Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2012

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

November 2012

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:41, 26 November 2012 [1].

Debora Green

Nominator(s): A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A thorough survey of both Debora Green's life and the crime she was convicted of. This is a second FAC nomination for this article; the previous one was closed due to lack of comments. Most of the sources used for this article are offline; I am able to provide digital copies of all offline sources other than the Ann Rule book to any reviewer who'd like to spotcheck. The Ann Rule book should be spotcheckable here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:Ricinus communis 008.JPG - GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0.
  • File:Dennis Moore, official photo portrait, color.jpg - source link is dead but I don't think that's an issue. PD-USGov.
  • More images would be nice, but I'm assuming that there aren't any more available that are licensable. --Rschen7754 03:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this set of images is about the best I've been able to come up with. No photos of Green or her family members are available under a license compatible with us, as far as I can tell, and while I could find images of, say, Peru, a courtroom, and a jail, they wouldn't really add any understanding-value to the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments Great stuff, a few comments, but nothing sufficient to stop me supporting. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed two apparent overlinks, please check
  • "Major" in a university course sense might be linked to help us Brits
  • Can we have a metric conversion for the gallons?
  • "Redbook" is italicised in its own article, not in yours, you can't both be right
  • Done the "major" link, the metric conversion, and the italicization. Your removal of overlinks looks good. I'm working on seeing if there are any more lying around that need to be removed... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Read this during lunch break today and was gripped; found the writing and pace very engaging. Looks good wrt to quality of sources and is comprehensive. Small minor, not even quibbles with prose in a few limited places, working through, but am not married to my edits, feel free to revert. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing, some of the refs are qualified by "Highbeam Research - sub required". Is that really necessary? I mean, who actually cares how you got the paricular article, and it smaks a bit of promoting the for profit highbeam. Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was sort of stumbling along using Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations as a guidepost for those refs ("Wikipedia's rules about bare URLs and link rot require editors not to add only an unlabeled link to HighBeam (or any other website)", etc) I'd be happy to change the styling on those refs if you think would be useful/more suited - I could change it to only say "subscription required", perhaps? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No i'd not leave it out altogether, its nuts and bolts where the ref came from, a RS is a RS. I would imagine that Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations is skeyed towards mentioning HighBeam. Ceoil (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. So what would be your ideal ref content here? Mention Highbeam? Mention subscription required? One or both? Neither? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nither imo, though I may be corrected. Other wise its a presented to you by....and thats irrevant. Ceoil (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've taken them out :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fluffernutter, to be honest Im suffering from reviewers remorse how here, wondering if I'm being too harsh on this. I might ask a second openion. Ceoil (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, ok. I'll see if I can find anyone who wants to weigh in. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a "subscription required" note would be a good idea, though not absolutely necessary. The issue of Highbeam mentions as promotional has actually come up before - really that's neither here nor there, and they're not forbidden, but I'd say "subscription" would suffice. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. Gone ahead and implemented. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resonable to me too. \Thanks for weighing in Nikki. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Note 2: can you be a bit more specific on citations? Direct quotes usually need page numbers, and there are several Star articles cited. Also, "the The Kansas City Star"?
  • Fixed and fixed. I added the date for the particular news article, which makes it identifiable among the refs. Removed the double "the". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Star needs italicizing, and we still need a page number for the quote from Rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for template glitches like doubled periods
  • "SouthComm, Inc.." - the templates you're using automatically put a period after publisher, so adding one causes doubling. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN45: page formatting
  • Ranges should always use endashes
  • FN48: is the first author's name really "Cheryl Cheryl"?
  • Does Highbeam provide page numbers for the articles it reproduces?
  • Why provide access date for FN52 but not 51 or 50? All three are Highbeam, so all three should use similar formatting
  • Deadly Women is linked and unitalicized in text but unlinked and italicized in refs - any reason for that? The latter, at least, should be consistent. Also, does this show have episode numbers?

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- like to see a source spotcheck; I note the nominator has offered to assist with offline sources if need be. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed (handnt spot checked tbh) that 34 of the 55 refs are from a single source. Whats the current thinking on this re balance, comprehensiveness etc? My own though is that while its not fatal in instances, it should be discorage, and looking Ann Rule isnt a particularly scholarly writer, she publishes sensationalist "true crime" pulp material. Im not familiar with the breath of lit out there, so just asking, I'm ok on being disputed on this. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm going to think my sources are just peachy, so take me with a grain of salt, but I want to point out that while Ann Rule isn't a scholarly author, I wouldn't call her "sensationalist" or "pulpy". She's considered quite authoritative as a crime reporter/author. As far as why the article relies heavily on that source...that is the only source that deals with Green's backstory and the fire/murder investigations extensively - news articles, being news articles, tend to be short and to the point, while books have more space to expand on background, detailed interviews, etc. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept this; Im finding that from my google news searches since, and maybe I was hasty with pulp etc. I need to look more, so withdrawing those eh, descriptions. Anyway, I'll do the spot checks if you want to send on some scans or whatever, I'll pick refs 8, 13 and 17 and will look myself at some of the onlines one. Will be gone ontil Friday but will pick it up then. Im about done with any minor c/eing, looks good there. Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Check your email :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My emial client, eircom, routinely, any habitually crashes at this time, for a hour or two. Sigh, you could sent your clock by it. If it doesnt come though, I'll be gone from the night, but will do the checks on Friday, not to drag the FAC out. Ceoil (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, are you still planning to do the source spotcheck? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian, apologies for the delay. I checked souces 5,6,8,28 & 49, all back up the claims and no close paraphrasing. I fixed a pg number, but clean otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments restricted to the section "Farrar's account" - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The second sentence starts with the words "He told police ..." and after this, the rest of the section should be in the form of reported speech. This means that a pronoun should replace the numerous mentions of Farrar. I also think that some of the verbs in this section should be in the pluperfect rather than the perfect tense.
  • I'm fairly sure it's not necessary to remove all name mentions just because it's reported speech. It would be terribly repetitive to put the whole section in "he said...he said...he said..." as opposed to varying the phrasing. Tense-wise, past vs. past perfect here helps to differentiate events removed in time ("She was diagnosed with depression...") from those related to the day of the fire ("Farrar had dropped the children off at 9:30..."). I could re-write everything to obscure that differentiation, but I think it would detract from the quality of the prose. If you've found specific spots where it looks like I erred in tense, though, please let me know and I'll fix those. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking again, although I would accept that it's not necessarily the case that you need quote marks, I find it difficult in the long first para of this section to tell what is a summary of his testimony, and what is a statement of facts from other sources. Eg Doctors identified Streptococcus viridans, which had probably leaked through damaged digestive tissue as a result of Farrar's severe diarrhea, as the source of the sepsis; Fact or his claim? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. The intention here was that it was clear from calling the section "Farrar's account" and saying "Farrar told the police about [the past six months]", and then describing the past six months, that this was all recounting what Farrar told the police. All the ways I can think of to make that clearer (Using "he said, he said, he said", ending the an opening paragraph with "Farrar's account was as follows:", etc) seem like they would interfere with the flow of the article. It's not direct quotes; it's a summary of what he told the police. If anyone has ideas for a way to make it clearer that this is his account, without making the prose painful, I'm open to suggestions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hospital identified Streptococcus viridans, which had probably leaked through damaged digestive tissue as a result of Farrar's severe diarrhea, as the source of the sepsis but were unable to pinpoint the root cause of the gastrointestinal illness itself." - The subject of this sentence is too far removed by the clause from the rest of the sentence. Also, the hospital is not a plural noun.
  • Yeah, that sentence got a bit out of hand, didn't it. Changed to "Doctors identified
    Streptococcus viridans, which had probably leaked through damaged digestive tissue as a result of Farrar's severe diarrhea, as the source of the sepsis; however, they were unable to pinpoint the root cause of the gastrointestinal illness itself.", which should address both issues. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "The next day, he asked Green—who had no interest in gardening that he knew of—what she had intended to do with the seed packets." - This sentence could be better phrased.
I would say - "He did not believe that Green had any interest in gardening so he asked her next day what she had intended to do with the seed packets."
  • Stylistically, your version is much weaker. Unless there's something actually wrong with my version, I continue to prefer my phrasing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though she initially claimed that she was going to plant them, when pressed she said that she intended to use them to commit suicide." - The subject of this sentence is "seed packets".
Well most people, gardeners or non-gardeners, do not plant seed packets.
  • Ah, you didn't mean it was the subject of the sentence. You meant it was the antecedent of the pronoun I was using. Fixed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Police who responded to the home ..." - Do you mean "Police who attended at the home ..."?
  • No, I mean "police who responded to the home". Judging by your username, I'm guessing you're Welsh - this may be a British English vs. American English difference, since American English would never say "who attended at the home". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " ... police transported Green to a nearby emergency room." - At the hospital, presumably? This reads as if the room was in the house.
  • This one is a dialect difference. "Emergency room" is what Americans call the place the British call an A&E, and it's being properly used here. I can wikilink it if you'd like, but personally I think that's a bit overlinky, considering how common and well-understood the term is. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its your choice, but any of the following alternatives is better than "emergency room" from a UK perspective -- "emergency department", "accident & emergency" or "casualty department".
  • None of these are in common usage in American English (you hear "emergency department" occasionally in AE, but not nearly as commonly as "emergency room", and the other two you pretty much never hear except from someone speaking a non-American dialect of English), so it would be inappropriate to use them in an article written in American English. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the doctor, Green "spit at him"," - "spat" would sound more natural and there is no need for this part of the sentence to be in inverted commas.
  • Well, it's a quote, thus the quotation marks. There's no real way to express this thought without either quoting/close-paraphrasing it or being needlessly complex ("she expectorated upon him"? "she flung spittle in his general direction"?), and my policy is that if I can't paraphrase it adequately, it goes in quotes. "Spit" is the past tense used in the quote. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed a bit, but considerning its medical openion, not much. Im ok with going back to quotes on this. Ceoil (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout the evening on October 23, 1995, ..." - It seems strange to mention the date so specifically at this stage of the statement.
  • I'm not going to comment further and am unable to support this article's candidacy because I find the nominator unresponsive to the concerns I have raised. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wha? It just seems like you disagree, I wouldn't say "unresponsive." --Rschen7754 06:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In case you are wondering, I'm revisiting because Cwmhiraeth asked me to look at her comments and your responses here. For the benefit of delegates, this doesn't change my support above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm really disappointed to see that Cwmhiraeth feels unable to support, and even more that she's questioned Jimfbleak's support and my good faith in the process. I have been as responsive to all concerns on this FAC as possible, but in my mind this is intended to be a process of improvement, not of taking all suggestions as articles of faith. I didn't expect this article to be opposed because a reviewer was offended I considered some of their suggestions to not be improvements, nor did I expect to be labeled "dismissive" and "unresponsive" for engaging in give-and-take about what is best for the article. So, to be clear: I am happy to entertain corrections, comments, and suggestions about how to improve the article. If I'm wrong when I say I think a change would be to the detriment of the article, I'm happy to hear from other commenters that they agree or disagree with my choice, and what their reasoning is. If it turns out I was wrong to refute a suggestion, that's fine; tell me that and I'll fix it. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again a bunch of times before I kick the bucket. But please don't assume bad faith of my manner or my intentions because I decline to make a change you suggest; it's is possible that other people can be wrong sometimes too. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Its ok to let an oppose stand if you disagree with what is being asked. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • In fairness to Cwmhiraeth, I think she was asking for a second opinion on her comments and your responses, rather than questioning my support or your integrity. I think that since she was reviewing just one section, any formal support or oppose she might have given would have had to be highly qualified anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be making a big deal about my comments on the single section of the article I reviewed. I neither support this candidacy nor oppose it, I am neutral.

The main point I made about the first paragraph of "Farrar's account" has not been addressed. The other points mostly refer to differences between American English and British English. I acknowledge that an article on an American subject written presumably by an American should use American English. I just didn't care for the way the nominator dismissed my comments as not being worth bothering with. For example, what is the problem with rewording "According to the doctor, Green "spit at him"" as "The doctor stated that Green had spat at him"? Your response was dismissive. As a result I decided not to review other sections as had been my original intention. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Further comments from Cwmhiraeth
A lot of effort has been put into this article and in general it is of a high standard. I am concerned that it might fail to be promoted because of my earlier lack of support, so I have decided to look at it further and here are some more comments:
  • "Green attended the University of Illinois from the fall of 1969, where she took a major in chemistry Though she had intended to pursue chemical engineering as a career, she opted to attend medical school after graduating in 1972 with a degree in chemistry" - we don't need the second mention of the chemistry degree.
  • "Green felt that Farrar was a stable presence she could depend on." - better not to end the sentence with a preposition.
  • Their first child was "Timothy", the second "Kate Farrar" and the third "Kelly Farrar". Why the difference?
  • "As the Farrar children grew old enough, they were enrolled in the private The Pembroke Hill School in Kansas City." - I suggest you rearrange this as "As the Farrar children grew old enough, they were enrolled in The Pembroke Hill School, a private school in Kansas City."
  • I note that in the section "Divorce" you mention the Pembroke Hill School without capitalising the definite article.
  • "While Farrar worked long hours, Green always accompanied her children to their activities, ..." - I suggest you rephrase this perhaps starting with "During this time, Farrar worked long hours ..." as the previous sentence also uses "while".
  • "Medical professionals who worked with her during this time described her as "unfeeling to the patients" and "obsessive about [her husband]"." - I see no purpose for these awkward quotations from a newspaper article. Why not just have "Medical professionals who worked with her during this time described her as being unfeeling towards her patients and obsessive about her husband."?
  • I'm a little concerned about using very nearly the exact phrasing from the source here without quotes. Close paraphrasing is really not something any of us want to see floating around FAs. What's the perspective on this from those of you who are regulars at FAC? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... while the sale of the Prairie Village home was re-negotiated." - I am confused. Were they not still living in Missouri? Or did you mean the purchase of the house was re-negotiated?
  • Is your point here the use of "sale" vs "purchase"? It's fairly common in American English to use "sale" to mean the transfer of a house both from the perspective of the buyer and the seller. I'm assuming this isn't as clear from an outside-USA perspective, though, and "purchase" works just as well, so I've changed it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Green responded "hysterical[ly]" and told the children that their father was leaving them." - I see no need for quoting one word in this way.
  • "... sometimes to the point of unconsciousness and nearly always to the point of removing what inhibitions ..." - Perhaps this could be rephrased so that we don't have "to the point" twice.
  • In the last paragraph of "Divorce", Farrar is mentioned as continuing to live in the family home. Did he move out before the fire, the news of which he received when at his apartment?
  • "It had been a remarkably rapid destruction of the house, ..." - Why not start this sentence, "Fire had spread through the house with great rapidity ..."
  • In the "Fire" section a "9-1-1 call" is mentioned while elsewhere "911" is used.
  • "... who had phoned the house asking who there had paged him." - Maybe "...who had phoned the house asking which member of the household had paged him."
  • "Her accounts of times from the previous evening wavered ..." - I think "varied" would be better.
  • "Green's lawyer for the couple's divorce, Ellen Ryan, found her there later in the day, distraught." - I suggest "Ellen Ryan, Green's divorce lawyer, found her there later in the day in a distraught state."
  • That brings us back to "Farrar's account". More later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These recommendiations all seem solid to me, good improvements. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Cwmhiraeth. Ceoil, you deserve a medal for getting most of these resolved before I even saw them! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the "Fire investigation" section, it is undesirable to finish the first paragraph and start the second with the same words.
  • "A clerk in Missouri recalled a woman who, that September, asked for an order of ten packets of the out-of-season seeds, which she claimed were needed for schoolwork." - I think this sentence could be rephrased.
  • "Register tapes in the store's records showed that a purchase corresponding to the amount the beans would have cost had been made on the afternoon of either September 20 or 22, though no records were found in any Earl May store of earlier such purchases, which would have been necessary based on Farrar first having become ill in the summer." - This sentence is too long and complex.
  • "Farrar underwent surgery in November 1995 as treatment for his ongoing health issues which were believed to a result of poisoning." - This sentence appears to have a word omitted and is awkwardly expressed.
  • "... but officials declined to name the person suspected in either case." - Maybe the word "case" should be avoided here as it occurs in the previous sentence with a different meaning.
  • "Though Green's attorneys requested that if arrested ..." - "had requested" would be better.
  • "The defense argued that the psychiatric medications Green had been on since her September hospitalization" - This would be better phrased as "... on which Green had been"
  • "... could cause
    blunted affect
    which could be mistaken for a lack of emotion." - According to the wikilink, "blunted affect" is a lack of emotion.
  • Blunted affect is a failure to react emotionally enough, or to express the right emotion where it's appropriate. This is distinct from not having the emotion in the first place. To try to make that clearer, I changed the sentence to "...could cause
    blunted affect, which could have led police and fire personnel to erroneously report that Green had been unemotional." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "Detectives who had spoken to both Green and Farrar the night of the fire testified as to Green's unusual affect during their interview," - This sentence could be better expressed. Perhaps "Green's demeanour" would be an improvement.
  • "Her defense team undertook its own investigation, hoping to disprove state witnesses' testimony identifying it as arson." - What does "it" describe here?
  • "... in making her plea or her ability to understand the proceedings she was participating in." - Ends with a preposition.
  • "... though her attorneys were prepared to provide evidence that she had not in been control of herself at the time ..." - misplaced "in".
  • "In a subsequent press conference, defense counsel Dennis Moore told reporters, "She is accepting responsibility for [the crimes]" but said that "I don't think she ever intended to kill her children." - I think that indirect speech would be better here. I don't think that close paraphrasing is an issue when you are reporting what someone said.
  • My reading of
    WP:PARAPHRASE is that the quotes are preferred here since there's limited ways in which this could be rephrased without quotes. It's perhaps debatable, but I'm still more comfortable with direct quotes than with having someone read the book a few years from now and realize I'd basically quoted him without quotes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "After her sentencing Green continued to maintain that she had little to no memory of events the night of the fire." - This sentence could be better phrased.
  • "She later withdrew the request when told that prosecutors would again request for the death penalty." This sentence could be better phrased.
  • "She withdrew the request when prosecutors determined that they would seek the death penalty if a new trial was awarded." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... a number of sources have attempted to classify her pathology, if any," - I don't think "pathology" is the right word here.
  • It's a category that encompasses "disease", "dysfunction", "maladaption", etc (cf Personality pathology). So it's appropriate here because I'm basically saying "...attempted to classify what went wrong in her brain, whatever type of wrongness that was". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evaluations showed Green to be minimally able to "cope with the world [she] lives in"" - Again, I think the awkward quote unnecessary.
  • In the first paragraph of "Evaluations of psychology and motivation", Hutchinson seems to be first a "he" but later a "she", although this isn't entirely clear from the context.
  • Thank you for responding to these suggestions. I don't agree with your concerns about the indirect speech/close paraphrasing issue but I am happy to give my support to the article now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 03:59, 25 November 2012 [2].

