905 to 1908, the Columbian School in Omaha, Nebraska, from 1908 to 1912, and Central High School in Kansas City, Missouri
.
  • And recommended resolution:
The family moved to
Denver, Colorado, where Kenneth attended the Maria Mitchell School from 1905 to 1908, the Columbian School in Omaha, Nebraska, from 1908 to 1912, and Central High School
in Kansas City, Missouri.

remarks

Disagree, along with all the other reviewers who have responded to the same comment in other reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - I realize that there are only so many ways to word certain things, but it's important to avoid overly close paraphrasing. Here are some examples:

  • "Walker returned to the United States in February 1925 and became a member of the Air Service Board at Langley Field. He stayed at Langley until 1928, serving as adjutant of the 59th Service Squadron, commander of the 11th Bombardment Squadron, and operations officer of the 2nd Bomb Group. He graduated from the Air Corps Tactical School at Langley Field in June 1929." vs "He returned to the United States in February 1925 as a member of the Air Service Board at Langley Field, Va. He stayed at Langley until 1928, having been adjutant of the 59th Service Squadron, commander of the 11th Bomb Squadron, and operations officer for the 2nd Bomb Group. He graduated from the Air Corps Tactical School at Langley Field in June 1929."
  • "Walker and his colleagues presented arguments to support a separate air organization, not subordinate to other military branches" vs "He and his colleagues presented arguments to support a separate air organization, not subordinate to other military branches."
  • "Walker and five other Air Corps Tactical School instructors were invited to testify on the military aspects of aviation before the Howell Commission" vs "Walker and five other Air Corps Tactical School instructors were invited to testify on the military aspects of aviation before the Howell Commission"

I only checked one source and found enough close paraphrasing to concern me. I would strongly recommend that the article be carefully checked from top to bottom to ensure that overly close paraphrasing is avoided. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The original article was a cut-and-paste of the Air Force bio. I rewrote it from top to bottom but left the original in place so people could still read the article. I have gone over all the refs to the bio and double-checked and verified that there is no close paraphrasing, re-wording some bits as appropriate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the current image issues (see

WT:FAC) I suggest that all commentary about the images (see above) should be included on the image file. A careful close paraphrasing check is still needed, and Hawkeye, I have frequently had to remove excess links from your noms-- stop doing that :) :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Who is going to complete paraphrasing check and update image review here SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queried some image issues above; those left unqueried can be considered resolved. I did the original one-source check, haven't rechecked or looked at other sources - I can if need be, but the article might benefit more from fresh eyes there. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Befuddled on images-- lots of questions and answers, but where do we stand vis-a-vis policy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two outstanding issues from a policy standpoint - the queries related to File:Heinkel_He_111_during_the_Battle_of_Britain.jpg and File:COMMAND_PILOT_WINGS.png. The other issue remaining above is less vital. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of the first one, the Crown asserts that it held the copyright on the photograph, and therefore that it is now in the public domain since it was taken before 1957. In the case of the second, it is a Wikipedian's free image of an object that is in the public domain, being created by the US Army. I cannot see any line of reasoning that leads to a conclusion that it is not in the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the second, it likely is in the public domain - but you actually need to say that, and include the appropriate template, on the image page. For the first, where does the Crown assert that? "Official photograph" is not a sufficient assertion, as it doesn't say "official government photograph", the author is unknown, etc. Sorry to harp on this, but it needs to be dealt with. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don't say "official government " in the United Kingdom; that would be a tautology, because official literally means government. As for the wings, I have added a template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are still a few prose issues that need to be sorted out:

Lead
  • "This set resulted in a doctrinal clash ...". What set?
Early life and World War I
  • "His father left when Kenneth was young, and Emma raised him as a single mother." She didn't raise him as a single mother, she was the single mother.
Between the wars
  • "In 1937 Walker was involved in yet another accident occurred in 1937 ...".
Air War Plans Division
  • "Brigadier General Carl Andrew Spaatz was head of the division and two of his assistants were Lieutenant Colonels Olds and Muir S. Fairchild ...". Run-on sentence.
  • "Walker was also promoted to temporary lieutenant colonel on 15 July 1941." Why "also"?
  • ... and joined Air War Plans Division ... to replace Spaatz as head of the Air War Plans Division". Why "the" in one instance but not the other?
  • "The Air War Plans Division was tasked with developing a production requirements plan for President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who wanted an answer by 10 September 1941." An answer to what? What was the question?
  • "Together they created AWPD-1 plan". Who is "together" referring to? The previous sentence speaks of the Air War Plans Division, so who were they working with?
Papuan Campaign
  • "... the bombers were generally based in the Townsville area and staged through Port Moresby in order to minimise their chance of loss or damage on the ground." The article generally seems to be using American English spelling, so shouldn't this be "minimize"? Why "in order to" rather than just "to"? That "so" should probably be "therefore" or similar.
Legacy
  • "The based was inactivated on 2 July 1965".

