Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2009

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 16:56, 30 June 2009 [2].

Chelsea Bridge

Nominator(s):  – 

iridescent 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• One dablink to Spoil
• External links all work
• Refcheck comes up problem free.

Just a thought - should

iridescent 22:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

For instructions on intentional links to dab pages see

WP:INTDABLINK. William Avery (talk

)

In this case I disagree. Firstly, there's no

iridescent 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Interjecting here, could we use wikitionary? I.e. wikt:spoil (piping it of course). Jappalang (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's really necessary to send people off-wiki; the definition at Wiktionary ("Material (such as rock or earth) removed in the course of an excavation, or in mining or dredging") is virtually the same as that currently at

iridescent 14:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it (wiktionary linking) is allowed and encouraged per Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects. Editors, however, have differing opinions (Sandy, for one, dislikes them—see the talk page there). Jappalang (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :) Wiki sister pages are not reliable sources, and should be treated as any other non-reliable source IMO ... we don't allow non-RS in FAs, not sure why we make an exception for some sister projects. But I digress ... that's just my opinion :) I do think a cited, referenced footnote is a good solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordian knot solution. – 

iridescent 14:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Support & Comments from DavidCane (talk)

• With an introduction like that, I swear I heard the tones of Don LaFontaine doing a voice over.
• Lead
  • Slight ambiguity in "...development of marshlands on the south bank of the Thames, to provide convenient access to the newly created Battersea Park." On first reading it seemed to be suggesting that the bridge was built to provide access from the marshlands being developed on the south side of the river to Battersea Park (which is, of course, on the south side).
• Background
  • Whilst I'm aware of the Wellington/Winchilsea duel, there isn't a citation given for it.
  • Might be useful to state either how far up river Teddington or Seething Wells is.
• Victoria Bridge - Design and Construction
  • An English translation of "Gloria Deo in Excelsis", might be helpful, i.e. "Glory to God in the highest"
• Chelsea Bridge - Design and Construction
  • Technically, it's actual the LCC's coat of arms rather than a crest as it doesn't have a helm above it. The blue and white lines are actually barry wavy and they represent the Thames rather than the sea. Might add a link to Coat of arms of London County Council.
• Notes
  • Note 2: "the river is very low at this point". shouldn't that be "shallow" rather than "low".

--DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworded to "as part of a major development of marshlands on the south bank of the Thames into the new Battersea Park, to provide convenient access from the densely populated north bank to the new park."
• Cited the duel – that lost its citation somewhere in the being shunted around.
• The trouble with giving a distance to Seething Wells is that there are so many ways to measure it – the river is very twisty in this stretch, so "distance upstream" would be almost twice the distance as the crow flies. It's such a minor point I didn't think it warrants mentioning.
• Added a translation; one of those phrases that I hear so often, I forget that other people won't know it.
• I think I've fixed the crest/coat of arms thing; what I know about heraldry could fit on a postage stamp. If you wouldn't mind double-checking (and fixing any more mistakes) I'd be most grateful. (The source for this – Matthews – says "crest", but I'm perfectly willing to believe he's wrong on this.)
• Yes, of course it should be "shallow" (doh!).

Hope that's everything. I know that "crests" section is a bit odd, but I think it needs to be explained just why these enormous gaudy things are sitting at the ends of an otherwise starkly utilitarian bit of 30s design. – 

iridescent 22:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If anything though those are really just questions, not particularly pressing issues. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The duel is already covered in Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington and George Finch-Hatton, 10th Earl of Winchilsea, already linked in the article. As it's probably the only event for which Winchilsea's remembered today, it seems to me to be unnecessary content-forking to also have a separate article on the duel, although one could be created from the material in the two biographies if warranted.

As per my comments at the top, I've added redlinks for all the biker gangs because

Road Rats

both need to be linked, and the row of redlinks looked less jarring than linking some but not others. I've no strong opinion on it.

The "Present day" section is short because it's a necessary section, but there's not a great deal to go there; the land at the northern end is mostly occupied by the

iridescent 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• That last bit is worth mentioning, I think. At least a single sentence like "So-and-so produced the song Chelsea Bridge in year whatever, though its subject was actually the Battersea Bridge." Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It would get a bit complicated; the song was written in 1941 (only four years after this bridge opened) so doesn't really belong in a "present day" section; it would also need a very confusing explanation. ("The song
  The Falling Rocket on display and the song was written about the paintings; because Whistler's paintings intentionally distorted and obscured the structure of the bridge in a deliberate attempt to emulate Hokusai
  's painting style, it was impossible to tell which bridge was being depicted in the paintings without prior knowledge of their history, especially given that both Battersea Bridge and Chelsea Bridge had by 1941 been demolished and replaced.") I can try to put something in if you really think it's necessary, but I was hoping that the dablink at the top of this article would avoid the need to do so.

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced it with

iridescent 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Aye, agreed. Jappalang (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments –
• "Once such meeting in 1970 erupted into violence". Is "Once" supposed to be "One"?
• Some slight text sandwiching in Design and construction.
• Opening: Why is "en route" in italics? Is there a reason it's being given emphasis?
• Another ton link is really not needed here. There's already one both in the lead and the first section of the body.
• Abolition of tolls: "Architectural opinion had turned heavily against Victorian styles and Chelsea bridge was now deeply unpopular with architects". Capitalize "bridge".
• New Chelsea Bridge: More sandwiching here.
• "With the newly built Battersea Power Station then dominating most views of the area". This is one of those awkward noun plus -ing sentence structures. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - don't know where that "once" crept in.
• I don't know what the MOS says about the use of loan-words and phrases and to be honest if it doesn't support italicising them I think it's the MOS that needs changing. This is an article on a British subject in British English, and common practice in British English is to italicise schadenfreude, inter alia, en route and so on. – 
  iridescent 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The rule is whether or not a dictionary italicises the word or phrase. All the examples you give (en route, schadenfreude, and inter alia) are italicised in my edition of the concise OED. --
  Fatuorum 19:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Completely disagree about long ton. On the two occasions where it's used (neither in the lead, incidentally), it's necessary to use the link to confirm which meaning of "ton" – which has multiple meanings – is being used.
• Capitalised.
• I'm not seeing any problematic sandwiching.
  WP:MOSIMAGE
  is not Holy Writ, and any sandwiching is only occurring between small parts of narrow images, and only at very wide window widths where there's no problem with it creating an unreadably narrow column of text squeezed between large images (which is what that "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other" is supposed to address).
• Can't see the problem with "With the newly built Battersea Power Station then dominating most views of the area". The power station was newly built. It was then dominating most views of the area. – 
  iridescent 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The noun 'ing thing is easily fixed in this case, whether you agree it needs fixing or not, so I've been bold and rewritten that sentence. --
  Fatuorum 19:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The first paragraph of the lead is supposed to define the scope of the article and seems to define the bridge only as the modern bridge that superceded the old one. Quite a lot of the rest of the lead talks about a prior bridge. IMO you need to redefine the scope of the article in the first paragraph (for example by defining the bridge in terms of its location) or delete most of the information about the prior bridge from the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 07:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, obviously. The lead paragraph ("Chelsea Bridge is a Grade II listed self-anchored suspension bridge over the River Thames in West London, connecting Chelsea on the north bank to Battersea on the south bank. It opened in 1937 and replaced an earlier suspension bridge of 1857, originally known as Victoria Bridge but renamed Chelsea Bridge, built on the site of an ancient ford.", at the time of writing) makes it clear that this is about a 1937 structure replacing an 1857 structure which in turn replaced a ford. I can't see the issue here. – 

iridescent 11:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The first sentence was not a