Lisbon Appointment

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article about a three-way diplomatic dispute between Britain, Rhodesia and Portugal during the 1960s' "scramble out of Africa" has already undergone a

review at the Military History project. The first two were fairly unproductive but the third has yielded much progress. I feel the article is now ready and look forward to hearing your thoughts. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Support I was about to support at the 1st FAC when it came off. I haven't reread it but I'm sure it's even better now - I've read the very thorough milhist review. Highly detailed & well-written. I made a couple of minor edits last time. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again for the kind words and the support, John. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article is a very important part of Rhodesian history - throwing light on the crucial period just before UDI. Cliftonian's write-up is well-researched, dealing with several different aspects of the study, and is well composed and presented. --DLMcN (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the very kind words and the support, Dave. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Having examined the article in question, I will state with confidence that it's a commendable piece of work - extraordinarily written and properly researched. Needless to say, no objections. --Katangais (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the kind words, Katangais. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "Portugal (red and burgundy), Rhodesia (green) and South Africa (orange)", "

European Free Trade Association (green)" - see

WP:COLOUR

  • I've annotated the first of these with letters, and removed the second one. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Coat_of_arms_of_Rhodesia.svg: on what source was this image based?
  • I didn't make this image, but I am very familiar with the coat of arms and have a lot of Rhodesiana in my possession, including a large Rhodesian flag, which prominently includes the coat of arms in full. Judging from all of this, the coat of arms depicted here is accurate. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:First_government_of_rhodesia.jpg is sourced to Wikipedia. When/where was this image first published?
  • I don't know, but it seems to be an official formative shot, which I would think would have been first published in 1924 in Rhodesia. It therefore comes under modern Zimbabwean law, which defines photographs older than 50 years as public domain. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Federation_rhodesia_nyasaland.png, File:Rhodesia,_South_Africa_and_Portugal,_1964.png: what sources were used to create these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't make the first one, but I am very familiar with the geography, and can confirm it is accurate. The second I did make; I based it on the image File:Portuguese colonial war map1.PNG (which is unsourced), changed some borders to match the correct ones for the 1960s (based on information elsewhere on Wikipedia), and coloured in Rhodesia and South Africa. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far so good on prose per
    Lisbon_Appointment#Britain attempts to block the appointment. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Delegate notes -- I note Dank's prose review/copyedit up until where he left off, so have stepped through the rest myself; I think there are a few bits that could be reworded:

  • Hughes blustered -- doesn't sound exactly neutral, perhaps some other term?
  • Cool -- it's no easy task to make prose both lively and objective; overall, however, I think the article manages to tread that fine line. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Britain tries to browbeat Portugal -- something like Britain mobilises NATO support against Portugal might be more precise, with or without but Lisbon insists it is neutral at the end.
  • Okay, have changed to "Britain mobilises NATO support against Portugal; Lisbon insists it is neutral". —Cliftonian (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Britain protested furiously -- "Furiously" in a diplomatic context sounds almost like hysteria, "strongly" or even "strenuously" might be preferable.
  • "assertively" predicting seems superfluous. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 11:35, 25 November 2012 [3].

Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the Australian personnel involved in the

Battle of Normandy in 1944 represented only a small part of the vast Allied force, this campaign represented a high point of Australia's role in the fighting in Western Europe and involved thousands of airmen, hundreds of sailors and a small party of 13 Australian Army officers. The article was assessed as GA class last November, and passed a Military History Wikiproject
A-class review in March this year. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that it now also meets the FA criteria.

I started writing this article last September to educate myself ahead of a trip to Europe in which I visited the Normandy battlefields. To my surprise, I found that no single source covers the entire Australian role in the Battle of Normandy from June to August 1944, and the official history of the RAAF's involvement in Europe which was published in 1963 remains the only detailed account of what the thousands of Australian airmen (who made up the vast majority of the Australian force) did in Europe during this period. As such, by necessity this article relies heavily on the official history (which remains well regarded by modern scholars), though I've been able to pull a lot of extra detail together from many other sources. I hope that you find the article as interesting to read as I've found researching it to be, and thanks in advance for all comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I've started reading the article, seems to be in fine shape overall thus far. A few nitpicks:
  • "The Australian squadron accounted for eight of the 22 bombers shot down" I think
    WP:NUMERAL
    advises against mixing figures and words like this.
    • Hmm, I've used this style in previous FAs (attracting some comments, but nothing serious) and I'm inclined to stick with it. Altering these sentences would mean that all the instances where figures less than 11 are expressed as words would also need to be amended for consistency. I think that the current style also reflects Australian usage, though I could well be wrong. Long story short: I think that this is OK, but I'd be happy to alter it if you think that its a significant problem. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, we can agree to disagree, not a significant issue. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australians posted to eight RAF units took part in defensive patrols which were sought to prevent German reconnaissance aircraft" Is "which were sought" a typo here, it reads awkwardly to me.
    • Yes, that's a typo (which I didn't catch in multiple reads through the article!); fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nancy Wake, an Australian serving with the British Special Operations Executive, was also parachuted into France" Is "was also parachuted" correct? Sounds odd to me.
    • I'm pretty sure this is correct (the alternative would be something long-winded such as 'was dropped by parachute into France') Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, just checking. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest dropping the "also"; the guys in the submarine did not parachute in. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a RAAF fighter squadron operated from airfields in Normandy throughout much of the campaign. Throughout the campaign Australian airmen provided direct support to the Allied ground forces" There's some repetition here, "throughout much of the campaign. Throughout the campaign"
    • Fixed (I removed the first one) Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph that begins "Australians were also involved in attacks on German defences" you use "also" a few times, I'd suggest looking for ways to cut down on it.
  • The use of the serial comma is inconsistent, for example "These included one regular RAAF unit, No.10 Squadron, and nine "Article XV squadrons"" vs "No. 460, No. 463 and No. 467 Squadrons were equipped with Lancasters".
    • I'm not sure that it inconsistent. In the first sentence the commas are highlighting a single unit which differed from the others, and in the second sentence the comma is separating units with almost identical names. Could you suggest how these could be amended? Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments to follow over the next day or two. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot for those comments Mark. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you might be able to shorten a couple "in order to"s to just "to".
    • Reduced from four to two instances (and the resulting sentences are much better) Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his commanding officer believed that German forces could execute Barr if they recaptured him." minor issue, but I'd think "would" would be better than "could" here.
    • Done (I really struggled with the sentences on Barr for some reason, and this helps) Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "ground attack sorties" or "night fighter squadrons" be hyphenated?
    • From quickly checking the usage in Google books, either works for 'ground attack' (though non-hyphenated seems more common). Wikipedia's article on the topic uses Night fighter, so I'll stick with that for internal consistency (it also appears to be the more common option in Google books for what it's worth). Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No. 455 Squadron took part in several attacks on E-boats" is there a good place to link "E-boats"?
    • For some reason I'd piped the link to it to 'torpedo boats'; I've de-piped this. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there were also hundreds of RAAF personnel in the UK who were assigned to personnel depots while they waited to be posted to a combat unit; prior to the invasion these men were seen as an asset as they provided a pool of trained personnel to make good combat losses." Is there a good way around the repetition of "personnel" here?
    • I've re-worked this sentence Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As at 1 June 1944, Australians comprised the following proportions" I'd suggest "As of" here.
    • Done (which also makes this consistent with the other times this wording appears in the article) Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some inconsistency here: "Sharpe (2004), p. 36 estimates that" vs "Sharpe (2004) pp. 36–37 discusses" (no comma in the second). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Thanks also for those comments Mark. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, I'm ready to support now, being satisfied with the explanations and fixes to my comments. Seems to be a very well written/accessible presentation of the subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks again Mark - I really appreciate the review. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: All images are appropriately tagged. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks: 31, 55, 56, 57, 83, 93, 98, 103, 109 - all okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • nine "Article XV squadrons" manned by graduates of the Empire Air Training Scheme (EATS). While these Article XV squadrons were Should "Article XV" be repeated?
      • I think so as it's needed to distinguish them from No. 10 Squadron. To get around this construction would need an extra sentence or so, so I think that the repetition is the lesser of two evils. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would No. 460, No. 463 and No. 467 Squadrons be better as Nos. 460, 463 and 467 Squadrons?
      • Yes, much - I've tweaked this and other instances in the article Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Four RAN sub-lieutenants who had been sent to the UK to undergo training were also assigned to RN landing craft units" Consider dropping "also" and also in the next sentence:
    • "Thirteen Australian Army officers were also attached to British Army"
      • I think that the first 'also' is OK (as it separates the officers who had been posted to the UK for other purposes but were added to the invasion force from the Australians who were more or less permanently attached to the RN), and I've removed the second 'also'. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot for your comments and spot checks. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contrary to what Hawkeye says above, as far as I am aware the consensus of a couple of months ago still stands, and files such as File:453 Squadron RAAF pilots in Normandy July 1944.jpg that were published before 1946 need to be licensed with a PD-1996 tag to indicate their status in the US. File:Grave of an RAAF airman at Bayeux War Cemetery.jpg needs a rationale for the underlying work (there is no freedom of panorama in France). That, I imagine, will be based on a Australian government rationale but I don't know when the gravestones were erected. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because of the effects of weather etc, the gravestones are periodically replaced by the CWGC. However, there is nothing copyrightable in the image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added tags for the PD-1996 photos. In regards to the gravestone, I don't think that it falls foul of France's strict freedom of panorama laws as it's not an artistic work in any sense - it's a purely functional item with no decorations (the markings on the gravestone are standardised and have the purpose only of identifying the service the men fought for and their religion; from the appearance of the gravestones I it appears that they're produced as identical blank templates, and then have the standard markings of the regiment/service and religion applied in line with guidelines which do not permit any deviations or artistic expression). Nothing except for almost identical gravestones and a hedge are visible in the photo. I note also that France has gifted the land the cemetery sits on in perpetuity to the UK, and the gravestone is the property of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. This deletion discussion on Commons concerning a Canadian memorial in France seems highly relevant (I couldn't spot any comparable cases which were closed as 'delete' from a quick check). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • They were once carved by hand, but today a robot is used. All the stones are, and have always been carved to exact specifications. Australian stones each have an epitaph chosen by the families of the servicemen, but this is not copyright. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a few issues have been confused in the discussion above:
  • Firstly, it is clear there are copyrightable elements in the photograph, namely, one: the Royal Australian Air Force emblem on the central grave (the others are merely incidental). It is an artistic work. However, that isn't to say it is actually in copyright; this I very much doubt. If this grave were in France, then we would need a rationale on why that emblem was out of copyright.
  • Secondly, the location of this grave. If it is indeed in the United Kingdom, in a functional sense - I think the Commons discussion is clear enough that gifting the land in perpetuity amounts to this - then the UK has freedom of panorama. Freedom of panorama means that notwithstanding the copyrightable content of the photograph, if it's 3D, permanent, and you're standing in an openly accessible place, etc. etc. then there can be no claim by the copyright holder. In our case, this is the way to go: just explain on the image that it is covered under British freedom of panorama. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the FoP-UK tag, and some explanation. As noted above, the RAAF emblem is there only for functional purposes (as I can attest from personal experiance; the only way I could locate the Australian graves was by scanning for RAAF crests) so this should also be OK under French law as well. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source commentary