Fatuorum 15:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Support. Thanks for dealing with those issues Hawkeye.

Fatuorum 21:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Close paraphrasing issues still found. Some examples:

They now read:

  • "In November 1934, Walker, now a student at the Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, testified on the military aspects of aviation before the Howell Commission on Federal Aviation, along with Robert Olds, Claire Chennault, Donald Wilson, Harold George and Robert Webster. All were current or former instructors at the Air Corps Tactical School, and except Chennault were part of the Bomber Mafia."
  • "They argued for an independent air force, but were unable to persuade the Commission, although it did agree that the Air Corps should be granted an unprecedented degree of autonomy within the Army."
  • "In just nine days in August 1941, George, Olds, Faichild, Walker, Kuter and Hansell drafted the AWPD-1 plan for a war against Germany."

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  1. "Walker was born in Los Cerrillos, New Mexico, on 17 July 1898 to Wallace Walker and his wife Emma née Overturf." Possibly move comma from before "on" to before "to"?
    I've been asking non-Americans for feedback on this and not getting much. I don't know what other style guides say, but all the influential American style guides require a comma after New Mexico; I have a list of some of them at
    WT:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk
    )
  2. "The family moved to Denver, Colorado, where Kenneth attended the Maria Mitchell School from 1905 to 1908, the Columbian School in Omaha, Nebraska, from 1908 to 1912, and Central High School in Kansas City, Missouri." Theme presented inconsistently in this list. Did they move from Denver to Omaha to Kansas City, too, or did they stay in Denver and send him to board?
  3. "commenced a course"—I'd use "started"; but you are implying he didn't finish it.
    • Attempted to re-word the whole section to make it less awkward. It's still just a list of schools. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "He remained there for four years"—he remained at Fort Sill or at Post Field?
    • Its really much the same place, but we'll go with Post Field. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Already a command pilot, he qualified as a combat observer as well in 1922."—I'd remove "as well".
  6. "Walker became one of many officers holding wartime commissions to receive a commission in the Regular Army as a first lieutenant on 1 July 1920,"—an awful lot received that commission on 1 July that year?
  7. "Walker became part of a small clique of Air Corps Tactical School instructors that became known as the "Bomber Mafia", whose members also included Haywood Hansell, Donald Wilson, Harold L. George, and Robert M. Webster, which argued that bombardment was the most important form of airpower."—Consider "... Mafia; its members included ...".
  8. "He felt that it was flawed because it failed to drive home what he saw as the most important fact, namely that ...". A comma rather than the semicolon that follows this might be smoother.
  9. Suggestion to reduce the "thats": "two fundamental principles: bombardment should take the form of daylight precision bombing; and that it should be directed against critical industrial targets."
  10. "In an his article entitled "Driving home the bombardment attack", which was published in the Coast Artillery Journal in October 1930, ...".
  11. Try to drop "that" where possible, as here: "any damage that they might attempt to inflict".
  12. This sentence seems not to flow in its paragraph: "They argued for an independent air force, but were unable to persuade the Commission, although it did agree that the Air Corps should be granted an unprecedented degree of autonomy within the Army.[16]" It's a major major point—in fact, this guy had a significant impact on US military practice, especially the emphasis on air attack, right?
    • Yes, that's right. Added words to this effect to the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be an FA, but needs further fine-tuning to the prose. I only got to half-way through "Between the wars". Tony (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye, thanks for fixing, but there's the rest of the article too, which I don't have time to scrutinise. Is there an independent copy-editor around? I must say, the amount of time this has been on the nom list is a concern: it suggests the nom should have been better prepared. Tony (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2011&oldid=441872641"