WP:GOODDEF it's important that articles start with one in accordance with WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I've rewritten the lead somewhat, and changed my vote accordingly.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:57, 29 June 2009 (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 16:56, 30 June 2009 [3].

John Wark

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Dweller (talk)

It started with a promise – a dedicated Norwich City fan, Dweller, said that if I returned safe and sound from my five months of round-the-world travel, he'd work with me to get this Ipswich Town living legend to FAC. Well here it is. A major overhaul over two months with around 400 edits has taken the article from a POV-dispute to, well, this. As always, your humble nominators will toil night and day to address concerns brought up here. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Will check back later when I have more time, but one thing jumps out - "Wark has married twice—first to Toula, on 1 July 1981, soon after the 1978 FA Cup triumph". Three years is hardly "soon after" - are there some words missing..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, good spot. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Wark showed his worth as a goalscoring midfielder when he finished the following season as the club's top goalscorer, ahead of Ian Rush" "Wark showed his worth as a goalscoring midfielder" seems unnecessary, especially when you state that he was the top scorer immediately afterward.
  • The point we're trying to get across is that he was a goalscoring midfielder, not a striker. Rush was up front for Liverpool and Wark outscored him from midfield. This may be difficult to understand for non-soccer aficionados - perhaps we can find a compromise? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand, not a big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "He featured regularly and helped the team to seventh place" I don't quite understand what it means to be featured, especially as a defender.
• "in which Ipswich "recorded fewer victories and suffered more defeats than in any campagin in the club's history"." Is the typo intentional?
• " and a testimonial against Arsenal at Portman Road" What does "testimonial" mean here?

More later. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully addressed these comments, bar the goal scoring one... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was reported that he made "a small fortune by flogging" Might as well state who reported this, hm? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He said it himself - updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a few (minor) comments:

1. "During Wark's time with The Drum" reads a bit oddly; I had to go back and re-read the paragraph above before I realised it referred to Drumchapel. I appreciate you're trying to avoid repetition, but "The Drum" isn't an nickname like "Man U" that you can assume will be recognised.

   Confusion, hopefully, removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. "But according to Wark, never touching the ball" is a bit vague. I've no doubt he said it, but was it actually true? We must have someone with a film of the 1987 League Cup Final (or a Rothmans) who can verify whether it was actually the case.

   Well, it is "according to Wark" - I haven't got access to the footage I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Nitpick alert! "Ipswich had been relegated 18 months before Wark's return to the club, meaning that they were playing in the second tier of English football" isn't true; Ipswich had failed to be promoted after being relegated. How about ""Ipswich had been relegated 18 months before Wark's return to the club, and were playing in the second tier of English football"?

   Correctly nit-picked. Fixed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Any way to avoid the awkward double quotation marks at the end of the "Autobiography" section?

   Fixed I think. There were some odd double spaces and wierd quote marks going on there as well... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Finally, the suck-eggs one: are there any free use photos of him actually playing floating around?

   I've tried. I've even emailed Mr Wark himself. So far, nada. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All minor things, and as it stands it meets my personal criterion of "says everything that ought to be said and there's no obvious way to say it better". – 

 iridescent  21:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your comments and support, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

• Quick question: Why wasn't he in the squad for the
  1985 European Cup Final mentioned? --Jameboy (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'll revisit the autobiography to see what I can do. Thanks for your comment! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heysel stadium now covered. Haven't managed to find out a reason for him not being in the 84 European Cup Final. Unfortunately it's trying to prove a negative, which is always challenging. He may have been injured (no sources for this), he may have been out of favour (no sources for this), just no reliable evidence to support any assertions. Would you know of any? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from the Life outside football section.
• Wark has married twice—first to Toula, on 1 July 1981,[76] with whom he has a son, Andrew, born in June 1983. - No need for "born" IMO.
  • Then I guess it would need to say "....with whom he had a son, Andrew, in June 1983."? Always get a bit twitchy as that could be construed as him no longer having the son... do you see what I mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Could the In popular culture section be renamed to something that doesn't remind me of The Simpsons or video games? :)
  • Renamed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Despite his retirement from the professional ranks, Wark continued playing football as an amateur, including signing for Woodbridge Town in 1999 alongside former Ipswich team-mate Paul Mason. - To me, "amateur" means "beginning", and Wark is obviously not a beginner. Is there a better word for this?
  • In this context amateur means not professional, i.e. the literal sense of amateur being he played for enjoyment, not payment. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The book contained material which gained media interest. - A few more details would be great, if possible.
  • Well, there are two examples (him "flogging" his cup final tickets to a tout and him stating the current set of players wouldn't cut the mustard) - we felt any more would be a little over the top as it's just one aspect of the entire article.