  • Not sure it makes sense to use footnote for first note and inline citation for second
    • While the first note is a set of statistics which were too detailed for the body of the article, the second note is about differing estimates in the sources, so using an inline citation makes sense (the alternative would be to almost duplicate the references - eg; "Sharpe (2004) states that there were 500 sailors involved" cited to Sharpe (2004), p. 36). I used the same approach for the notes in Black Friday (1945). Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of bibliography
  • FN10: "Times" should be caps, and page number?
    • Fixed and added (though my source was the Factiva database) Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn15: no date given for Birch in bibliography
  • Herington or Herrington?
  • FN102: don't use all-caps
    • Fixed
  • FN108 is tagged as a dead link
    • Replaced with a news story (via Factivia) Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gullet or Gullett?
  • The cite toolbar has an annoying habit of inserting spaces before colons in titles - looks like you may've fallen victim
    • No, that's deliberate - it's the style used by the National Library of Australia (example), amongst others. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN for RAAF v4 has 11 digits - should have either 10 or 13. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed (one 4 too many). Thanks for your checking and comments Nikki, and hopefully my comments above and changes to the article address those points; please let me know if they don't! Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. This review could be piecemeal because my Internet access is limited, but it's a fascinating article and I look forward to reading through it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Battle of Normandy
    looks like a disambiguation page
    • Piped to Operation Overlord, which for some reason is the article on the entire campaign at the moment (the structure of articles on Normandy is a disaster). Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does London really need a link?
  • Or squadron?
    • I think so, as readers not familiar with military terminology may not know what these formations were (which is significant as they were the only 'Australian' units involved in the fighting). Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Army isn't a proper noun; personally I don't object to "the Army" when referring to a specific army, but I've been criticised for it in reviews.
  • I assume you've checked all the red links and made sure they're for notable subjects?
    • I checked them, and the only one I had my doubts about was Colin Leith. However, he does have a book about him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I have some doubts about Leith as well, but being the subject of a detailed obituary in a major newspaper written by the former secretary of the Department of Defence seems sufficient to establish notability and so I left the red link in. Most of the other red-linked people are the subject of entries in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which is considered grounds for automatic notability given the depth and quality of coverage this provides. Thanks for your comments so far. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little background on the Merchant Navy's role would be useful; I imagine little is know about the Australians who served in the MN, but if anything is known, it would be nice to have a sentence or two in he article.
    • No details are available, unfortunately. I can't even say whether the seamen were serving in Australian-owned ships or British ships (most likely a mixture of both as the crewing of merchant ships was surprisingly fluid). Very little has been written on the Australian Merchant Navy, and this literature is heavily focused on its role in the Pacific and Battle of the Atlantic. I'd really like to add more on this topic (my grandfather was in the Merchant Navy), and will keep a look out for new sources. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jo Gullett seems to have transferred from the Green Howards to the Royal Scots. Did Australian officers have the same ties to their (British) regiments as British personnel do?
    • No, not at all - Gullett served in three regiments during his posting to the British Army prior to and during the Normandy Campaign (he claims to have personally lobbied the head of the Australian Army and the corps commander to be transferred from the first regiment when he discovered it wasn't going to form part of the first wave at D-Day, and entered the third regiment through some kind of informal agreement after the second unit suffered heavy losses and was placed in reserve; the details differ between his various autobiographies though!). The other Australian Army officers also seem to have moved pretty frequently between units - I've noted this where details are available. More generally, the Australian Army didn't have a British-style regimental system, and it wasn't uncommon for officers to move between units. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little more on how Gullett was wounded would be nice
  • Most of the other Australian officers served in staff positions; do you know if this was deliberate (for example were the British not keen on having Aussies in combat roles or were the secondments designed to give the officers staff experience) or just a coincidence?
    • I don't have the source handy, but this appears to have been a deliberate decision by the Australian Army (presumably as by this stage of the war it had lots of experiance in combat, but felt it needed more experiance in planning complex operations). Note also that Gullett was the only infantry officer posted to the UK. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2 mentions Australian citizens who enlisted directly in the British military—was that normal?
    • Yes - many Australians chose to directly enlist in the British military in both world wars (often as they happened to be in the UK at the outbreak of war, but others saw the Australian military as second rate or likely to be deployed to secondary theatres or areas with uncomfortable climates). Australians had British citizenship at the time, and many had been born in the UK so there were no barriers to joining the British military. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In relation to the above, does The total number of Australians killed on 6 June include "Australian citizens who enlisted directly in the British military"? Do any of the figures in the article?
    • No, as there's apparently no practical way of identifying the Australians who enlisted directly in the British military. All the figures refer to members of the Australian military. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other Australian journalists in Normandy included John Hetherington, Geoff Hutton and Ronald Monson. That seems a little like name-dropping and those journalists don't have articles. What's the value in including them in that way, and if there is value, it would be nice to have articles on them so that readers can find out more about them and so you don't have a string of red links.
    • They're all notable journalists, and their entries in the Australian Dictionary of Biography provide details of what they did in Normandy. I'm not well qualified to write articles about journalists, and don't see anything wrong with red links in FAs. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Command operated intensively; as with "Army", "Command" isn't a proper noun per se.
  • Forty-four Australians are buried vs Of the 44 Australian graves. I know the MoS prohibits starting a sentence with a numeral; is it not better to re-structure the sentence than to spell the number out, especially when you use the numeral so soon afterwards. Also, "of the 44" is probably redundant.
  • Is there anything written about the long-term effect of the contribution? How did it affect Australia's defence policy or its relationship with the UK? What impact did it have on the armed forces themselves?
    • No, I wasn't able to find anything about this (despite much searching). The only clear result of the campaign on Australia's war effort noted in any of the sources was that it effectively ended the flow of airmen being trained through the Empire Air Training Scheme, and the article discusses this. As such, there don't appear to have been any other long-term effects of Australia's involvement in the battle (note that the popular literature on the Australians in Europe is heavily focused on the experiences of airmen in Bomber Command during operations against Germany, and the professional literature is focused on how the Empire Air Training Scheme operated and whether Australia's involvement in it was a good or bad thing; as I noted in the introduction to this review, the only comprehensive history of the Australian role in the fighting in Europe remains the official history which was published in the 1960s!). Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Australia contribute personnel to the European campaign at all?
    • By and large because the Australian Government had agreed to provide thousands of RAAF airmen to the RAF through the Empire Air Training Scheme. After these men finished training, the Australian Government had very little influence on where they were posted (hence the fact that many of the Australian airmen in Europe served in RAF squadrons while Australians were often a minority in the RAAF Article XV squadrons!). If Bomber Command hadn't taken part in the campaign the number of Australians involved would have been pretty low. I've added a bit of material on this; the full story of why the Australian Government effectively surrendered thousands of airmen to the RAF is very lengthy and out of this article's scope. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What became of the handful of army officers? Is there anything known of how their experience affected anything?
    • The article notes that almost none of them had returned to Australia prior to the end of the war, so they didn't end up passing on their experiences to the Army. Several of them went on to greater things in their post-war careers, but that's outside the scope of the article (and isn't surprising given that they were among the highest performing officers in the Australian Army at a time in which most men of their age were in the services). Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anything written of the views of the Australian media or the public on the country's involvement in the European theatre?

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, I also looked for this but was unable to find anything. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Doing this as a reciprocal review for Nick-D (talk · contribs), who was kind enough to review John Adair for me. Because it has already been through MILHIST A-class and because my knowledge of military history and terminology is limited, my comments will mostly be confined to copyediting stuff.

Lead:

  • "It has been estimated that about 3,000 Australian military personnel and merchant seamen supported the Allied landings" Whose estimate is this? Speaks to the credibility of the estimate.
    • A couple of historians; I've tweaked the wording to reflect this (there's an end note on the differing figures) Nick-D (talk)!
  • "northern summer of 1944" First time I've run across this language. Obviously, I know why it's being used, since summer "down under" is winter up here, but is this the standard convention (for my own information)? Is it always preferable or equivalent to "between June and August 1944" or "in mid-1944"?
    • While it's a common phrase down under, you're right about 'between June and August 1944' being superior. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in order to gain experience which they could bring back to Australia" The last part of this phrase seems a little superfluous. Is it necessary, or could the sentence end after "experience"?
    • It's necessary as the intention was that the officers would take part in the landings and then return to Australia to disseminate their experiences to the rest of the Army (eg, it wasn't just for their own benefit as this sentence without the last bit would imply). Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • "The Australian air units came under the command of the RAF" This wording sounds like they were under some other command before coming under command of the RAF. If this is the case, when did they come under the RAF's command? If it is not, maybe just say they "were under the command of the RAF".
  • "hundreds of RAN personnel were serving with the Royal Navy" I don't think the abbreviation RAN has been spelled out previously in the article.

Pre-invasion preparations:

  • "Some of those who had planning responsibilities included Lieutenant Colonel Ronald McNicoll, who served on the Operations Staff of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force, Air Commodore Frank Bladin, who was the Senior Air Staff Officer for No. 38 Group RAF, Lieutenant Commander Victor Smith who was the Flag Officer, British Assault Area's air planning officer, and Major Douglas Vincent a signals officer attached to the headquarters of the British XXX Corps." I got seriously lost in this list. I'm thinking semi-colons are needed to separate each officer-description pair; that would allow commas between names and descriptions, if needed. I got most of the pairings, but to whom does "British Assault Area's air planning officer" refer?
  • "The Australian-born Air Commodore Edgar McCloughry" You can probably drop "the".
  • Both "sorties" and "dispositions" (in this context) are unfamiliar terms for me, but may be acceptable in this kind of article. Are there more generally-understandable equivalents that would be considered acceptable?
    • Not really - any alternative would be cumbersome and less precise. I've wikilinked sortie, but there isn't a good link for disposition. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "took part in 25 of the 53 such raids" I think you can drop "such" here.
    • Done (I've completely re-worked the sentence) Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2TAF's fighter-bombers also attacked bridges over the river Seine from April as part of an effort to seal off the Normandy region" Does this mean they started in April and continued until some unspecified date? If so, when did the attacks end? If not, maybe consider "in April" instead of "from April". This same construct appears a couple of paragraphs later.
    • The attacks - in effect - continued until the end of the war as 2TAF operated against the German supply lines as the Allies advanced, so the implication that they were open-ended is correct as there was no clear cut point at which 2TAF stopped bombing bridges and railways - it just moved its focus to the east as the Germans retreated. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British light bomber units took part in a further 14 raids on German batteries" To my ear, using "an additional" instead of "a further" sounds less awkward. Could be a regional variation of English thing, though.
    • I suspect that's the case as 'additional' sounds a bit odd to me in that context (though it's not wrong). If it's OK, I'll leave this as-is. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the RAF stepped up its efforts to sink German submarines" Is "stepped up" too colloquial? It appears a couple of sentences later as well, so you might want to change at least one of them regardless.
    • Fair point; I've replaced this term both time it appears, and both sentences are better off as a result Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coastal Command aircraft succeeded in destroying six submarines" Why not "destroyed" instead of "succeeded in destroying"?
  • "accounted for eight of the 22 bombers" Does this jive with
    WP:MOSNUM
    ? Seems like they should both be numerals in this case.
  • "36 Australians posted to eight RAF units" Again, check this against
    WP:MOSNUM
    .
    • Mark also raised this in the first of his comments above; my view is that this slight inconsistency is the lesser of two evils, but I'd be happy to change to all-numerals if you think its a major problem. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australians at D-Day:

  • "On the night of 5/6 June, and in the early hours of 6 June," Maybe "night" has special military significance, but to me, it seems redundant to use the "5/6 June" construct, then specifically mention "the early hours of 6 June".
    • Good point - and the source goes to considerably lengths in stressing that the attacks were all made before dawn Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a further 14 No. 467 Squadron bombers attacked batteries at Ouistreham" Seems like you could just drop "a further" here.
  • "dropped "Window" chaff" Is there any way to concisely clarify what this is for the non-expert?
  • "in an attempt to deceive the Germans of the Allies' true intentions" Is this necessary, given that we were just told that these were "diversionary tactics"?
    • I've tweaked this sentence per those comments - please let me know if it makes sense! Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intruder" should be wikilinked on first use instead of in this section.
  • "took part in the "intruder" bombing raids on western Germany and the Low Countries that sought to divert German aircraft away from Normandy" This makes it sound like the Low Countries were seeking to divert German aircraft. I gather that this is not the case, but can the sentence be reworded to avoid the ambiguity?
  • Why is "submarine" linked here, but not in the lead or on first use in the body?
    • Fixed
  • "he received his third DSC for completing this mission" Should the abbreviation "DSC" follow "Distinguished Service Cross" in parentheses on first use?
  • "Meanwhile, after going ashore on D+1, Vincent had served with the XXX Corps" It seems like something is weird with the tenses here. Also, is the designation "D+1" well understood by non-military specialists? (I assume it means the day after the invasion.)
  • "The total number of Australians killed on 6 June was 14, of whom 12 were RAAF airmen and two were members of the RAN" Check against
    WP:MOSNUM
    .

Subsequent fighting:

  • "attack on Vire" Is there/should there be an article on this battle that we can link to? Sounds like an interesting affair.
    • There doesn't appear to be, though the article on the town has a photo of the aftermath. Many towns in the Normandy region suffered this fate in the period immediately before and after the invasion. I've added a link to the Bombing of France during World War II article. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "claimed to have destroyed dozens of German vehicles" Is there doubt about those claims?
    • Pretty much - there's no way of verifying them, and the official historian called them 'claims' as a result. The same applies to all air forces of the war, as it was pretty much impossible for airmen to verify the damage they caused to most ground targets. I've tweaked the wording a bit. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:

  • "typically ever assigned to combat units" You can probably drop "ever".
    • I think it's necessary as all of the airmen, including the gunners, typically waited in personnel depots and make-work jobs until they were sent to a combat unit; few of the gunners would have received a posting as soon as they arrived in the UK as the sentence would imply without the word. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commemoration:

  • "The Australian involvement in the Battle of Normandy has also been commemorated" You can probably drop the first "the".
  • Any idea why Australia was initially excluded from the Mémorial de Caen or why it took a decade for their flag to be added?
    • No - the source blames "Australian and French bureaucratic inertia", which is so hopelessly vauge I'd rather leave it out. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I found this a very accessible read for a non-expert, and I'm sure its compilation was a matter of national and personal pride for the author. Well done. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 03:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for your very detailed comments - I really appreciate it. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad you found them helpful, since I was definitely out of my depth both geographically and topically. All concerns have been addressed satisfactorily; happy to support. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I'm not wild about the page title. What do you think of "Australians at the Battle of Normandy"? Then the first sentence would be something like: "Hundreds of Australians, most in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), served under British command in the Battle of Normandy." - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That title has a lot of merit. I picked the current title mainly as it's consistent with the handful of other articles which cover the deployment of small Australian forces to take part in large operations (eg,
      Australian contribution to UNTAC in Cambodia 1992–1993 and maybe one or two others I can't recall at the moment). My preference is to leave the title as-is for now, and have a broader discussion about the titles of these articles separately. Nick-D (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • You and I disagree on the usefulness of the word "involved".
    • I've just trimmed the number of times the word is used from 22 to 14, and think that the article is better for it. Nick-D (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, why "hundreds" if it was 3,000?
    • Mainly because 'thousands' sounds like over-stating things given that the peak Australian involvement was about 3000 personnel, and would have been much lower on the days when Bomber Command didn't support the operation. I don't feel terribly strongly about this wording, and would be happy to swap it if you think that thousands is preferable and doesn't exaggerate the modest scale of Australia's involvement in this battle. Nick-D (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Allied landings on 6 June 1944" should be in the first paragraph rather than the second, to set the context. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done (I've noted that Australians were involved before and after this date, which does help set the scene). Thanks a lot for your comments Dank. Nick-D (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the quick response, I'll have another look. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a RAAF": an RAAF, right?
    • Either seems acceptable, but 'an RAAF' appears more common (the Australian ABC uses it, for instance). Fixed Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Australia Day reminds me ... anyone talking about the upcoming sesquisesquicentennial (1.5 x 150 years)? - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I've noticed. Australians typically only get interested in ten year anniversaries and centenaries, and even then they pick and choose (eg, the bicentennial of British settlement in 1988 was a big deal, but there was so little interest in the centenary of federation in 2001 that the responsible Cabinet minister was sacked. The centenary of Anzac Day in 2015 is shaping up to be a big deal.). Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the nights of 7/8 and 12/13 June": fine according to MOS, but FWIW, I think most people understand "the night of 7 June" to mean the night and not the morning.
  • "cloud obscured", "cloud and smoke": I'd prefer "clouds" or "cloud cover"
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for those comments and your copy editing Dank Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 17:17, 24 November 2012 [4].

Siege of Constantinople (717–718)

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 09:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most important conflicts of the Middle Ages. It was completely rewritten over the summer, making use of practically all relevant sources. It passed GA and a MILHIST ACR without major problems, and has also just now undergone a GOCE copyedit. I therefore feel that it is up to FA standards. Constantine ✍ 09:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment - Given the time period in question this should be a no-brainer, but the coins do have to explicitly state that they're PD due to age (photograph is a separate license). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly? {{PD-old-100}}? AFAIK coins don't fall under {{PD-art}} because they are not two-dimensional... Constantine ✍ 07:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, PD-old-100 would be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Constantine ✍ 17:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per

reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) Nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments: I've read to the end of "Opening stages" so far. No real problems, and very readable. It does a pretty good job of explaining a rather messy background. Just a few issues of phrasing for me so far. More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "combined land and sea effort": Effort seems a little weak, but I'm not sure I can think of a better word than "operation", which seems a slightly anachronistic concept!
  • "The campaign marked the culmination of twenty years of attacks and gradual Arab encroachment on the Byzantine borderlands…": Am I correct in thinking that the Byzantine empire lost a considerable amount of territory at this time? If so, maybe this is underselling it slightly.
    • I've changed it slightly from 'encroachment" to "occupation" to reinforce the image. However, the actual territorial loss was confined to Cilicia (which was either way practically a deserted no-man's-land) and what remained of
      Melitene. These were both frontier areas, while no part of the vital core of Asia Minor was not permanently occupied by the Arabs. The process was gradual and the details not very clear. I'd prefer not to focus too much on this, as it has little direct impact on the siege itself. Suffice to make clear that by ca. 710 the Arabs had eroded Byzantine defences and taken over the fortified defensive zone along eastern Asia Minor, allowing them full access to the peninsula itself. Constantine ✍ 09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • "…aided by internal Byzantine turmoil.": Aided may be a little strong, as it suggests some sort of active co-operation. Maybe worth adding a phrase on how the Byzantine situation had a bearing on this. Perhaps link more explicitly with the sentence on "hoped to exploit the ongoing Byzantine civil strife..."
  • "The Arab fleet, which accompanied the land army and was meant to complete the city's blockade by sea, was neutralized soon after its arrival by the Byzantine navy through the use of Greek fire, allowing Constantinople to be resupplied by sea, while the Arab army was crippled by famine and disease during the unusually hard winter that followed": Long sentence?
  • "In spring 718…": Perhaps needs more precision, according to
    WP:SEASON
    .
    • SEASON says "unless there is a logical connection (the autumn harvest)". Generally, there's a seasonal connection to military campaigns, and "spring" is commonly used by military historians. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem, thanks for that one. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks ... we occasionally have heated arguments on that, which I wanted to avoid :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two Arab fleets that were sent as reinforcements": Redundancy.
  • "The siege is also credited with halting the Muslim advance into Europe, and is hence often considered one of history's most decisive battles.": These are some pretty grand sweeping claims, and maybe worth attributing to someone. Possible "Professor X believes…" would not work here, as it is probably a pretty widely held view. My preferred format is "Historians credit…" or "Historians consider", but you may disagree vehemently, and if so please ignore this one as it is not a big deal.
  • "and the consequent Byzantine ascendancy in the East enabled them to extract huge amounts of tribute from the Umayyad government in Damascus": I presume "them" here is the Byzantines, but the sentence begins with the caliphate as the subject which makes this a little ambiguous.
  • "In 692, as the Umayyads victoriously ended the Muslim Civil War…": Not sure about victoriously; maybe "the Umayyads prevailed in the Muslim Civil War"?
  • "Byzantine reaction became more and more feeble.": Feeble is slightly POV. Perhaps better to elaborate in what way it became feeble, or to use a less pejorative word such as ineffective.
    • I've rephrased to make clear that the sources cease to mention acts of Byzantine reaction, from which scholars deduce that their defensive system had collapsed. Constantine ✍ 09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, as the Byzantinist Warren Treadgold comments…": Using "as" suggests that we are concurring in a sense of editorialising. Maybe just cut "as" completely.
    • Removed the "Nevertheless, as..." entirely and rephrased. Constantine ✍ 09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allegedly because of a prophecy that a Caliph bearing the name of a prophet would capture Constantinople": Alleged by who? This is a weak phrasing, and it may be better to rephrase. It either was the case, or it wasn't. If it is an apocryphal story, where does it come from?
    • Clarified that this is mentioned in the Arab accounts of the siege. Constantine ✍ 09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at a time when the Umayyad state experienced a period of continuous expansion": Can a state experience something? Perhaps "underwent" or "was undergoing" or just "was continually expanding".
  • "were repaired and equipped with ample artillery": Perhaps specify what "artillery" as the reader may picture canons!
    • I can't really think of a term that would adequately encompass the engines in question: "mechanical artillery" is too technical, "siege engines" too general, as it includes much besides artillery. Any ideas? For now, I've simply added "(catapults and other siege weapons)" next to it to avoid confusion. Constantine ✍ 09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That looks fine now to me, and I'm afraid siege terminology was never my strongest point! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and those inhabitants who could not stockpile food to last for three years evacuated": Slightly awkward phrasing.
  • "it is also likely that this is a confusion with Phoenix across Rhodes,[13] and perhaps even with Phoenicia (modern Lebanon), famed for its cedar forests[14]": I'm afraid this lost me. Among whom is there confusion?
    • I've tried to rephrase it. In essence, the sources simply mention "Phoenix", which is usually held by modern scholars to be the city in Lycia, but from the context of subsequent events might also be a small town of the same name across from Rhodes, and at least one scholar of note (Lilie) holds that this could be an error in the medieval sources, who misread Phoenix for Phoenicia ("Phoenice", which is an alternative name for "Phoenix", is also the Greek name for Phoenicia). Constantine ✍ 09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There, they acclaimed a rather reluctant tax collector": This is a little too informal.
  • "The accession of Theodosios, who by all accounts was…": By whose accounts? This phrasing is both too informal and rather imprecise.
  • "French scholar Rodolphe Guilland theorized that he offered to become a vassal of the Caliphate": It's a bit ambiguous who "he" is in this sentence.
  • "Leo's success was a stroke of luck for Byzantium…": This comes across as editorial judgement. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: Read to the end now, looking good. Just a few more comments and suggestions but I look forward to supporting. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Arabs had prepared for a major assault on Constantinople": Perhaps a slight redundancy.
  • On the size of the forces: Apart from the contemporary/near-contemporary numbers, are there any modern estimates of numbers? I know historians sometimes attempt this.
    • Not that I know of. There is really no indication on which a modern estimate might be attempted, as the force assembled was of unprecedented size. I will however add a short footnote giving, by way of comparison, estimates of the overall size of Umayyad armies based on the men registered in the military lists. Constantine ✍ 09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Estimates added. Constantine ✍ 20:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only extant details on the Arab force are...": Not quite sure this is correct, given the many details you have just given. Maybe "details of the composition of..."
    • I've rephrased it a bit, which is hopefully clearer: we have numbers etc., which may or may not be accurate, but know next to nothing nothing of the internal command structure of the army, i.e. the units that participated, where they were recruited from, etc. Constantine ✍ 09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the siege consumed a large part of the Caliphate's resources..." Another phrasing one; does this mean physical resources, or just numbers of men?
  • "The victory encouraged the Byzantines and dejected the Arabs": Can dejected be used as a verb like this?
    • Of course. "Deject" is a transitive verb, hence "dejected". Constantine ✍ 20:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah! Quite right. Sorry, slight moment of idiocy on my part. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had originally intended to sail to the sea walls the same night and try to scale them using the ships' steering paddles. The same night, Leo drew up...": Same night ... Same night.
  • "with supplies reportedly piled up in high mounds in their camp": Similar to allegedly above, I don't think reportedly is the best way to phrase this.
  • "As the siege drew into winter, negotiations opened between the two sides, extensively reported by Arab sources but ignored by Byzantine historians.": Do any historians suggest a reason for this?
    • It is inferred, but not stated openly. It may well be that the negotiations, as reported, are apocryphal and part of the later legendary tradition that grew around the siege, or that the Byzantine primary source did not want to show Leo negotiating with the Arabs. Either way, we don't really know why. Constantine ✍ 20:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Lombard historian Paul the Deacon put the number of their dead from hunger and disease at an incredible 300,000.": Incredible is POV; also, these numbers do not tally with those given earlier for the Arab forces. This may be worth commenting on so that it does not look like a mistake.
    • Guilland himself, from whom the reference to Paul comes, comments "chiffre manifestement exagéré" on the number, I've rephrased to include that. Constantine ✍ 20:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite its obvious exaggeration, gives an idea of the scale of the defeat.": A hint of editorial voice here.
    • Rephrased to quote directly from the relevant author. Constantine ✍ 20:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: Is it worth adding a photograph or photographs showing the area or any surviving walls? (Forgive my ignorance if these are not appropriate or available)
    • I've added a map I was working on, plus a photo of the land walls. I was unsure if it would be relevant, since the walls don't really feature much in this siege, but then I figured it was best to give an idea of what the Arabs faced so that the average reader understands why they settled for a long siege rather than an all-out assault. Constantine ✍ 13:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about historiography; have views of the siege altered over time? For example, what did Gibbon have to say? I'd imagine that opinions have changed among historians over the years. Similarly, the later Arab view of the siege is given, but what about the Byzantine view?
    • On the general historical assessment, the outcome is really too obvious for there to have been diverging views as to its importance. Already Gibbon, since you mention him, wrote that the siege "excluded the Arabs from the eastern entrance of Europe". On the Byzantine view, the siege was hailed as a miraculous delivery (as noted in the article, ascribed to the Virgin Mary) but it did not impact Byzantine culture as much as the Arab one. I've searched for an explanation, but haven't been able to find one specifically for this event. However, if you allow me a bit of OR, the reasons are plain enough. For the Arabs it represented the climax of their initial wave of conquests, the great attempt to seize the ultimate prize promised by Muhammad himself. Plus, the accounts and heroes of the initial conquests became the stuff of a common Muslim narrative, that was capable of bridging the political, ethnic or doctrinal divisions that came later. Conversely, for the Byzantines it was certainly a crucial event, but only one among the sieges of the city. The city's first siege in 626 by the Avars was arguably as perilous and important, and indeed left some profound traces in Byzantine and Orthodox tradition, likewise associated with the Virgin Mary. Its relative importance probably diminished in the ling term when measured against the Byzantines' perception of an already thousand-year-long Greco-Roman historical continuity. In addition, the siege was obscured by the onset of the
      Byzantine iconoclasm, as a result of which Leo the Isaurian was much maligned by later, staunchly iconophile, historians. In the Greek Orthodox view, he had to wait until the 19th century, when nationalism superseded religion in importance, to receive a rehabilitation of sorts (cf. Lambros' comment linking him with Miltiades). Constantine ✍ 11:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Finally, is it worth summarising somewhere what written accounts of the siege survive? Several are mentioned throughout, but what about explicitly talking about them and reflecting on their "viewpoint"? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a short section on the main sources and their respective qualities. Constantine ✍ 11:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A fantastic article, all the changes look good and I'm happy to support now. One last remaining point, which does not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Anastasios strengthened his navy and in early 715 dispatched it against the Arab fleet that had come to the shores of Phoenix in Lycia—it is also likely that this is a reference to Phoenix across Rhodes,[15] or perhaps a confusion with Phoenicia (modern Lebanon), famed for its cedar forests": Perhaps make it clear that a source refers to this place; the information is presented as a fact, but then it says actually, it may also be this. A simple rephrasing to something along the lines of "Source X says he dispatched it ... shores of Phoenix in Lycia, but this may be..." Sarastro1 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've rewritten this part again. A big thanks for your very thorough review! Constantine ✍ 10:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support (and thanks to Sarastro for querying things I might have raised :-)). Fascinating account of a critical historical event. Only one point of possible clarification: "Leo escaped to Pisidia and, in summer, supported by Artabasdus, was crowned emperor". Emperor of where/what? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 15:01, 22 November 2012 [5].

John Adair

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since undergoing a major rewrite earlier this year, the article was listed for peer review (which garnered exactly zero comments) and passed a MILHIST A-class review. A veteran of the Revolutionary War, Adair's promising political career was derailed when he was accused of participation in the Burr conspiracy. He was exonerated, but remained out of politics until after the War of 1812, where he led the Kentucky militia in support of Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans. His service, and his subsequent protracted and vehement defense of the Kentucky militiamen against Jackson's charges of cowardice, restored his reputation, and he was elected governor of Kentucky in 1820. Hope to respond quickly to any concerns. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments - taking a look now. Will jot queries below...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can, try to vary how each para in the lead begins - currently the second two both start, "Adair...." - a straightforward tweak might be "Moving to Kentucky in 1786, Adair participated in the Northwest Indian War,...."
Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Lacey was elected sheriff of Chester County after the war, and Adair replaced him in his former capacity as the county's justice of the peace. - should the "justice of the peace" be capitalised as an official post?
It is not capitalized in the source, and I really don't remember ever seeing it capitalized. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool then, just struck me on how it read that it possibly should be, but I ain't no politics editor :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In January 1804, Garrard nominated Adair to the position of registrar of the state land office - does "registrar of the state land office" need to be capitalised?
Best I recall, this one is also not capitalized in the source. I have to consult that source again for another article; will try to remember to double-check at that time. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a good read. The sentences are a little on the short side early on, but the prose is good further down the article. The dispute with Jackson makes entertaining reading. I think we're looking ok on prose and the article seems comprehensive. My only query is whether the published sources are in rough consensus over the dispute between Adair and Jackson, as the article seems somewhat pro-Adair (which may very well be true :) ) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Jackson-Adair controversy section fun to write as well. I suppose in retrospect it could read pro-Adair. Maybe I'll drop a note at Talk:Andrew Jackson and see if any Jackson biographers go into detail about it. It was obviously a much bigger deal in the life of a relatively minor figure like Adair than in the life of a U.S. president, but maybe someone knows of another source. Thanks for the review. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - just let keep us posted here :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I forgot to drop a note here. No response at all on Jackson's talk page. I did a little searching on Google Books, but few of the sources on the Jackson side give the incident more than a passing mention. One older source – can't remember which one right now, but it was full view (out of copyright) – gave it a few pages, and those correlated pretty well with what I found in the Filson Club article. That author opined that the incident showed that Jackson would not back down when he thought he was right, which to me, kind indicates that the author didn't think he was right. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN12: why include title here?
    • Because it's a web site, which is not a paginated source. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN11 vs 14
    • Oops. Forgot that article went onto a second page. Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for template glitches like doubled periods
  • Filson Club History Quarterly, or Historical Quarterly? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Alright, this article looks like it's in pretty good shape. I made a few copyedits, feel free to revert if I messed anything up. Very well written for the most part, just a few nitpicks:
  • in "where he was held captive by the British for a period of time." I'd remove the last five words.
    • I didn't want it to sound like he spent most of the war in captivity. See if my revision addresses both your concern and mine. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adair was elected to a total of eight terms in the state House of Representatives between 1793 and 1803" I'd remove "a total of" here.
    • Again, there is a reason I used this wording, which was to convey that not all of those terms were consecutive. Is this too minor a point to justify keeping that wording, or do you have a better way to express this? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "He is the namesake of Adair County, Kentucky, Adair County, Missouri, Adair County, Iowa, and the cities of Adairville, Kentucky and Adair, Iowa." & "In addition to Adair County in Kentucky, Adair County, Missouri, Adair County, Iowa, and the cities of Adairville, Kentucky, and Adair, Iowa, were named in his honor." I'd suggest using semi-colons after the states for the first three listed.
  • I think you could use another paragraph break in "Early life".
    • Me too, but I didn't find much about his early life in the published sources. Would you drop the heading for "Service in the Northwest Indian War" and just make it one big section? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He assisted in the construction of Fort Greeneville in 1794, forwarding supplies to Anthony Wayne during his operations that ended in a decisive victory at the Battle of Fallen Timbers." I'd use "which" instead of "that" here.
  • Just a thought, but you might consider making a note that Senators weren't directly elected back then. Not a problem either way, but I imagine a few people may be confused about the legislature electing senators.
    • I always find this awkward. I know you are right that people may look askance at it, but I also wonder if it's worth breaking into the narrative for every senator elected before 1913 to explicitly call attention to it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a big deal either way, using a footnote might help avoid breaking the flow. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1802, Adair succeeded Breckinridge as Speaker of the House by a vote of 30–14 over Elder David Purviance, the candidate preferred by Governor James Garrard.[15] He continued to serve as Speaker for the duration of his term in the House." Just a thought, but is the second sentence necessary? I would assume that he'd serve as speaker for the rest of the term?
    • Changed to "tenure". If I'm not mistaken, representatives were elected every year at this time, which means he was chosen Speaker in 1802, reelected to his seat in 1803, and chosen Speaker again that year. Make sense? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After hearing testimony, the grand jury dismissed the indictment against Adair as "not a true bill", and similarly dismissed the charges against Burr two days later." Is there a good way around the "dismissed ... dismissed" here? Also, I'm not sure you need the second comma here.
  • "The complaint of a former Relief governor over the ill effects of pro-relief legislation prompted wry celebration among members of the Anti-Relief faction" Is "relief" capitalized/not capitalized correctly here?
    • I think so. My intent was that the first "Relief" referred to the party proper while the second referred to the idea of debt relief in general. I've clarified this by adding "Party" after the first "Relief". Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Barred from seeking a second consecutive term by the state constitution, Adair retired to his farm in Mercer County at the expiration of his term as governor." Is there a good way around the repetition of "term" here?
  • "In light of this evidence, it seemed strange that Jackson should now charge that the remarks had been forged by Adair." I think you might be able to end the sentence after "forged".
  • In the second-to-last paragraph of "Controversy with Andrew Jackson" you start a few consecutive sentences with "He...". Also, there are a few short sentences in the last paragraph of that section. Otherwise, that's all I have. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good comments, all, as usual. Thanks for the review, and let me know if I haven't sufficiently addressed any of them or if you find anything else. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, all of my points have been fixed or explained sufficiently, and it looks fine to me. I'm ready to support now, good work. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments While I'm not familiar with early American political history (especially in individual states), this article appears to be in very good shape. I have the following comments:

  • Try to avoid use of the term 'enemy' in regards to warfare as this involves coming down on one side of the engagement, can result in confusing prose and can usually be easily replaced. For instance in "The maneuver forced the enemy to fall back and allowed Adair's men to escape.[9] They retreated to their camp and made a stand, forcing the enemy to withdraw." it's unclear which side the second sentence is referring to.
  • U.S. Senate should be linked the first time it's mentioned
    • Oops. Dropped that sentence in after locating the information while working on another article. Failed to see that it changed the location of the first mention. Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their civilian rifles" - does the source specify that these men were equipped with rifles? Smoothbore muskets were much more common weapons at this time, and rifles were typically only used by specialist marksmen
    • Yes, the source does say rifles in a couple of places, even mentioning that a legend exists that the outnumbered Americans won the battle because many of their soldiers were armed with rifles. I know there is a legend connected with a guy from my home county – Ephraim McLean Brank – that he was able to pick off British officers at a great distance with his rifle, contributing greatly to the American victory. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mostly old flintlock rifles" - ditto
    • You're right on this one. The source here says muskets. Politics, I know. Military history, not so much. Changed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Controversy with Andrew Jackson' section seems rather over-long (no other part of Adair's life receives comparable blow-by-blow coverage) - I'd suggest splitting this into a separate article and leaving a two or three paragraph summary in this article
    • I was afraid it might seem too long. There is a very long scholarly article on the matter, while few other sources address it in more than a couple of sentences. I felt it was necessary to go into this level of detail to explain why letters kept passing back and forth between the two. Each letter, it seemed, contained a new charge or counter-charge. If shortening this is a condition to your support, it may take a day or two of reflection to see what can be eliminated. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think that this should be shortened. To be honest, I stopped reading it as its content was pretty arcane. I would suggest using it as the basis of an article on the topic, however, rather than deleting it outright. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I've made an initial attempt to shorten it while leaving in the details that explain the timing of the letters and explain why there was so much back-and-forth over the matter. I also dumped the original in my user space, per your suggestion. Maybe I'll get around to making that an article one day. What do you think now? Still too long? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the tumultuous economic environment, however, legislators routinely borrowed from the Literary Fund for other purposes" - were the legislators borrowing from this fund in their private capacity as this wording implies, or were they using it as a source of funds for the business of government?
  • Can more be said about Adair's position on the Missouri Compromise given its long-term consequences for the state?
    • I'm pretty sure a less-than-one-sentence mention is all any of the sources give about this. A Google Search for "john adair" "Missouri Compromise" turns up lots of results about Henry Clay, who followed Adair in the Senate and was largely responsible for drafting the compromise. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related topic, what was Adair's position on slavery?
    • I don't recall running into anything about whether Adair owned slaves or supported or opposed slavery. During the time he was governor, the debt relief issue was almost exclusively the only one that mattered to most voters. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK fair enough. As I understand it, slavery didn't become a hot-button issue in the US until after this period. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did Adair stand for the federal House of Representatives? It seems an unusual thing for an elderly person who'd previously been a senator and governor to do.
    • I agree that it kind of seems random, since he didn't really do anything during his two-year term, so it's not like he had a real purpose for running. It may be that he didn't actively seek the position, but the people of his district elected him anyway. That happened sometimes during this period. There is one source that I don't have access to at this moment that I want to look at again and see if it provided any details, but I don't remember reading any. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just checked that last source. Nothing there either. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the find-a-grave link necessary given that the article describes where Adair is burried? Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never add Find-A-Grave links, but they show up on a lot of articles that I work on, so I usually leave them in place since someone else felt the need to add them. No problem with removing it, though, if you think we should. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest removing it given that the article explains where he's buried so there's no clear need for the link. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My above comments are now all addressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - mostly OK, just some minor stuff (all Done):

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "In 1806, however, Burr was arrested in Frankfort on charges of treason ...": Our Aaron Burr article says he was arrested for treason in 1807; I don't know, myself.
    • A New History of Kentucky gives trial dates in late 1806, so I don't think 1807 is possible unless he wasn't arrested before trial. Maybe there was another arrest in 1807 on different charges; I'm not sure. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aides-de-camp": aide-de-camp
  • "six Americans were killed and seven others wounded": ... and seven wounded
  • "poorly-armed": poorly armed. Search for "ly-" and fix.
  • "based upon": based on, per
    Chicago
    . (They reserve upon for events: "upon landing ...", for instance.)
  • "excusable.": Omit end-of-sentence periods in the middle of a sentence.
  • "Davis' ": Ten years ago, apostrophe rules weren't clear; the trend now is strongly in favor of "Davis's".
    • Really? I didn't know that. Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The trend is to add the 's if it the (singular possessive) word is likely to be pronounced that way. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but friends of both men averted the conflict after assembling to watch, but no written evidence of the event exists": one "but" too many
  • - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 20:23, 19 November 2012 [6].

African River Martin

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My last FAC was for this bird's probably extinct Asian cousin, the

White-eyed River Martin. This one is definitely still around, but it's another short article because so little is know about this African species (especially as its main breeding area is frequently a war zone). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Image check - all OK, own work and PD-1923. Source and author (where available) provided.

  • It's very hard to distinguish any details in the infobox map, some suggestions:
-change color for "all year in Gabon" to something darker. The light cyan has almost no contrast.
-the African continent as background is barely visible. If it's important, you should show the continent more clearly. Otherwise you could cut most of the continent and give more room to the ranges' map (similar to the White-eyed River Martin map focussing on a smaller region). GermanJoe (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for checking. I've cropped to show the smaller region, recoloured the sea to improve contrast with Africa, made Congo same colour as Gabon (silly to have different colours)... and corrected my legend which was also wrong ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - (all points Done) can't speak for the ornithological details, but the article seems comprehensive and close to FA. Information is sufficiently sourced, assuming 1-2 paragraphs are completely covered by their final citation. Some points:

  • Taxonomy ==> is Gustav Hartlaub the first discoverer? Not completely clear from the sequence of information.
  • It's a bit repetitive anyway, rejigged to make it clearer When German zoologist Gustav Hartlaub first described the African River Martin in 1861... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... martin's anatomy by [Lowe(1938)] " ==> i'd use full name at first mention and avoid the brackets, if possible.
  • "The extent of their differences from other swallows and the wide geographical separation of these two martins suggest that they are relict populations of a group of species that diverged from the main swallow lineage early in its evolutionary history, [and that they may be the most primitive of the swallows]" - The last part does not follow logically from "extent of differences" or "geographical separation", needs slight rephrasing.
  • Moved second part to end of para and rephrased Their physical characteristics and breeding behaviour suggest that they may be the most primitive of the swallows. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The African and Asian Pseudochelidon species differ markedly in the size of their bills and eyes, suggesting that they have different feeding ecologies, with the White-eyed River Martin probably able to take much larger prey."== > just checking, is that covered with the next source [11]? Should have a source, if not.
  • "The African River Martin has a strong, fast flight interspersed with glides. It is a vocal species with a variety of sounds. It has a jingling "song" given in the aerial breeding display, and a number contact calls, kee-r-r, chee-chee and similar short, unmusical sounds. Flocks call together, cheer-cheer-cheer, as they take to the air, and this martin is very vocal during migration, giving harsh gull-like calls." ==> completely optional, but any chance for a sound sample?
  • Distribution "Three or four birds were seen passing through the southern Central African Republic in 1994." ==> With a population of 100.000 is that really notable enough? Birds stray sometimes, seems like no big news.
  • Bird articles always mention extra-limital occurrences. A
    Belted Kingfisher in Florida is commonplace, but it's a major rarity here in the UK. AFAIK, this is the only record outside the countries in which it breeds, so definitely needs to be mentioned Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

(indent) all points Done, changed to support - nice work. GermanJoe (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cwmhiraeth

This article seems of high quality but here are a few observations:
  • "Young birds are similar in appearance to the adults, but are browner plumaged." - I don't care for "browner plumaged".
  • "These two species possess a number of features which distinguish them from other swallows and martins, including their robust legs and feet, stout bill, large syrinx (vocal organ) and a different bronchial structure." - This sentence is a mixture of singular and plural.
  • " Like other early hirundine lineages, these martins nest in burrows, rather than adopted nest holes or mud nests." - Does the word "burrow" necessarily mean a tunnel created by its owner?
  • I'd rather assumed that in the absence of other qualification that it did, but I've added "self-excavated" to be absolutely clear. All burrow-nesting swallows make their own tunnels Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be continued. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It also displays on the ground, with the wings drooped and slightly open, and the head raised but horizontal;" - I don't care for the "but horizontal".
  • "The pocket at the end of the tunnel has a few twigs and leaves to serve as a nest, onto which two to four unspotted white eggs are laid." - The subject of this sentence is "pocket" rather than the nesting material.
  • Two to four unspotted white eggs are laid onto a few twigs and leaves in the pocket at the end of the tunnel.
  • " and by regional legislation in Nigeria" - This seems a curious statement. Surely Nigeria is outside its range?
  • It is curious, but that appears to be the case, I suppose it it's a potential visitor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant laws appear to be based directly on older colonial legislation which included a number of species not native to Nigeria, added a sentence to that effect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No further comments and now changed to "Support". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has a jingling "song" given in the aerial breeding display, - why the quotation marks around 'song'?
  • Turner says Brosset and Erard... noted a jingling noise, heard during displays, which they called a song . It's a bit damning with faint praise, but she doesn't use quote marks, so now removed. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Other than that, I read through a couple of times and nothing else jumped out from a prose or content POV that I could see. Nice read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 20:23, 19 November 2012 [7].

Leo Minor

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am feeling more comfortable with constellation articles now - this is my third one and I think it is either of, or within striking distance of, featured article status. Let me know what to fix (it's a short article!) and I'll get cracking. It got a good GA review. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning support (GA reviewer)
Checked images during my GA review, they're fine.
Footnotes for Delta Scuti and the Delta Scuti variables, as well as Nogami & Masuda 1997, don't point anywhere. Nogami could use page numbers too.
dang, still getting my head around the sfn referencing system. Anyway, both refs fixed - Nogami is a journal so I've always just used the page ranges in the bottom ref rather than single out specific page (unlike books) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reviewed the changes since my review and they seem fine otherwise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting now that other reviewers' comments are addressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Comments - (Done) prose and grammar could use a bit more work (missing words, odd grammar, ...). Some initial comments regarding the content (more to come):