I haven't read the rest of the article in-depth yet, but it looks great at first glance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, as ever thanks. Any further comments and helpful suggestions would be great. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, my only concerns have been addressed, and the rest of the article looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.tmwmtt.com/sql/seasons.phtml?text=1974-75
    • Replaced (despite it being the absolute de facto standard for comprehensive ITFC history) -> the less reliable but more generally accepted Soccerbase is used instead. As a matter of interest, one of the BBC sources uses Pride of Anglia itself... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/suffolk/content/articles/2008/02/19/itfc_1978_in_video_feature.shtml). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm always open to being shown it's reliable ...
  • http://www.liverpoolway.co.uk/forum/features/23319-forgotten-number-seven-paul-walsh-interview.html
    • Replaced with Sydney Morning Herald. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.lockdales.com/Howtosell.htm
    • Removed altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have concerns over the large amounts of the article sourced to Wark's autobiography.
  • Me too but when you are dealing with a relatively minor footballer there are scant detailed resources on his earlier days. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please spell out lesser-known abbreviations in the footnotes (I noted UEFA and FIFA but there may be others. BBC doesn't need spelling out, it's too well known.)
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Current ref 96 (David Bolchover..) is a book, so should be formatted as such, not like a website.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Decide whether you want the references with author's last names first or first names first and standardize them. Right now they are mixed.
  • Done - generally I'll blame Dweller for these.... ;-). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool! Can I blame Dweller for my next mistakes too? --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we can all blame Dweller for the time being as he doesn't edit at weekends! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I blame Dweller, too. Sorry, what are we talking about? --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • Wark's time at Liverpool is perhaps underplayed. The lead describes it as a "short period", but he was there four years, which included a European Cup final, two league titles and a league cup final. The Liverpool section in the body could possibly be a little longer. While the anecdote about the medical is interesting and adds colour, he did plenty of note at Liverpool which is not included and might be considered a higher priority. Looking it up, he scored three hat-tricks, for instance.
    • Sure thing, I was mildly aware of that - being an ITFC fan, obviously my detailed interest and resources lay elsewhere... I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added some further detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To a football fan, the significance of transferring to Liverpool in the 1980s is obvious. For those who aren't so familiar with English football, it'd be worth pointing out that Liverpool were the pre-eminent team of the period.
    • I will come up with something non-OR and NPOV which should explain the significance of signing for LFC in the 80s. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tried to show the significance relating to the success of LFC over the prior few seasons. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was inability to regain his place in the Liverpool team largely due to one man (Molby? McMahon?)
    • Will check. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • He came back replaced McMahon so I've added that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honours - we don't generally use the transient sponsored titles.
    • Removed where required I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ipswich did win a European trophy, the club's first" - mildly implies that there were others.
    • Replaced first with only (sadly..) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wark was outraged and Middlesbrough lost the second leg 1–0." I'd suggest putting this as a separate sentence, with a semicolon instead of and.
    • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldelpaso (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'll see what LFC resources I can lay may hands on. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The Dean Hayes book listed in the general references is not cited anywhere. Was it an original source that was taken out later? Giants2008 (17-14) 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's right. All the info from there has been superceded by various, more specific sources. It's still a good read though, so I've moved it to a Further reading subsection. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed. Support. Hope the rest is better than the lead!

• Opening sentence: "John Wark (born 4 August 1957) is a Scottish former footballer who spent most of his playing time with Ipswich Town, for whom he won a record four Player of the Year awards before becoming one of the four inaugural members of the club's Hall of Fame." It's longish and would probably be a better read if split: "John Wark (born 4 August 1957) is a Scottish former footballer who spent most of his playing time with Ipswich Town. He won a record four Player of the Year awards for the club before becoming one of the four inaugural members of its Hall of Fame." Gets rid of the "whom" for the club (which we realise is not a town after thinking about it).
• Second sentence: "Wark had long spells at the club, which bookended his career, and a third, briefer interlude dividing his short periods at Liverpool and Middlesbrough." OK, the two bookends were "long", and the third period was "briefER"—"brief" then "briefer" would go better than long then briefer. Perhaps "interlude" sufficiently implies that it was briefer; if "briefer" is removed, it won't get a chance to jostle with "short", too. "and an interlude during which he played alernately at L and M"? (I'm unsure of the facts.) Also, there weren't three interludes, were there?
• "This included selection for Scotland in the 1982 FIFA World Cup: he made three appearances and scored twice."—I'm in ignorance, but could it be "This included selection for Scotland in the 1982 FIFA World Cup, in which he made three appearances and scored twice."? Would flow better.
• "During his playing career, Wark appeared in the film Escape to Victory. Since retiring as a player, Wark has continued to work for Ipswich Town. He has written an autobiography, published in 2009. As of April 2009, he works in the corporate hospitality department at Ipswich Town." --> "During his playing career, Wark appeared in the film Escape to Victory. Since retiring as a player [in ?], he has continued to work for Ipswich Town – since April 2009 in the corporate hospitality department. He published his autobiography in 2009." Tony (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, thank goodness you're here. I know, as in every nomination, you'll be asked "be specific, can you tell us more things to fix" - I'm loathe to do that but your professional eye is like no other around here, so we (Dweller and I) will do our best to fix this up. We would really, really, really, really appreciate further comment (assuming we can fix your initial problems in a timely manner!) in order to produce nothing but the best - after all, this is FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's only the lead but I think I've dealt with those immediate concerns. I think I have...... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed you're disappointed! I'm busy copyediting Luton Town F.C. (and taking too long over it, dammit) and my time's quite stretched, and getting worse, and to-boot, I'm probably too close to this, but I'll take another look Tony and see if there are other monstrosities I can see. --Dweller (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "Derby moment"—love it. I see one caption has a spaced en dash, but unspaced em dashes were elsewhere (and I added on or two to the main text). Can you check this is what you favour? Expunged a few of the "with + noun + -ing"s (Chicago MOS now says it's "clumsy", or some such ... bless their hearts). Tony (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I had introduced one or both of those spaced en dashes while copy-editing, so I've changed them to em dashes to be consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support – This is downgraded from a normal support because of the extensive use of his autobiography. I understand that sources from his time are more difficult to come by, but the book is citing many facts beyond background details and his own opinions (the usually accepted uses of autobiographies). The remaining aspects of the article all seem to meet FA standards, so I won't oppose over it. Nice to see good work done on a player from an earlier era. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just saw that there's a disambiguation link for christening. Might as well make note of it while I'm here. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguated. Thanks, and as for your weak support, completely understand, thanks again. I'll do my best to make sure we use other RS where possible for "facts" rather than "opinion". All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per flag on my userspace, I'm not sure how much I'll be around to look over the copy again. Hope I'm not letting anyone down. --Dweller (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well you keep me in touch D, as much as you can! All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support