  • Is it possible to get 21 and 46 Leonis Minor marked on the infobox map like Beta? It would help casual readers to connect image and text, when atleast the main stars are labelled (not strictly required, just nice to have).
I've made a map here but am just figuring out how to tweak the constellation infobox... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a template issue. At first check it looks like the template enforces constellation name + " IAU.svg" as image filename and accepts nothing else. The variable image-parameter is filled with a predefined fix filename (...). You would have to ask the template editors to "open" that parameter for a more flexible input. GermanJoe (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sub-article for 46 Leonis Minor has 95 ly distance instead of 98 (but is a very short stub). Please double-check.
SIMBAD is the latest consensus of these, so converted now (good catch...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leo Minor is a dark area of the sky with a triangle of brighter stars just visible to the naked eye in good conditions.[13] Patrick Moore has described it as having "dubious claims to a separate identity".[14]" reads more like a general "characteristic". Suggest to merge this part somewhere into "Characteristics" and immediately start features with "Stars".
Rejigged. I like your suggestion as it livens up the Characteristics section which is otherwise a bit formulaic with a witty comment by Britain's most famous astronomer :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add distance to Beta (you already note distances to 21 and 46).
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The [mysterious] deep sky object ..." - remove subjective term, add 1-2 very brief facts about the background of it's research.
Subjective term removed. Just thinking what to addgot some stuff....it is unique - there is nothing like it, so "unique" is an objective and succinct qualifier. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arp 107 is a pair of galaxies in the process of merging, located some 450 million light years away.[52] NGC 3395 and NGC 3396 are a spiral and irregular barred spiral galaxy respectively that are interacting, located 1.33 degrees southwest of Praecipua.[53]" => Are the 2 sentences describing 2 different pairs of galaxies? Reading the actual text, the second sentence could be misunderstood as further details of the first pair.
added "At least two pairs of interacting galaxies have been observed." to the front. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete caption sentences => no periods.
caption periods removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest another complete readthrough for awkward phrasing, flow and minor grammar issues. GermanJoe (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've massaged the prose a little....but is tricky when one has stared at it so many times...how do you feel about it now? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German astronomer Christian Ludwig Ideler posited that the stars of Leo Minor had been termed Al Thibā' wa-Aulāduhā, "Gazelle with her Young" on the Borgian globe, however Lach held that they had been Al Haud "the Pond", which the Gazelle jumps into." ==> "Borgian globe" and "Lach" need a bit more detail for the uninitiated. GermanJoe (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
added some material on the globe, but Lach is bafflingly elusive....Allen doesn't explain who he was anywhere (!) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After some googling in the wrong direction i found him: "Lach" is probably Friedrich W. Lach, who wrote "Anleitung zur Kenntniß der Sternnahmen mit Erläuterungen aus der Arabischen Sprache und Sternkunde.", published 1796, by Weidmann, Leipzig (Germany) (see this link for a bit of German info [[8]]. GermanJoe (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some more info: Friedrich W. Lach was an Arabist, who translated the "Anleitung zur Kenntniß der Sternnahmen" from an original Arabic work (according to this short biographical link [[9]]. GermanJoe (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! I should have figured he'd be an Arabic translator - I was trying his surname plus astronomy and getting nowhere. good find! Now to do some reading...... Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I checked my databases for more information, but came up empty-handed, so I'm confident that criteria 1b and 1c are met; meets other FAC criteria too. Sasata (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Comments by Sasata (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • links: magnitude, orange giant, light year
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • shouldn't the lead say how many stars are in the constellation?
added star total to lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ptolemy classified the stars in this area as άμὸρφωτοι (not belonging to a constellation outline) of the constellation of Leo." Are the Greek letters necessary? I'm not sure why this is useful.
I like greek letters, but latinised it now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johannes Hevelius set about filling parts of the northern celestial hemisphere as he mapped the heavens," Filling it with what?
constellations - rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard A. Proctor gave the constellation the name Leaena" Should Leaena be italicized, either as a non-English name or as word-as-word?
pondered that - done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borgian globe -> I'm guessing this doesn't have to do with the
    Borg (Star Trek)
    ?
Ultimately it is to do with Stefano Borgia who founded the Borgia Museum. Details online are scant, and I am ferreting out what I can to add added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Lach?
aargh, I can't find anything.! Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Chinese astronomy, parsec, luminosity, giant star, period, arcminute
I couldn't find a good place to link "period" so linked "pulsating" instead Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • should light-years be hyphenated?
It can be written with or without a hyphen. I've generally not used one, and the convert template spits it out unhyphenned. A bigger MOS issue worth getting consensus on at some point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pulsating stars which have been used" which->that (check article for several other occurrences which that should be switched)
Ahaaa, I think "which" is correct. The whole class (delta scuti variables_ can be used like this, hence "class of pulsating variables, which..." is correct - if OTOH we say it is only "pulsating variables", then it is only a subset of those, which would be "that".....I am leaning towards "which" as I figure taking it with "class of.." has alraedy sub-defined it Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Which" may well be preferable, but it's generally preceded by a comma (as you've done in most other instances). The other time you use "which" without a comma is "It consists of a white dwarf and a donor star which orbit each other..." -- again, I think you can leave the "which" here but you should insert a comma beforehand. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that's more correct than what I said. Sasata (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "20 Leonis Minoris is a multiple star system only 49 light-years (15 parsecs) away from the Sun." Is the use of "only" to convince us that 49 ly is a short distance?
It's pretty close and closer than other stars in the constellation, but not egregiously so. I've removed the "only" anyway now Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "400 million year old star" needs hyphens
duly hyphenated Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent use of title/sentence case in journal article titles
I think I got them all now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • double period in Hevelius 1687 source
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent isbn hyphenation
isbns spaced now Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • does Jenniskens needs page #'s?
got pages in wrong spot. fixed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • some book sources give publisher locations, others don't
locations all there now Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "FeII/FeI" needs subscripting
I spaced it but not subscripted it. The 'III' or 'II' in metals is not subscripted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • full page range for Russell 1922? Wagner 1998? Others?
It's funny that the practice in astronomy papers is often just to give the first page. Fixed now. The supernova mentions are just a few lines hence single pages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • issue # for Skiff 1986?
Got it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • endashes for page ranges
auto fix should have got them all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • why are you using sfn-style referencing for this article? Here it doesn't seem to provide any real benefit, but instead bloats the references by providing a redundant list of "citations" before the "Sources" (making the reader have to look twice for the citation). As far as I can see, the only advantage in this article is to distinguish between "Wagman 2003, pp. 189-90" and "Wagman 2003, p. 8.", but there are more efficient ways to do this. Also, Ridpath & Tirion 2001, pp. 168-69. looks to be the same as Ridpath & Tirion 2001, pp. 168-169.
B'rer Rabbit and Keilana have been using them. My last constellation FA nom got largely converted whil at FAC. I do find it easier for navigation while editing and I like the sfn coding to write, but I agree about the extra layer of complexity at the bottom. I'd rather not spend another hour or two of my life converting this one back but will not oppose anyone else doing so, and my next articles are the usual style. sigh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have better things to do with an hour too, so you don't have to worry about me changing it. I'll just note that it's unfortunately not possible to give a direct link in the short form citation with this template ... Sasata (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • this source says it culminates on midnight February 24, not 9 pm on May 24. It also claims that NGC 3432 has a magnitude of 11.7, rather than 11.2. Also, why give the size of the other two galaxies and not this one?
midnight culmination added - constellations rise and set earlier as the year goes on, so the results are congruent. There are some annoying disagreements between sources on some things. I'll figure out some consensus.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think the O'meara book might have a misprint, as the NED page has 11.67, like the Thompson book. Changed now, dimensions added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments - (Done):

  • infobox ==> should it be 3 main stars instead of 2 (21,46 and Beta)? The template documentation has "all designated stars connected by lines in the main pattern". (on a completely unrelated note: Corona Australis should have 5 main stars instead of 6, when applying this guideline).
The most objective standard I've seen in this constellation is identifying the three brighter than mag 4.5...and "triangle" is mentioned a few times...problem with "connected by lines" is so many damn variations on this for all these constellations :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (optional) infobox image improvement to label main stars (see above)
  • "There are 37 stars brighter than apparent magnitude 6.5, of which three are brighter than magnitude 4.5—these forming a rough triangle. " ==> This reads clunky. Having said that, i tried to rephrase it a few times and came up with nothing better - YMMV.
I concede I am not thrilled about this wording either...and any improvement would be gratefully accepted...but I can't think of one either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With a period of approximately 215 seconds, and losing a second every 8.9 million years, the 400 million year-old star has been touted as the most stable celestial clock.[37]" ==> this needs a more formal rephrase (tout?), maybe even try a direct quote, if it's notable enough (the phrase should work well as quote). GermanJoe (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
touted --> proposed? Another alternative might be "put forward"? "suggested"? Not sure we need a direct quote.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by a non-astronomer - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are several duplicate wikilinks.
de-linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deep-sky object" is a section heading but is not defined or wikilinked anywhere.
added a link and encapsulating sentence in body Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following sentences are of awkward construction:
  • "Rapidly rotating, it is likely flattened in shape."
rejigged. Given the shape is speculative (though assured given the physics, but we can't see any more than a dot of light), I've dropped that bit from the lead Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With spectral class K0III,[16] it has around 32 times the luminosity and is 8.5 times the size of our sun,[17] its orange colour evident when seen through binoculars."
I've aligned the facts of 46 Leonis Minoris a bit better so one sentence is colour and brightness, and the next about true luminosity, size and distance Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The secondary is a yellow-white main sequence star of spectral type F8 and separated by 11 seconds of arc."
rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fact that the secondary star is brighter than expected indicates it is likely two stars very close together that are unable to be made out separately with current viewing technology."
I'm at a bit of a loss how to rephrase this sentence and am open to suggestions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "(Scientists suggest that) the secondary star's unexpected brightness indicates that it likely consists of two closely orbiting stars, which remain indifferentiable with current technology" - Or is that worse? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially it is that spectrum corresponds with brightness on a scale....yeah that's possible. I am going to have a play with it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like "The fact that the secondary star is brighter than expected indicates it is likely to be very close to the primary star but current viewing technology is unable to resolve the pair." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, to clarify, what the source says is that the secondary is actually a pair of stars and they are unsplittable from each other (hence there are three stars overall) - we know this because the star is too bright for what its spectrum is and therefore has to be a pair of stars of the same spectrum Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This matter is clarified now. Changed my "Comments" to "Support" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The white dwarf sucks matter from the other star onto an accretion disc which is heated to between 6000 and 10000 K ..." - I think the bolded bit of this sentence implies that heat is coming from an external source.
good point, reworded to "heats up" Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lying near the 650 million light year-distant spiral galaxy IC 2497, it is around the same size as the Milky Way,[55] though contains a 16,000 light year wide hole."
I've split this sentence, though the second segment is a trifle short... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from MarchOrDie

  • What's a "nearly flat triangle"?
One of the sources described the 3 brightest stars as forming a "flattened triangle", so I was trying to word something similar without paraphrasing...however, in various depictions, there are a variable number of lines connecting 3,4 or 5 stars, so I have ditched it from the lead as an unnecessary complication. It isn't a prominent pattern by any stretch of the imagination. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The constellation area is a 16 sided figure if you look at the constellation chart. Not sure if there is a clearer way of describing it. Casliber (talk · contribs)
Edge (geometry) is the better term then, but "sides" might be more intelligible to a general audience. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah, ok. I agree with this. I was a bit mystified but I get it now, and done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed (wrongly) that it was caps - made lower case now Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we in British or American English in this article? --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh I had to think about that one...British (as an aussie I write in British naturally, though I have a tendency to "-ize" words... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I understand that "ize" is perfectly acceptable in BritEng, but because so many equate it with AmEng, it's generally simpler for us Commonwealth folk to use "ise" and be done with it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was the combination of the Oxford spelling with "colour" that made me ask. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got me thinking...but I can't see any US-spelt words around...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and my mistake on the spelling issue. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No mistake and good to check..I realised I was spelling on auto-pilot :) thx for the review...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support after another read and some minor copy-edits. Diff is [10]. All noted issues have been adressed. GermanJoe (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, this was a tricky one to copyedit and make flow nicely. I really appreciate all the prose-massaging on this one Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and one comment This has been thoroughly reviewed already, and I could only find one nitpick. I assume that you'll sort that out, so it would be churlish not to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has around double the mass, 7.8 times the radius and is 36 times as luminous as the Earth's sun. — clunky and dubiously grammatical Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
changed it to 3 nouns rather than 2 nouns and adjective. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Note: This is a
    talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 16:55, 18 November 2012 [11]
.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Nominator(s): TopGun (talk), Inlandmamba (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... we believe it meets the criteria. Were it not for Jinnah, the map of Asia would look different, for without him there would be no Pakistan. This article has received a ton of work by a number of people, including the nominators but also many others, including a most thorough peer review. This is a former featured article.Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Bangladesh either (indirectly). :)—indopug (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That too ...--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review (disclaimer: I'm Indian)

  • "continued links to Hindustan" and "predominately Hindu India"—the article gives the impression of a simplistic League/Pakistan=Muslim and India/Congress=Hindu duality, which I reckon is how Jinnah and the League viewed things. However, the latter actually had (and has) a prominent secular character to it (though admittedly not as much as the Congress claimed). But the entire article only uses the word secular in connection with Jinnah's Muslim faith. IMO this is not an NPOV narrative; to continually describe India as only a Hindu-majority is to present Jinnah's POV alone; why not present the Congress's argument that united India would be a secular country albeit admittedly with a majority Hindu population.
There is no intent to be POV, other than to treat Jinnah fairly and to get readers to read the article, like any other bio. I will add the things you suggest and make clearer such things that Congress had Muslim presidents sometimes and also what you suggest. By way of disclosure, I'm an American of predominately Eastern European extraction and have never been closer to either nation than Dubai.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added that Congress considered itself secular but had difficulties with Hindu traditionalists, and was supported at one time by many Muslims (besides Jinnah), in the Lahore Resolution paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also "Hindu leader Mohandas Gandhi": do you just mean that he was a leader who was Hindu, or that he was the leader of the Hindus? Because to intend the latter seems rather unfair; Gandhi's influence definitely extended beyond his own religion.
That he was Hindu. Trying to thumbnail Gandhi in an adjective, even compound, was difficult. Suggestions welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, that Gandhi was Hindu is irrelevant in this sentence in the lead. It can be replaced by Congress leader, or just mention Gandhi without any adjective. May be " influential congress leader". I see the word influential has been used in the text, and can be used in this sentence in the lead as well.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because although often the Congress followed Gandhi's leadership, he was not even a four-anna member of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. In that case, why don't you just go with Gandhi? He is not a totally unknown person needing a descriptive adjective. And if you really want to describe, you can use some phrase after his name (...advocated by Gandhi, an influential leader/politician, or some other term).--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken your suggestion to use influential.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead contains several words in Urdu script and later, one in Gujarati too.
    Wikipedia:INDIA#Indic_scripts_in_lead
    has a rule to remove all Indic scripts from the lead because most viewers can't read the language anyway; would it be useful to apply it here?
The problem is, my experience with this article, and similar non-Latin script articles like Khrushchev, is that if you take it away, people put it back. I'd rather lose it myself, it clutters the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "should a united British India become independent" why united? Considering that the idea of a divided India hadn't arose then, he wouldn't have explicitly said "united", right?
That's more for readers outside the subcontinent who might not "get" that British India is more in area than today's India.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By appointing an exclusively white Commission, [Secretary of State for India Lord Birkenhead has declared our unfitness for self-government." - you missed a ] I think.
  • Needs copyediting: "Muhammed Jinnah's daughter, Dina, was educated in England and India. Jinnah later became estranged from his daughter,
    Dina Jinnah
    ". In other occasions too, a linked full name follows an unlinked part name (Jalal in Legacy)
I'll fix these two and look for others, but if you see one, please let me know and I'll take care of it.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Jaswant Singh the best source to use? He is an active politician in the opposition party, against the ruling Congress. Wouldn't his opinion be partisan?
The article uses a range of sources. I looked at some of the press coverage in India of Singh writing his book, and while it was somewhat controversial, it was mostly for it to being about Jinnah. I didn't see anyone calling him a liar. I think his opinions are clearly labeled inline. Churchill wrote history books while Leader of the Opposition.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article has strong British connections, shouldn't the BritEng First and Second World War instead of World War I and II be used?
Good catch. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "P.H. Dastoor" and "H M Seervai" → no uniformity of initials? (I think preferred around these parts is "P. H. Dastoor", but periods and spaces.)
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—indopug (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is the sort of thing you fake and hope someone with actual local knowledge comes along! I will work though these comments this evening.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha thanks. I'll start a more thorough review on Monday. For now, a few stylistic points:
  • Watch out for AmEng: "favor"
Ran a script and we should be good with UK spelling.
  • When referring to the Congress party, unlike Congress of the US, a the always precedes it. So "Congress and League" → "the Congress and the League" throughout.
Hopefully got them all.
  • "day – a huge sum at that time – which" but "both dominions—he would be India's first post-independence governor-general—but Jinnah" and "capital Ankara — Cinnah Caddesi — is named after him". Dash consistency?
  • Got those.
  • As for the indic scripts, this article is also a part of WP:INDIA. So you can cite the rule I linked to above if you want to remove it. You retain the script in the infobox though.
Those too.
  • Names in the infobox are overlinked. Where are the citations for his successor Governor General, Speaker and CA President?
  • Successors to public office do not have to be cited. They are easily ascertainable and not subject to dispute. I have in the past removed duplicate citations in infobox, the same person linked in multiple capacities. People put them back. I'll take them out if you want, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not use the superior File:Quaidportrait.jpg? If not actually free, it should be removed from the template below as well.—indopug (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence that it was taken in British India, or when. Insufficient evidence it is PD. Removed.
Fair enough, I'll work though these over the weekend. Note that we are expecting a hurricane in my area early in the week so if I am slow to reply that will no doubt be why.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some of these, I will do the remainder as opportunity and the hurricane, permit.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you're doing good. I chanced upon the Dawn (newspaper) article today, which says that that newspaper was founded by Jinnah as a League mouthpiece. Yet there's nothing of that here?—indopug (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing fine, thanks, I have added that. Yes, it is true.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RegentsPark Howdy. Thanks for nominating this article and I'd love to see it as an FA. I'm going to try and take a look at this article over the next few days but things are a bit complicated where I am right now, so please bear with the intermittent comments.

  1. The lead calls Jinnah the "founder of Pakistan". However, this is not supported in the body and is uncited.
    I was pushing that off of the quote by Mohiuddin in the Legacy section. If you think it should be toned down, I can think of some way of putting it, "who took the leading role in the founding of Pakistan." I'd rather leave it as it is though.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it's ok. But it would be nice to see it cited because it is an important claim.--regentspark (comment) 02:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll look for something that calls him a founder of Pakistan.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've direct-cited the lede to Ahmed's book.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The lead says that Jinnah served as the leader of the muslim league from 1913 to 1947. However, according to the body, he spent a number of years in exile in England and the
    All India Muslim League
    article states that Sir Muhammad Iqbal became the leader of that party in the 1920s. (Also, was he simultaneously the leader of the muslim league and a member of the congress party?)
    Yes, he could be simultaneously a leader in both because they were not yet playing for real money, so to speak, because the British held the real power. The sources were a bit sketchy on the leadership structure of the Muslim League, but I put what I could find into that footnote. I imagine someone else did the work in India while Jinnah held the titular title, until the king returns. I'm not 100 percent certain on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me see what I can dig up. If nothing, we could always say "much off" for the period between 1913 and 1947. --regentspark (comment) 02:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  3. In "Break from the Congress" 4th para, "resigned over the action" - it is not clear from what.
    Still not clear which council that Jinnah was a member of extended wartime restrictions. --regentspark (comment) 02:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Though the "resigned from Congress" reasons are elaborated on in the body, I suggest framing this sentence better. Perhaps by adding the clause: "a method he believed was unconstitutional".
    I think I've addressed what you were asking on the last two, but am not certain.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Background. The writing in this section is stilted. "The city was, and remains....", "The parents ....", does one "obtain" "matriculation" or "a tale"?
I've made some changes. Some of that was left over from before I got involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. More to come ...--regentspark (comment) 00:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. Note that beginning Friday night I will be traveling and responses may not be immediate.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Avoid "this photo shows..." in captions
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Quaid6_edited.jpg: source link is dead, and in what year did this become PD in Pakistan?
  • File:Jinnah_Sign.gif: current licensing and description is inappropriate - uploader does not receive copyright for scanning/uploading someone else's signature, and so does not have the right to release it and should not claim authorship. You can use {{PD-signature}} for US copyright, but will need an additional tag if the image is to remain at Commons.
  • File:Majinnah4.jpg, File:Majinnah8.jpg, File:Majinnah10.jpg: when did these become PD in Pakistan?
  • File:Jinnah12.jpg: source link is dead and provided information is a bit minimal
  • File:Quaid_passport_burhan.jpg: source link is dead, insufficient info to verify publication details
It is a form, a British passport. It is published as it is available for those needing a passport. The publication date only matters so we know when Crown Copyright expires, which it has. I'll delete the source link.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Jinnah_funeral2.jpg: source link gives publication as 1988, which if accurate would make this image non-free. If it's not accurate, when was first publication?
  • File:Quaid-i-Azam's_Will.JPG: licensing and description are inaccurate - photographer of 2D work does not generate new copyright
  • File:Mohammad_Ali_Jenah_Iran_stamp.jpg: it's not entirely clear why this would be PD in Iran, can you clarify?
  • File:CDGKlogo.png: source used to create image? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will get back to you on these within a day or two, I am traveling.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there have been a number of discussions over these images, in several venues, as this article has been prepared for FAC. These images are probably in the public domain, they routinely appear in books about Jinnah and on Pakistan's website. If you put "Jinnah" in the portrait field on this form, several of the images appear to be described, with "unknown" as the photographer--and that from the British Library. The early images of Jinnah are almost certainly PD, whatever may be said for the later ones. That being said, I'll look them over individually and probably comment them out until we can obtain further information.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I have commented out all dubious images. I believe they can be brought back, if pre-1946 publication can be shown. I'll keep looking and in the meantime fill in with quote boxes and images of some relevance, showing sites and people mentioned in the article. I do not think it terribly productive to remove an image, File:CDGKlogo.png, which is only used as part of the link to the Karachi portal. I do not think this article should be responsible for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Generally beautifully written. I made some edits; four minor things need addresing:

  • "...which placed the family's property at risk of attachment". What is "attachment" in this context?
Frozen pending the hearing on whether he should be held liable.
Alright, rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bombay's presidency magistrate". What on earth is a presidency magistrate? Link?
Linked to Bombay Presidency#Administration
  • "The caliph was the Ottoman Emperor, who would be deprived of both offices following by the Ottoman emperor,..." something has happened here - not sure what, but it needs fixing.
  • Why no link to Partition of India?

Well done to the contributors. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you on behalf of everyone for the praise and the review. And the support. I've made those changes.

SupportLeaning to support: I am doing a sources review which I will post shortly. I have made a few minor prose edits, and also have several issues for your consideration:

  • A barrister, like a doctor, teacher, architect etc is "trained" rather than "educated"
  • "a voting majority of three" makes no sense. "A majority of three votes" is I think what is intended
  • Superlatives such as "extremely" should be avoided, in the interests of encyclopedic neutrality
  • "Aga Khan" is a title, not a name, so the definite article should be used, thus: "the Aga Khan"
  • "practicing as a barrister before the Privy Council": can you elucidate on the nature of this work?
  • "Wolpert asserts that had Jinnah been made a Law Lord, he would have stayed for life, and that Jinnah sought a parliamentary seat as well." The parliamentary seat would have been an alternative to becoming a Law Lord, not "as well". So maybe: "...and also that Jinnah sought a parliamentary seat".

There may be a few other issues in the latter parts of the article, but unless they are of major import I'll simply fix them. I echo hamiltonstone's comments on the overall quality of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I've dealt with these. At least Jinnah is not a coin, though he had quite a hard mettle.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Puns like that deserve an oppose. Even Jappalang's poems were better (well no, actually, they weren't) Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, all the poems I know are about girls from Nantucket. I trust you to give the article a fair shake.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Otherwise all sources and citations look good. Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rediff does seem to be an Indian news site. I've cleaned up that citation and made it clear it comes from a story by United News of India. The others are done. Thank you for another fine review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After writing a rather lengthy peer review for the article, I have become fairly familiar with this text. Here are a few notes going through the FAC:

  • The article is well written, comprehensive, and seemingly well researched.
  • I can see above that another editor raised some NPOV concerns, and as one might guess, some elements of the article might be somewhat controversial. Although I admit my general ignorance about the subject, I can also say I don't have a dog in the hunt. There are certain words, phrases, and gaps in narrative logic that tend to indicate potential NPOV issues, and I have a very good ability to detect them (it's sort of what I do for a living). Other than a few of the minor issues I mentioned in the peer review, nothing stood out from the careful reading I did of the article.
  • Although there have been a few anonymous IP edits periodically that have been reverted, it's clear that the major editors have maintained a fairly stable article.
  • Many of my comments regarded issues of style, and although I make no claims as to finding every MOS or grammar issue, every small issue I brought up was addressed.
  • Although the article is fairly lengthy, the subject clearly merits the length.

I certainly support promotion to Featured Article. – Runfellow (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. This article needed running through the wringer, and you did the job at PR.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We now have three supports, with the image and source checks Done. I'm not aware of any issues that would prevent promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Indeed a nice read. There may be a few minor npov issues here and there, but only a few ( for example, "palatial prison", which IMO is ok, but may be thought as slightly taunting with some imagination). However, that is not a major problem. It meets FA criteria.
One source you have used is an article in History Today by Ian Talbot. It mentions Jinnah drank alcohol and ate pork. You have mentioned alcohol. However, pork is not mentioned in the article.. Now, for any other Muslim personality article, whether he eats pork or not hardly matters. However in this case, Jinnah was the leader of a great mass of Muslim people, and the theme of his political movement and achievement centered around islamic identity; still he apparently was not a devout Muslim, not following strict religious laws. This indeed may deserve a mention, IMO. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support Dwaipayanc.
--Inlandmamba (fruitful thought) 09:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will add something from that article although it may not be until tomorrow as I am just checking in prior to going out to dinner with friends. Thanks for the support. The "palatial" was intended as strictly descriptive, as it was a palace.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the pork. Hopefully it won't be deleted too often by nationalists. Thanks to all for their comments and support, I think I'm back up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 16:55, 18 November 2012 [12]
.

Harry S. Truman

PumpkinSky (talk · contribs) and Wehwalt (talk · contribs)

We are nominating this for featured article because, while it is a former FA, its content has been substantially reworked and its technical aspects have been overhauled. It just completed a PR too. PumpkinSky talk 23:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Repeating these comments from the peer review: - Dank (push to talk)

  • "as the nation endorsed an internationalist foreign policy along with allies in Europe and control over defeated Japan.": I'm not sure what this is saying.
Looks like Wehwahlt got that that one.PumpkinSky talk 00:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... U.N. approval for the Korean War. After initial success, the UN ...": U.N. or UN?
Made it UN since we have USA, USSR, etc. PumpkinSky talk 00:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reportedly, he passed by secretly memorizing the eye chart.": I avoid knee-jerk invocations of
    WP:WEASEL, but "reportedly" in a history article is just the kind of thing WEASEL is meant to address. Either a writer finds the report credible, based on available sources, or not; If so, then the sentence is stronger without "reportedly", and if not, then the incident doesn't merit mentioning, unless the story is the story ... that is, if this story itself became part of Truman's legacy, then attribute the story to the most persuasive source. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Sorry about that. As the Truman Library seems to recognize the historicity of Truman's deceit, I've dropped the hedge. I've done the others we neglected to earlier, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments:
  • "; followed by one sister, Mary Jane (1889–1978).": fragment.
  • "As a young boy, Truman had three main interests: music, reading, and history, all encouraged by his mother, with whom he was very close—as president, he solicited political as well as personal advice from her.": It's a rare sentence that works best with two big nonparallel pauses, in this case the colon and the dash. Better would be: As a young boy, Truman was interested in music, reading, and history, all encouraged by his mother, with whom he was very close—as president, he solicited political as well as personal advice from her. (Some will think that sentence is too long, but I think it fits in this article.)
  • Consistency: "toward", "towards"
  • "the issue of the corruption was a major issue":
    WP:Checklist#repetition
  • Consistency: "re-election", "reelected"
  • "Ten Year Plan,", "the senator from Pendergast.":
    WP:LQ
  • "He was largely ignored by President Roosevelt, who did not take him seriously at this stage": One implies the other, I think.
  • "The waste and profiteering he saw caused him to":
    WP:Checklist#because
    . The word "caused" is out of fashion when talking about, for instance, politics; actions rarely have a single cause. "led" would probably be fine.
  • "A separate committee to conduct a formal investigation was set up under Truman, this proposal was supported by the administration rather than risk a more hostile probe by the House of Representatives.": "risk" is nonparallel. comma splice.
  • I got down to Harry_S._Truman#Vice presidency. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I am traveling and will get to these as quickly as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is a fine article, but I have less time than I used to and I won't be able to finish. The second part of
WT:MHC#Opposing at FAC is a little bit relevant. - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I read it and fair enough. Call on me for a review sometime.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - mostly OK (USGOV images), some remarks and minor points to check/improve:

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wGYoU50uks
    • links to a video, so you should probably use a video parameter instead of audio, see template:external media-documentation (done, GermanJoe (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    • If possible, the file should be uploaded to commons (disregard, if not). See documentation for further usage info.
    • wikipedia:YT
      gives additional guidelines for YouTube videos (esp. regarding the copyright situation, make sure the YT video has a valid copyright on its own).
  • File:Deweytruman12.jpg - if the photo is iconic as stated (i wouldn't know), FUR is OK imo. Only non-free image in article.
That's one of the most iconic photos in American history, right up there with the flag raising on Iwo Jima, and for political photos, possibly the most iconic in US history.PumpkinSky talk 09:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. I will ask Connormah to look at the image questions above.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick update: i pinged Connormah for some feedback, but s/he may be busy in real life. It is not crucial anyway (worst case: the video could be temporarily removed pending clarification). GermanJoe (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I overlooked that. In my opinion the little film is PD as having been published without a copyright notice, pre-1978. Regarding the images being moved to commons, I am rather thumb-fingered at that, I am afraid. Regarding the Dewey/Truman, I agree with PumpkinSky, that is famous indeed, beyond the usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:IMAGE - make sure, incomplete caption phrases do not end with a period. Only correct, complete sentences should end with full stop. GermanJoe (talk) 07:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done PumpkinSky talk 00:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. the talk page PR notification is still active fyi. Not sure what's wrong with that. GermanJoe (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PR notice closed, captions checked. If there's one in particular you think should have punctuation altered, let me know, a couple of the captions were borderline.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed election poster caption and added alt text (feel free to tweak). GermanJoe (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the just-closed peer review: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Harry_S._Truman/archive2. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed a day or so ago, but PS and I forgot to update the talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Binksternet
  • There are still some wikilinks inside direct quotes, which I recall being deprecated. This was brought up in the peer review. Consider taking out the links to
    Civilian control of the military
    .
I'll remove all but the third, which is unfamiliar enough for the reader as to justify a link even within a direct quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there quotes around "hobo camp"?
Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the peer review, the observations about Henry Wallace were not addressed. Wallace was quite popular but the article says he was unpopular! The reason Wallace was bumped and Truman brought into the VP position was because the VP was expected to become president very soon as FDR was seriously ill. Wallace was seen as very friendly to labor, a particularly hazardous position to hold during wartime when labor and management were supposed to work together for war production. Truman had a record of efficiency in production (the Truman Committee) and he was seen as having the necessary grit to make tough decisions. The McCullough biography delves into this area. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your fix introduced a bit of redundancy in the paragraph. Some streamlining of the reading flow is in order. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truman said a lot of things, and Wikipedia is not Wikiquote—we don't host extensive quotes—but a very widely quoted Trumanism is the one which came after Germany invaded the USSR. He said jokingly to reporters, "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word." June 24, 1941, New York Times. This flippant outburst showed Truman's initial "instinctive" position on the Soviets, one that had changed into a more pragmatic view by the time he became president. At any rate the quote is very often discussed in biographies and histories. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctant, because it also reflects a shift in point of view about Hitler, which was commonplace. I will consult my references.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks on that. I am sorry for not getting back to you. I did consult McCollough on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am reading this article with great interest; Truman is a fascinating subject.

I'm sure I shall have more to say, but for the moment I would welcome a bit more beef in the "Recognition of Israel" subsection. For example, there is no mention of Truman's advocacy, from 1945, of the immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors into Palestine, in defiance of British policy. In 1946 he rejected the Morrison-Grady plan which would have created a 1500 square mile Jewish "province", and gave his support in principle to the Jewish Agency's demands for a viable state, well before the UN partition resolution. I'm sure this information can be cited from your sources, otherwise I can oblige.

Reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added those topics, with two new refs. PumpkinSky talk 22:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still on this topic; reading the expanded version, I'm still unhappy:
  • "truman had always taken an interest in the history of the Middle East..." Do you really mean "always"? What is the source of this assertion? I'm not aware of his ever expressing a view on the subject before he became president.
  • "The State Department was anxious to placate the Arabs by giving them the territory". What is meant by "the terrritory"? In any event, this is an oversimplification; why would they want to "placate the Arabs"? Some reference to the basis of the State Department's position is necessary.
  • The two sentences: "This is one point, among others, of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (or "Morrison-Grady plan"), that Truman agreed with. One of the points of that plan Truman did not agree with was the creation of a Jewish enclave of just 1,500 square miles (3,900 km2)" - are very clumsily written, and Truman's opposition to the creation of the enclave needs to be explained. Why did he oppose it?
  • Overall, I think there is too much reliance, as a source, on Truman's policy statement of October 4, 1946. This is the only source given for the first five sentences of this section, and I would prefer to see this based on the analysis of a dispassionate historian rather than on Truman himself. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rewritten the section based on McCullough. I consider McCullough rather lachrymose in his descriptions at time, but I suppose he's dispassionate enough to get by. If you consider the descriptions too sketchy, I can add more, but I'm worried about the overall length of the article, which you have politely not mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jesse V.