• Looks about ready in terms of content, but the prose is a bit disjointed – I'll give you some examples from a quick skim-through:
  • The section about his childhood doesn't read too well: "Wark was born on 4 August 1957, in Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital to parents Alex and Helen." – Surely this should be "at Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital"? And the use of "parents" here seems a bit superfluous to me, I'd be a bit worried if he was born to people who weren't his parents.
    • This may be ENGVAR, but I'd never say someone was born "at" XXXX hospital. I think the inclusion of "parents" is because the names have become so dislocated from the associated verb, "born". I suppose we could move the parent names earlier in the sentence and drop the "parents". TRM what do you think? --Dweller (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably ENGVAR, because I would never say "in" XXX hospital. Re: parents, OK. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The third of four children, he has an older sister Wilma, older brother Alex and younger brother Andrew." This confusion in cases is a little jarring to me, and I don't really see why the names of his siblings are relevant. I'd link Alex Wark further down when he's mentioned in a relevant context.
    • Well, Alex is notable, so worth mentioning and it'd be odd to mention one. I think we need to link the first instance per MOS. --Dweller (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family was impoverished: Wark's parents could not afford a cot and as a small child, he slept in a drawer from a sideboard." The phrasing makes it sound like the two weren't related.
    • The use of a colon connects the two halves of a sentence. A semi-colon would otherwise have been used. --Dweller (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps these could be rephrased thus: "Wark was born on 4 August 1957, at Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital. He was the third of four children born to Alex and Helen Wark, an impoverished couple living in a four-storey tenement block in Partick. Wark's parents could not afford a cot: as a result, the young Wark slept in a sideboard drawer.
    • So, think is now covered by Dweller's comments and Cliftonian's agreements. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family moved to another tenement block, this time in Scotstoun" When?
    • Early 60s. Said so now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wark says "[f]ootball seemed to occupy 99 per cent of my time as a youngster"[5] and he tried to emulate his brother Alex, who had become a professional at St. Mirren." says? Hm. I'd try something like "During this time, Wark attempted to emulate his brother Alex, who had become a professional with St. Mirren – he would later claim that "[f]ootball seemed to occupy 99 per cent of my time as a youngster".
    • Slight rewording (since others have already supported it, wholesale changes shouldn't be necessary), so hopefully it's a fair compromise. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He trained with the club at their Parkhead ground, before receiving an invitation to sign schoolboy forms for the club."
  • "was presented with the club's Young Player of the Year award, despite just four appearances for the senior team." -> "despite only appearing for the senior team four times."
    • Again, a compromise has been sought, rather than a significant reword. Hope it'll do. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good content-wise. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 08:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments are now resolved. I've upgraded my support accordingly. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 10:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: photos are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (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 16:56, 30 June 2009 [4].

Oklahoma City bombing

Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article for several years now, helping it to reach GA in 2007. One of my long-term goals here is to get this article up to featured status (I even brought it up at my RfA!). I have pursued hundreds of sources to expand and reference the article's content, even purchasing books to learn more about the topic. After improving the article by going through a peer review and having several people copyedit it, I believe the article meets the criteria. I look forward to addressing all suggestions for improvement. Happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return (I noted FEMA, PBS, GAO, CIO, but there may be others)

  I believe I corrected all occurrences (except for CNN, don't believe that needs to be changed). For CIO, it's the name of the magazine, so I added "magazine" after it. Let me know if I should provide a direct link to their webpage since we don't currently have an article on the magazine. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes the following reliable?
  • http://www.trutv.com

  The details of the story were sourced from these sources found in the author's bibliography. The Crime Library articles are "... a collection of more than 1000 nonfiction feature stories and photo galleries relating to crimes, criminals, trials, forensics and criminal profiling by prominent writers." In addition, the website states in their "About" page: "Many Crime Library stories are based on third party sources: books, magazine and newspaper articles and interviews." Let me know if this needs further clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. In this case, we would want to see the actual sources for the page, not just a generic "We used a lot of books, really, we did!" type notice. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you clarify on what you mean by actual sources? I figure the bibliography for the author's article (shown in the first link) indicates the sources he used for his article. As a side note, Crime Library (which the sourced article is part of) was purchased by Court TV (now named Tru TV) in 2000. The Crime Library is used as a source in a 2004 article by the Charlotte Sun-Herald, a 2003 article by the Rocky Mountain Collegian, a 2005 article by the Lancaster New Era, and a 2004 article by Sacramento Observer, among others. Concerning the Tru TV itself, it is referred to in numerous articles as a TV network, as well as when Court TV was renamed. Let me know if this isn't sufficient. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 16:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

those work. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.archidose.org/writings/insurrection.html

  I removed this source as another one already provided enough details. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/GOP_Rep._fuels_Oklahoma_City_bombing_1228.html

  I removed this source as several others were already provided enough details. I had initially thought it was part of CNN. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Current ref 75 (Irving, Clive) needs page numbers. (It's 176 pages, need to narrow it down a bit)

  I had gone to the library several months ago to correct the details of book and forgot to do it when I was looking at all of the others (I knew I forgot something). I'll try to visit one of the local libraries early this week to add the page numbers. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Went to the library this afternoon and found the page numbers. I corrected the citations and added further details on some other information I found. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it. I was glad I didn't have too many issues with the sources, and I'll get to adding those book pages. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As i said prior to this nomination at PR i believe this is a brilliant article and fulfills the FA criteria. Well done. 02blythed (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Arrests section could use an explanation of what originally put Nichols on investigators' radar. As I recall it was an address McVeigh had provided. PSWG1920 (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I mentioned the fake address McVeigh gave when he was initially arrested as well as the FBI pursuing both James and Terry Nichols as a result. Hopefully the link is now clearer. Let me know if you think it needs further expansion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Everything for which McVeigh himself is the source should if possible be qualified as only being his statement. How do we know that he told the real story? I would say the same for the Fortiers since there have always been questions about their credibility. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Each statement is sourced to the book which readers can see. Other sources are used to provide details about the planning. His story was supported by other witnesses at his and Nichols trials. It's possible that some details were fabricated or not mentioned, and that is/can be discussed on the conspiracy theories page. I can add additional sources from the trials detailing some witness/investigations knowledge of the events if necessary. As for the Fortiers, I haven't personally seen (or remember) any credibility claims against their testimonies, but if you know of something, I'd be happy to include it to ensure a fair representation of the information. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say that any source which uncritically accepts as factual McVeigh's overall version of events (specifically that he delivered the bomb alone and that it was just him and Nichols involved in the plot) should be used as little as possible in this article, and qualified where it is. As for the Fortiers, weren't they drug addicts? PSWG1920 (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The majority of the sources available point to the official account of the bombing, and as a result they will list McVeigh and Nichols as the main conspirators. Since no other large amount of evidence was found implicating other conspirators (such as John Doe #2), that's why the article does not state that he drove the truck with someone else. There is discussion throughout the article if other conspirators had been involved, and the conspiracy theories section does delve into the possiblity of other conspirators. Looking at several sources I see that the Fortiers say they used drugs, but didn't see the label "addict" except by Stephen Jones, McVeigh's defense lawyer. Does the drug use need to be mentioned in the article? Or can that be mentioned in their article? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I was just posting this, but got edit-conflicted. Here's an example: The Target selection section seems to be based almost entirely on what McVeigh and to some extent Fortier have claimed. Imo, their word is not nearly enough to treat these details as factual. Details which only make sense if you believe that McVeigh really was calling the shots. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies for the ec. I see what you are saying about the sourcing, and regardless of anyone's interpretation of the events, since nobody else was present at these events that could provide a first-hand account, no other sources are available. If there was considerable evidence showing additional conspirators, I'd see no issues in adjusting the article accordingly. Is it possible that McVeigh fabricated (or withheld) all of the details of his planning? Sure, anything is possible for an event like this, but unless there are sources that reliably refute this accepted chronology of events, I don't see why it should be changed. I invite others to comment on this issue for the best approach to citing these details. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments for now, mainly regarding the prose. This is a well structured article, comprehensive, and a compelling read. A lot of hard work has gone into this and it shows. I have a few nit-picks:
• I'm not sure what an "American militia movement sympathizer" is.

  I added a wikilink for militia movement, hopefully that clarifies. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Should "in a radius" be "within a radius"? I'm not sure.

  I don't see anywhere online that clarifies (I see both ways being used), but I changed it to "within". --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "the pair" sounds a little POV, how about "they"?

  I reworded both occurrences. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here "the largest criminal investigation case in the nation's history" the use of "nations" gives me the impression that the targeted readers are US citizens, how about "American history"?

  I reworded both occurrences. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This phrase "an accomplice to the bombing" doesn't sound idiomatic to me.

  Sorry, could you clarify? Should it be reworded to something else? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  How about "McVeigh's accomplice"?

  ^Talk

  Gotcha. Changed as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In this part, "The bombing was planned over several years; as early as August 1994, McVeigh obtained nine Kinestiks from gun dealer Roger E. Moore, igniting the devices with Nichols outside Nichols' home in Herington, Kansas." I think "and ignited" would be better than the participle.

  Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of "a large number of" how about a simple "many"?

  Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are still some facts that require a citation. Here for example, "He regarded the presence of additional law-enforcement agencies, such as the Secret Service or the U.S. Marshals Service, to be a bonus." But there are others too.

  That paragraph came from American Terrorist, I need to go to the library and get an exact page number. I'll try to go over the next few days. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • [Special:Contributions/Nehrams2020|contrib]]) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, would help, we don't want to encourage the conspiracy theorists.

  ^Talk

  Went to the library today and added a citation to the statement. I also sourced another statement and clarified a few others. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here, "dissipate some of the concussion from the blast", isn't concussion an injury to the head?

  Yes, but it is can also be used to describe the impact of an explosion. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "impact" might be better.

  ^Talk

  Reworded the statement. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here "Doubts have been raised about the pair's involvement in the robbery though, because despite McVeigh having visited Moore's ranch, the robbers were said to be wearing ski masks, making a positive identification impossible." The "though" spoils the quality of the prose—"however" would be better—and their is a fused participle I think in "McVeigh having" (McVeigh's having).

  I reworded the sentence, please take another look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In "anhydrous hydrazine", I think the "anhydrous" is superfluous.

  Removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bike racer" - bicycle or motorcycle?

  Nice catch. I changed the first occurrence, do you think it is necessary to change the second occurrence in the same sentence as well since motorcycle has been established? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No need.

  ^Talk

• Here "He declined to take any of the 40,000 pounds (18,000 kg) of ANFO" - he was stealing, he was not offered it presumably. How about "he decided not to steal"?

  Interesting thought. Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What are "prills"?

  I thought this was common knowledge. Just kidding, I had no idea either. Added a wikilink. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This lacks logical flow, "A piece of Tovex sausage and a blasting cap were used to detonate it out in the desert, to avoid detection." The Tovex and blasting cap presumably had nothing to do with avoiding detection.

  I merged the details with the prior sentence and mentioned the detonation in a new sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This sounds odd to me "registered a motel room" - is it a US idiom?

  Reworded to "paid for". --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are problems with the linking. There is a little over-linking such as axel and some terms are linked after there first use. This should be checked throughout the article.

  I removed the axle occurrence. The overlinking could be attributed to the likelihood that readers may visit only the bombing or trial sections (for example) when first viewing the article, and some of these links may be viewed only once. Also due to the length of the article, readers may not want to scroll all the way to the last occurrence to click on the link. I believe that I have ensured that only a few of the double wikilinks occur. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I'm happy with this, but others may not be.

  ^Talk

• "This is very weird "in a backwards j;". How about "in the shape of a backwards J"?

  Reworded as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Finally with regard to the "stuffed animals" are we describing cuddly toys or the work of
  taxidermists
  ?

  This has got to be the funniest suggestion I've seen in all of my GA/FA reviews, thanks for that! Instead of adding a wikilink, I added "plush" prior to stuffed animals. Let me know if that is sufficient. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, "plush" does not help me at all, were they dead animals or toys?

  ^Talk

  It's referring to the toy

  stuffed animals. I figure plush would help to clarify. Do you think it should be changed? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  How about a simple "toy animals"?

  ^Talk

  I changed it to "plush toys" in the off chance that some of the donated items were not animals. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a very engaging contribution. I look forward to adding my support.

Thank you for reviewing the article. A lot of these were very helpful, and definitely helped to improve the prose for clarifying some details. I appreciate you taking the time to look the article over. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome.

^Talk 00:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support and comment Nice article, but one concern. 60 domestic terrorism plots have been foiled is stated as a fact in the lead, but the newspaper reference is a quote from Potok, who could hardly be described as an unbiased source. Could this be changed to something like it has been claimed that 60 domestic terrorism plots have been foiled. ? jimfbleak (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your support, I appreciate it. I found another source (also from the Southern Poverty Law Center) which lists each of the incidents. The report was also mentioned in other sources including U.S. News & World Report. With the list provided, should the source be added without rewording? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I think that's OK, and addresses my concern about verifiability jimfbleak (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, I added the source and slightly reworded the statement to clarify for readers. Thanks for pointing that out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I just remembered that explosives were eventually found underneath Nichols' former residence in Kansas. [5] That should probably be mentioned here, and definitely in the Terry Nichols article. PSWG1920 (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought I had already added this, but I must have not saved or accidentally removed it. Anyway, I added a sentence on the incident at Nichols' section. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is an amazing article. I don't see a single fact without reference, and everything is very well written. It's nicely illustrated and has clear sections. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for taking the time to look over the article and for the copyedits you made earlier. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I peer reviewed this and thought it was FA worthy then, but the new images and other changes since have only improved what was already a very good article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciated the feedback during the peer review, a lot of errors were caught there. Thanks for looking again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion only - would it make sense to add Bath School disaster as a See also? It is another lone wolf bombing by a US citizen (of a school). It took me a while to recall the name. I seem to recall it was the worst bombing on US soil in terms of deaths (45) before this one. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks relevant, so I added the link. I don't recall ever hearing about this event before, and it looks quite shocking, especially for taking place in 1927. Thanks for the notice. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This was removed per the discussion below. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Massive citation work and plentiful images. Great structure, as well. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for fair use image concerns as follow:

• File:OkcW.jpg: not too sure what seeing a faintly visible Ryder truck in the background would serve any significance (not likely people are remembering images from this security video). It might perhaps qualify to illustrate a lack of security, awareness, or vigilance (people nonchalantly strolling about, paying no attention to the truck) but there is no commentary on this.

  I have added details about the security camera recording the truck driving by (as well as it recording Nichols' pickup truck a few days before when the getaway car was dropped off). Along with this commentary in the text, the image serves as the only released image of the truck in the city, and at that, also just five minutes before the bombing. It was at this minute when the first fuse was lit to detonate the bomb. The image also illustrates the size of the truck used, how the driver can not be identified due to the quality of the image, as well as how nearby pedestrians were oblivious as to what was in the truck. I'm not sure what you mean "not likely people are remembering images from this security video". The article is used to educate people who may know little to nothing on the bombing and the image provides the details explained above and in the FUR. With the new commentary in the article, does the FUR need to be expanded further? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, what I meant is that the screen capture shows no security measures in place and an unawareness or pre-caution (no one taking notice of the truck). I note that the "Building security and construction" had mentioned about tightening security. Was there any reported criticisms about lax security or "taken for granted" attitude towards security? Those could add the significance of the image. Statements of the truck pulling up next to the building can be readily envisaged. Lax security could be illustrated as residents of some countries could find it hard to believe no one in the federal building did not bother with the probable threat. As a non-US resident, reports of the bombing come in the form of the building and aftermath (hence the Pulitzer winning photo). I think none of us over here would associate a security video sceenshot with the event (if the video had been extensively broadcasted throughout US during the coverage of the investigations and trial, I apologize). Jappalang (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I see what you're saying. The image of the truck does not show it parked in front of the Murray building. The apartment building is a few blocks from the Murray building, and as a result the building itself (plus any security/lack of security) can't be seen. If there was an image of the truck parked in front of the federal building, I would have definitely used that instead. The reason that people in the image don't seem to take notice of the vehicle is that it just appears to be a moving truck driving through the city. There was no exterior signs of what was included inside the interior. The image, as I recall, was used in newscasts (or at least documentaries afterwards) and was one of 22 images (I think that's the right number) used from the security camera for the trial. Let me know if you need further clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for explaining and clearing things up. I apologise for my misconceptions but have to still disagree with the rationale presented. As the image is to depict the passing of a vehicle on the road, it seems to be of no significance (normal passing vehicle on the street, and the truck is nothing special—a similar Ryder truck is shown in File:MurrahBuildingDemolitionMay1995.jpg). In my view, the only pertinence is the timestamp. I think the sequence of events, which the picture is supposed to help clarify, would be better represented with a self-constructed map, detailing the movements of the vehicle in question. Jappalang (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the image is not that special, and the truck looks like an ordinary moving truck. Except in this case, it is the only documented image of the truck used in the bombing. Like I said before, I would prefer to have an image of the truck in front of the building or a higher quality image. Unfortunately none are available, and this is the only image to illustrate to readers that a truck was used (again illustrating the size of the vehicle) and the short amount of time that was needed to detonate the bomb. I would say that is the equivalent of File:Story.crash.sequence.jpg used in the September 11 attacks article. Now, obviously it doesn't have the actual recorded explosion like this image, but shows it shortly before the explosion. Looking over the sources, the image (or one of the others) from the security camera shows the truck parked across the street. McVeigh had pulled over to the side of the road to light the first fuse, which was in front of this building. I would like to have a well-drawn out map to better convey the information, and if one is added down the line, this image could possibly be removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  How about File:Timothy McVeigh's movements during Oklahoma City bombing.svg? Jappalang (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well where has this been this entire time, this looks great! I replaced the non-free image with this one. Thank you for taking the time to create it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Mcveighmugshot.jpg: McVeigh is already identified in File:TimothyMcVeighPerryOKApr2195.jpg. Anything else described in this image can be done so clearly with words.

  I removed the image from the article. I was very fortunate to get permission from a Flickr user for the other image, and I probably should have removed this one earlier. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed, or qualifies for fair use with the rationales provided. Jappalang (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the images (as well as prior to FAC), and I'm glad that the majority of the images are free. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I feel the "See also" section is indiscriminate in its links. What similar circumstances or causes did

I removed the majority of the links only leaving

Lone wolf (terrorism). The other single events are likely covered in these links (and other links in the article) if the readers want to pursue further information. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• "He declined to steal any of the 40,000 pounds of ANFO he found at the scene," does not sound right... "decline" by definition is "politely refuse". Suggest changing the sentence to "He ignored the 40,000 pounds of ANFO at the scene,".

  This was already changed from a suggestion above. I somehow forgot to change it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the next sub-section, however, we find that McVeigh and gang loaded "seventeen bags of ANFO". I thought he did not steal ANFO (or thought it was weak)? Jappalang (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  He could have figured the pre-assembled ANFO at the quarry was too weak and that's why he made his own out of the ammonium nitrate and fuel that he collected. The fact that it is only 17 bags appears to be that it was already stolen before the robbery, or was picked up afterwards to make up for some missing ingredients. That's several options (but also my guess), and since I don't want to risk OR, that shouldn't be added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps a statement or footnote to denote the change of plans? Basically, "However, McVeigh later used ANFO from another source to construct his bomb." or something like that after the first mention. It is a bit jarring to read the events as is: the first mention of ANFO is that he chose not to steal it, then the next mention is that he used ANFO in the bomb. A sort of disclaimer to disassociate the 17 bags with the 40,000 tons would help to avoid confusion. Jappalang (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw the potential confusion, but didn't want to use OR in attempting to explain it. Your suggestion works well in conveying the ANFO's use. I added a sentence after the first occurrence, let me know if it should be reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I did some copyediting and peer review before the article was nominated, and satisfied with the copyedits and changes by others since my review. I don't have any more suggestions to improve the article. --Aude (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Oppose Some of your links are showing up as dead, check here. If you have a second, please review my FAC at Hawaii hotspot which has not had any comments for four days. Thanks. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I fixed all of the dead links except for one. I hid the link until I can use the Internet Archive to resurrect the link. In addition if you re-check the links again, the article "The British Waco survivors" still is labeled as a dead link, but if you click it, it works fine. For some reason, The Times articles always come up as dead links even when they work fine. I find it strange that all of these links went dead just two days ago when they are all fine before. Let me know if you spot anything else. As for your FAC, I'm not at the FAC reviewer level to oppose/support yet (I'm still at GAN level!) but I may leave some comments later. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - all of those links have stopped working since Ealdgyth checked the refs and links above on June 12. All but one stopped working only two days ago which hardly seems ground for an oppose. Furthermore, the implied quid pro quo (Oppose, please review my FAC, and what then???) seems to me to at least give the impression of impropriety. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to help out, what harm is there in fixing them? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing the problem links out. I am going to

assume good faith on the request for comments on the other FAC, which is what I found objectionable, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It doesn't matter who last checked the links or when, how am I supposed to check the sources when the links are not working? I would be remiss if I didn't check whether the facts are supported by the sources. As far as requesting comments, I'd like to think that most of us here are impartial enough to evaluate an article based on the facts, not based whether or not someone is our friend, or whether they supported our FAC... that may make me naive but it is common practice for editors to request comments from interested parties, at least I'm being transparent about it. Moving on...

• Images I like the use of descriptive captions, but the first photo in the body needs a different one, it doesn't really describe what we are seeing and I mistakenly assumed it was another photo of the Murrah building.

  I added a note pointing out that the image is of the Waco Siege. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Images Is the lead photo the best photo we have of the bombed-out building? If it wasn't so blurry, I'd say it was
  Featured Picture
  quality. Of course this whole point of mine is ironic considering " McVeigh believed that the open space around the building would provide better photo opportunities".

  I believe it's the best free image that we have on the bombing. It shows the destruction of the building as well as to the surrounding area. There are other images that show the entire building, but I figure the overhead view image in the body of the text would cover that. A lot of the free images came from federal agencies/rescue workers, who are probably not professional photographers. I'm sure that some news agencies have better quality images, but this is currently the best we have of available free images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Arrests This section is missing a little detail. Perhaps some dates of these events would help, as it is not really clear that it was only two days later when McVeigh was about to be released when police realized who he was. It also does not mention if the business card that was found with the words "TNT" on it was instrumental in the investigation, or if it was initially ignored.

  I added a few dates as well as mentioned that the card was used as evidence in the trial. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had time to read the whole thing yet, but these are the issues I have so far. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Arrests - "James was also arrested, but he was released after 32 days for lack of evidence. McVeigh's sister Jennifer was accused of illegally mailing bullets to McVeigh, but she was granted immunity in exchange for testifying against him."

  Added sources. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Children terrorized - "On the Saturday after the bombing, April 22, the Clintons gathered children of employees of federal agencies that had offices in the Murrah Building, and in a live nationwide television and radio broadcast, addressed their concerns."

  Added sources and reworded sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These two statements are the ends of paragraphs lacking a citation. There were others, but they were ok, IMO, as one was basically a recap of the sections below it, and another was geographic claim which could be verified by looking at a non-specialized map. But citing the latter wouldn't hurt. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• St Joseph's Church The statement "one of the first brick and mortar churches in the city" is not supported by the reference provided. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Added source. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, can i get a direct quote? I can't seem to find it in the source provided. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The source states that it is one of the first churches in the city's history: "Also in 1889 Catholics built St. Joseph's Cathedral (NR 78002253) at the southwest corner of Northwest Fourth Street and Harvey Avenue." (it can be seen about halfway down the article). I reworded the name of the church to avoid any confusion. Does that clarify? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I guess you had to really read the whole thing. I didn't realize OKC was founded in 1889, so I get it now. Otherwise, everything else looks ok to me. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wrestlinglover

Arrests

• • "The first was that it was international terrorism, possibly by the same group who had carried out the World Trade Center bombing two years earlier. The FBI also thought that a drug cartel may have been acting out of vengeance against DEA agents, as the building held a DEA office." refs for both please.

    The citation at the end of the paragraph covers all of the theories. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last theory about the Christian fascists, which I didn't even knew exist though I'm a part of the Christian faith, I believe should be explained a bit more. What possible theory would have motivated this is what I'm asking to be included if that is possible or a link to an article about it.

    The source doesn't go into too much detail. I provided a link for Christian fascists, although that article would benefit with expansion. If this had been the actual cause of the bombing, then indeed there would have been more details on it. It's likely that the FBI gathered everybody, said make a list of possible suspects, and this was one of the suggestions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Perry in Noble County." → "Perry in Noble County, Oklahoma." Noble county could be in any state and I don't even know where I-35 is.

    I had figured that the Oklahoma State Trooper mention in the next sentence would indicate this, but it's better to clarify in the prior sentence. Added OK after the county. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It does, but better to be safe.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "McVeigh falsely claimed he resided at James Nichols' (the brother of Terry Nichols) house in Michigan." → "McVeigh falsely claimed he resided at Terry Nichols' brother James' house in Michigan." An idea.

    Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "began their search for the Nichols brothers, Terry and James." typo; began should be begin.--WillC 18:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. Must have written that incorrectly when I expanded that a week ago. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright.--WillC 20:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

• • "Those killed included 163 who were in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, one person in the Athenian Building, one woman in a parking lot across the street, a man and woman in the Oklahoma Water Resources building, and a rescue worker struck on the head by debris. The victims ranged in age from three months to seventy-three, not including the fetuses of three pregnant women." For a section called "Casualties", a ref is really needed for all claims. So please place a ref for these.

    Citations added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Glass causing injuries was mentioned before in the article, but in this section it states "Over 680 people were injured; the majority of the injuries were caused by abrasions, severe burns, and bone fractures." I'm guessing the abrasions were caused by the glass. That should be mentioned.--WillC 19:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to risk OR with that. Abrasions could have also been caused by falling debris, sharp objects, or other causes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response and relief

• Rescue efforts
• Humanitarian aid
• Federal and state government aid
• International reaction
• Children terrorized
• Media coverage

Trials and sentencing of the conspirators

• Timothy McVeigh
• Terry Nichols
• Michael Fortier
• Others

Legacy

• Legislation
• Building security and construction
• Discussion of the nature of dissent

Memorial observances

• Oklahoma City National Memorial
• St. Joseph's Old Cathedral
• Remembrance observance

Conspiracy theories

See also

References

Further reading

External links

Support You can literally see that years of work and gradual improvement has gone into this article and evidence of wide reading on the topic which all featured article should have. This is a very informative and detailed article which covers all the aspects of the event. Nice work! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:20, 28 June 2009 (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 16:56, 30 June 2009 [6].

Hurricane Kiko (1989)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA criteria. I've used all available sources from my research of the storm, both online and off. As always, all thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (sorry I missed this first run through, not sure how I did so...heh.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sorry to see that your nom has not garnered many comments. I found this article listed on
  FAC urgents, please feel free to review another article from the list as there are others in your same situation. I made a number of minor edits, mostly concerning wikilinking. Otherwise, looks good. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support - Well-written, comprehensive, appropriately illustrated, etc. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A great article that meets all criteria, very nice article, and deserves to be a Featured Article. Another great piece of writing Cyclonebiskit. Darren23 (Contribs) 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, 1a. This feels fairly rough and slammed together based on my reading of the lead. It doesn't appear to have gotten any significant attention from anyone other than the primary author. Significant revision needed before the prose will meet a professional standard. A independent copyeditor is needed to remedy problems such as these, just from the lead:
  • Nebulous statements. The very first sentence: "one of the strongest ... to make landfall" Ever? That year? There is a vast difference between, say, one of the 5 strongest or one of the 100 strongest. But, we're left to guess.
  • "Slowly tracking towards the northwest" How is this different from "Slowly tracking northwest"?
  • "A turn towards the west also occurred at this time" Clumsy... "a turn occurred"? Why not just "The storm turned westward at this time"? If you turned right on Main Street you wouldn't say "A turn towards Main Street occurred".
  • "The hurricane rapidly weakened to a tropical storm later that day and further to a tropical depression" Certainly, weakened into, and further into?
  • "while tracking towards the south" Again, why not "tracking southward"? Are the conventions for this type of language in the WikiProject?
  • "the impacts from it" Much less laborious: "its impacts"

--Laser brain (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited the entire article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JC. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: {{Most intense landfalling Pacific hurricanes}} is causing a band of ugly whitespace just after the first paragraph in Meteorological history. The text is also ending up too close to the table. For aesthetics (and to prevent distractions), can a gap be padded around the table and the "clear" function removed? Jappalang (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative support. It is looking much better after Juliancolton's edits, and I've gone through and done some cleanup. I think the redlinks need to be audited for likelihood of ever becoming articles. Some of them are redirect candidates, perhaps. --Laser brain (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have not read the whole article, but I noticed one thing. In the first paragraph under section "Preparations and Impact" you transcribed the entire list. Is that necessary? For a FA, the prose must be engaging and that certainly is not. Potapych (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2009 (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 22:48, 27 June 2009 [7].

H.M.S. Pinafore

Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it satisfies the FA criteria. After GA review, the article has benefitted from extensive peer review comments. Two other Gilbert and Sullivan operas are FA articles: Trial by Jury and Thespis (opera). -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm one of the peer reviewers, who dabbles in the G&S articles now and then, though I'm not a member of the wikiproject. The article is engaging, well researched, comprehensive and well illustrated. It is a good resource either for the casual reader or for the person knowledgeable about the opera. It's well deserving of the star.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This seems a good well-written and comprehensive article, covering virtually every possible angle of its subject. I only have two little niggles with phrasing:

In the Lead this phrase seems poorly structured: "..although her father intends her to marry the First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir Joseph Porter, the cabinet minister in charge of Britain's Royal Navy."

It might be better as: "..although her father intends her to marry Sir Joseph Porter, the First Lord of the Admiralty and the cabinet minister in charge of Britain's Royal Navy."

The following sentence in the Background section seems over-long and confusing: "Because Gilbert, Sullivan and Carte produced the show with their own financial support, instead of writing a piece for production by a theatre proprietor as was usual in Victorian theatres, they were able to choose their own cast of performers, rather than being obliged to use the actors already engaged at the theatre."

This might be better as two sentences, eg: "Instead of writing a piece for production by a theatre proprietor, as was usual in Victorian theatres, Gilbert, Sullivan and Carte produced the show with their own financial support. They were therefore able to choose their own cast of performers, rather than being obliged to use the actors already engaged at the theatre." Xandar 23:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas. I made the second change exactly as you suggested. In the first case, I simplified the sentence, since the link already tells us that the position of First Lord is a cabinet post. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I look forward to seeing this article on the front page. Xandar 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support From the POV of someone who knows nothing about the subject matter, I found this well-written article to be very informative. LargoLarry (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have any word-count tools, but the article is 115KB, which might be a little too long.
  talk) 11:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Not counting references, the word count is 11,297. Is there a limit to length? 67.79.157.50 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I don't know the basis of the above wordcount. According to the "Page size" tool the current count is 9,931, which is long but not super-long. I would be against the article expanding any further (it was 7,629 words when I finished my peer review on 25 April), but I can live with it as it is. My peer review comments were extensive and have been acted on. My only remaining quibble is that non-breaking spaces have not been implemented, for 571 performances (twice), 178 performances, 10,000 copies, 91 performnces, and possibly other cases too. I suggest these are fixed. Otherwise hunky-dory. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. - I caught a couple more numbers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article is comprehensive and informative. Slfarrell (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. (To declare an interest, I am a member of the wikiproject but have had minimal input to this particular article.) Readable, informative, no superfluous information, well-balanced, excellently referenced. I agree with Wehwalt's comments, above. Tim riley (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm very impressed with the care and detail the editors have taken in preparing this article. It is comprehensive, well-written, and well-researched. They are to be commended for producing such a wonderful article on such an important work and we should applaud the excellent article they have produced. All of my questions and suggestions were addressed at the peer review. All I can still suggest is to replace the Prestige source with another one, since conference collections are not the best sources and the
  talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Image review - All images have good descriptions and verifiable licenses.
  talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support for reasons already given. Marc Shepherd (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Marc Shepherd was a contributor to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful note, Ss! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return. I noted GASBAG, but there may be others.

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the following reliable sources?

• http://www.dgillan.screaming.net/stage/th-frames.html?http&&&www.dgillan.screaming.net/stage/th-longr.html

Don Gillan is the author of the book Of Boars and Bantams, A Pictorial History of Bradford City AFC. His non-profit, educational website provides extensive information about Victorian and Edwardian era theatre. It includes numerous biographies and picture galleries of actresses of the era, reprints of Victorian news items about the theatre, extensive postcard histories, and articles about historical subject of the era. This part of the website is a unique compilation of information that he has gleaned from The Theatre magazine and presented in a convenient table format available nowhere else. The website is praised here and linked to here and here, among other places. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was so good a rebuttal that you now have your first G&S entry in my FAC cheatsheet, here! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.culturevulture.net/Opera/HMSPinafore.htm

Culture Vulture is an arts review website established in 1998. Its publisher and editor is Michael Wade Simpson, of Santa Fe, New Mexico. He holds a BA in Journalism from the University of Southern California. He is a published author and was a teaching fellow at Smith College, where he received his MFA in choreography. While living in the Bay Area for 15 years, he wrote about dance for the

NYGASP at Wolf Trap

.

I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]