  • I didn't get any internal server errors. It did say the Goodwill site was bad, this one, but that's a false positive as I just went to it.PumpkinSky talk 00:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article says: 'Truman made the decision to recognize Israel over the objections of Secretary of State George Marshall, who feared it would hurt relations with the Arab states.' The second part of that sentence is not supported by the source cited: p. ix of Benson's book. On p x, Benson suggests that Marshall's opposition was on national security grounds but doesn't explain the connection. I think there is danger in summarising Marshall's position in a half sentence, and it's been done in a rather crude way here.--
    Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I've cleared it up, expanded Marshall's position and changed the ref. The cite is from before my involvement in the article, but I'm sorry about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries -- support by the way, for whoever counts these days. I have the McCullough book and have checked a few refs and they're all good. --
Mkativerata (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the review and for spot-checking, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is not ready for FAC at this time. The prose is weak and the sourcing unimpressive. Make a greater effort in researching the subject and fill in the holes before you bring it back to FAC. Kolob1x2 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask that you be more specific?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Kolob1x2 is a new user, in my opinion too new for FAC review. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some copyedits to this article but hope that does not disqualify me as a reviewer. Content is excellent, sources look good, appears others have OK'd the images, alt text is good. Personally, and this is just me, I'd like to see a couple minor subsections reorganized for flow and clarity, the "Tributes and Legacy" section should have the two sections flipped, his legacy first, then the "associations, sites and honors" at the end, as that is the less important section, subordinate to and flowing from Truman's legacy. I would also like to see a slightly different structure to the Post-Presidency section, perhaps with no subheadings, start with the section beginning with the paragraph "Once out of office" about his financial difficulties, then finish that section with the paragraphs on his memoirs, then discuss the library. Consider tossing the subheading in the later life section, move the 1956 trip and honorary degree to a more chronological spot (maybe with the book and library, or even into The tributes and legacy section), as the rest of that paragraph discusses his later political activity. Then, clearly keep the end of life bit as is. Or, if you wish, I can do a little rearranging to show you what I'm after here. Montanabw(talk) 20:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could rearrange the article in userspace and point us to it with a link. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'll wait to see what Wehwalt wants to do before I go mucking around ;-) Montanabw(talk) 20:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I made three edits, all of which can be reverted if they did not help; I swapped the two sections in tributes and legacy, I tossed the subheadings in Post-Presidency and rearranged a few things, and the third edit moves the bit on the Oxford honorary degree to the tributes section, also tweaking the bit on Masonic affiliation. If anyone thinks my changes were not helpful, I won't be hurt if I'm reverted. ;) Montanabw(talk) 02:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support all looks good to me. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness.

  • Some shortened citations that include publication titles are italicized, while others are not
  • No citations to Forrestal 1951, Radosh & Radosh 2009, "Immigration into Palestine"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for template glitches like doubled periods
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in what style of state abbreviate you use
I've made the change to old-fashioned. I personally prefer postal abbreviation, but have run into objections.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers/journals without weblinks should include page numbers
Not always available. I've added one and will look for the others.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some publications in Online sources are missing italicization
I've added.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've taken care of all comments down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be done while maintaining accuracy, I'd like not to add more book sources unless we have to, "because we are too manny".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've beefed up the sourcing on the China matter and cut the Kfar Truman which strikes me as a bit trivial and besides the Benson book only has part of what was there, so we'd need another source.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're up to date, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have sufficient consensus, I think. When closing the nomination, I ask that the oppose be disregarded. This was one of the editor's first few edits, which is highly suspicious, and the oppose doesn't seem to be actionable.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about unactionable opposes. I will need some time to walk through it myself though, which may not be for another day, unless Graham beats me to it. Same goes for Jinnah, BTW. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in no hurry, as am winding up work prior to leaving on a cruise Tuesday (I do this twice a year). Take your time. I'm just giving a quick summary of where I see things. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- Having an interest in post-war American politics, and finding myself copyediting the whole article (though lightly) I've decided to weigh in as a full-fledged reviewer on this nom and recuse myself from delegate duties. I don't anticipate it to affect promotion in relatively short order, however, nor would I wish that...

  • Not sure about the rationale behind some of the linking in the lead. The World Wars are linked, though I'd say they're so well known and so wide ranging that such simple links are superfluous, whereas National Guard, a purely American institution, is not.
    • I notice WWI and WWII are still linked but I'm not going to make a Federal case out of it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truman took political advice from his mother and was a page at the 1900 Democratic National Convention. Suggests his parents were active Democrats in his youth -- can/should we say that?
I've added that his father's friends, who were active in the party, got him the job.
Tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1940 Senate elections
    , why not spell it out?
  • I don't think it's obvious how the Truman Committee would've saved "thousands of lives" as opposed to merely dollars -- can we elucidate?
I think it's speculative and puffing by McCullough. I've deleted that and added material to make the political benefit to Truman a bit clearer.
Makes sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Communism" is capitalised under Foreign policy, but not in the lead -- pls check and be consistent throughout (I'd expect no caps myself).
  • Pls use the duplicate link checker; I spotted a few myself when copyediting but there may be more.
  • You say "Nationalist Chinese" and "Nationalists" under Worldwide defense but "nationalist Chinese" in the next section -- consistency pls.
  • Aside from the above, I'm pretty satisfied with prose, structure, referencing, detail, and supporting materials, and I note image and source spotchecks by other reviewers -- good effort all round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's good enough for government work, I suppose, though I can see that we're being told nicely not to put away the hammer and nails just yet! I'm not familiar with the duplicate link checker, can you refer me? I'll plow through the others this morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's one of Ucucha's -- here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Thanks for the review. I find I did have the script, I thought you were talking about an external tool.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, happy to support, just one last thing -- another script tells me that "First Taiwan Strait Crisis Quemoy and Matsu Islands" is not referenced, in which case perhaps it belongs in External Links, with the Harv ref parameter removed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done that too.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 08:35, 17 November 2012 [13].

Sinistar: Unleashed

Nominator(s): —
21 05:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Sinistar: Unleashed is a 1999

21 05:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comments
  • Was it released outside of North America?
    AFAIK, No.
    It clearly was. Check Mobygames. -
    n 02:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oh, how did i miss that. Thanks. — ṞṈ™ 02:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and had no relationship with the Sinistar franchise" - I think you should link Sinistar here, when it's first mentioned, as opposed to in the subsequent sentence.
    Done.
  • "The game contains 24 main levels, each with its own unique boss called the Sinistar, and an additional five hidden bonus levels, making a total of 29 levels in the game." - how are the bonus levels opened? (might be worth mentioning) And is there a source for this?
    I have added a little more information about the bonus levels.
  • You should get more clarification when it was released, see if you can get a confirmed date. The bit how a demo came out in September, supposedly after the release, is confusing.
    Yes, it is confusing but I can't get it more clarified. The games supposedly shipped on August 31. Then IGN reports a release date of September 14.
    I updated the article: It was released on September 15, although several sources say August 31.
  • "this was "somewhat to the detriment of the final product."' - why?
    Good. Well, the source says: "Rather than significantly alter the structure of the original game, as Activision did with its Battlezone remake, the developers have stayed true to the game's arcade roots, somewhat to the detriment of the final product." (GameSpot review, Ref #2) I assume that he said it was somewhat to the detriment of it because the game, when trying to stay true to its origins, failed to live up the the gaming standards and expectations already established for games in 1999.

Those are the biggest things I noticed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answers above. — ṞṈ™ 09:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be too specific, maybe just begin by saying there were two demos and then describe the second. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 02:33, 16 November 2012 [14].

Dudley Clarke

Nominator(s): Errant (chat!) 10:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I submit for your critique, again, Dudley Clarke. A little known, but important, Brigadier, Clarke pioneered military deception techniques for the Allies during the Second World War. Clarke failed his first FAC in September/October, but only through lack of supports (no opposes). It got three good reviews then, and has since had a MILHIST A-Class review, with a further three commentaries, and a number of other copyedits and contributions. I now think it represents the best that Wikipedia has to offer. I'm nominating it again because I'd like to try and get it on the main page for November 11th - I know that's a rush, but it's time these guys got the recognition that the official secrets act denied them! Errant (chat!) 10:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I supported at the last FAC, and I've skimmed the changes since. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments An interesting, well written article. A few points: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... landed a job at a gold mining company." - A bit casual and unencyclopedic?
  • Revised
  • "...a posting to Mesopotamia in 1919. The following year he became involved in the Iraqi revolt of 1920, evacuating Europeans from the country by boat." - Was Mesopotamia a country at the time?
  • Not sure, further advice needed! :) The source refers to Mesopotamia, and I believe army postings to that region were termed in such way.. --Errant (chat!) 15:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could just omit the phrase "from the country".
  • Tweaked to "the region", still mulling on whether I could better present this.
  • "In 1922 he was on extended leave in Turkey when the Chanak Crisis, a threatened Turkish attack on British and French troops, began." - This sentence is rather awkward.
  • Revised
  • "Following the war Clarke ..." - Here and in several other similar places, a comma is missing.
  • Addressed some of the ones I found.
  • "On 5 June, while Dill was inspecting the troops evacuated from Dunkirk, Clarke suggested an idea to him," - I would have thought "the idea" would be better.
  • Revised
  • "Wavell put Clarke in charge, albeit under great secrecy, of broad strategic deception operations in North Africa, a position he held for the next five years, under subsequent Mediterranean commanders." - Another awkward sentence.
  • Revised
  • "The attempt was not a major success. Only one of the four units managed to kill any enemy troops." - These two sentences could be combined.
  • Revised
  • "... hit by an attack of jaundice that put him out of action for about six weeks." - A bit casual and unencyclopedic?
  • Revised
  • "Later that month, in unclear circumstances, he was arrested dressed as a woman in Madrid." - This sentence needs rearranging.
  • Revised
  • The first two sentences of the "1942: El Alamein" section would be better included in the previous section.
  • Revised
  • "Cascade was a major success for Clarke; it enabled most of the subsequent major deceptions" - I don't think "enabled" is the correct word here.
  • Revised to "supported"
  • "A disinformation campaign was agreed on, in which the Allies would attempt to convince German high command that the targets were Dakar and Sicily – the far eastern and western limits of the North African theatre." - This sentence is rather awkward.
  • Revised
  • "The promotion did not bestow the perks associated with higher ranks, such as a car and driver, but this did not faze Clarke who used his charisma to obtain them anyway." - A bit casual and unencyclopedic?
  • Revised, this has gone through a few revisions over the various reviews. It's important to Clarke's bio because of the snippet of the character it shows :)
  • " Mediterranean Theater" - is this a proper name or should it be " Mediterranean theatre"?
  • I agree! MT is a US term for the North African Theatre! But this is a verbatim quote from Clarke.
  • "Until his retirement from the army in 1947, with the rank of brigadier, he recorded the history of 'A' Force, although the document was then classified till the 1970s." - Another awkward sentence.
  • Revised
  • "In Cairo, during the Second World War, he was a regular at the cinemas, a location that suited his photographic memory and preference for working at night" - If you have "cinemas" in the plural, "a location" seems wrong.
  • Revised, made it singular :)
  • "He was involved in two bad relationships, first in 1922 with a Slavic woman called Nina, whom he met in Wiesbaden and who disappeared after Clarke smuggled currency to her friend in Bulgaria, and then (some time in the late 1920s) with a woman in Sussex who "meant everything in the world" to him, though she refused an offer of marriage." - This sentence is too long and complex. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised

Comments on the lead section Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead section is too long. The first paragraph is good but the others need paring down as they contain a considerable quantity of inappropriate detail.
  • To an extent this is the outcome of the A-Class review which said it was light on some details :P I will go through and make sure it is cut back. Cheers! --Errant (chat!) 09:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cut it back by nearly a KB, but am struggling to cut further. I'm already worried it sounds tight and stifled so suggestions welcome. --Errant (chat!) 12:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Fascinating stuff. I'm a bit worried, though, by the claims that Clarke with the few members of 'A' Force (including the notably untruthful Jasper Maskelyne) carried off Operations Sentinel and Bertram for the 2nd battle of El Alamein. The account by Middle East Command's Director of Camouflage, Geoffrey Barkas, makes it clear that whatever Clarke did - presumably, suggesting deception to Alexander and Montgomery - the deceptions at all scales in both operations were devised and executed by Camouflage, in collaboration with the Royal Engineers (who built the trackways, etc) on the orders of Brigadier de Guingand (B.G.S. 8th Army), with plentiful support from many departments including R.A.S.C. and the Pioneers. Refs - Peter Forbes, Dazzled and Deceived, 2009, pp 163-169; Barkas, The Camouflage Story, 1952, pp 153-216; Rick Stroud 2012, The Phantom Army of Alamein, 191-203. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned; Clarke's role was deception planning for the entire region. So those operations would be from the desks of 'A' Force at least in Skeleton (the regiments would not be devising this strategy, they would be given the overall plan and work on the details). The sources I have are very clear that Montgomery liaised with Clarke directly over those operations & tasked 'A' Force to draw up the strategic plan. Also, 'A' Force was in some way directly involved via Victor Jones who was running around directing the fictional tanks etc. --Errant (chat!) 21:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's certain that the generals agreed to the idea of two deceptions - the defensive Sentinel, and the offensive Bertram, and there is no reason to doubt that Clarke took them in that direction. Is there evidence that Jones was involved on the ground? (I suspect there's none at all for Maskelyne, that part seems entirely made up). Any source that is relying on Maskelyne's word is suspect. Barkas makes no mention of Jones; it is possible Jones drove about to watch what was being done and report on progress.

The detailed design of Bertram was worked out by Camouflage - by Barkas himself, with Tony Ayrton. The brief they were given by de Guingand on 16 Sept was 1) to conceal the preparations for attack in the north; 2) to suggest an attack in the south; 3) to minimise the apparent scale of non-concealable preparations in the north; and 4) to suggest the attack would not be ready for 2-3 days when all was in fact ready. (Barkas p191.) Those 4 goals seem to be the most that Clarke can have suggested, and they are indeed critically important. So, Clarke did the strategy as you say, but 'A' force did none of the work on the ground. Sentinel was certainly suggested by Clarke, and equally certainly implemented by Camouflage, organised by Tony Southron. Stroud pp 168-170. Neither operation was implemented by regiments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jones was in charge of 4th Armoured; one of Clarke's fictional brigades, made up of his dummy tanks and some real ones. He'd had a lot of dummies under his command before that, but this was the first time he had an actual official formation. This comes from Mure, who worked under Clarke and also published in the 80's - which probably makes him more accurate than Barkas. Even has Barkas known about Clarke's role & 'A' Force he would not have been allowed to refer to it in the 50's, same r.e. Jones. But if there is reference ot a 4th Armoured then that is him (again, there may well not be because Cascade was also kept secret till the 70s). Don't get me wrong! I'm not trying to dumb down Barkas's role, my sources are very detailed about him and I have notes to add to his article at some point! I've tried to make it clear 'A' Force was a planning entity and Clarke was a mastermind rather than someone who worked out all the details. Which takes me back to this FAC... is there any specifically actionable things you can give me to change? I'm not willing to accept Barkas as a source for Clarke's role, because of the reasons listed, but am happy to implement changes if you think I could better emphasise his role as a planner. --Errant (chat!) 09:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(I've tweaked the section somewhat, see what you think...). Incidentally, does Barkas mention radio deception? Because, if not, he doesn't have the whole picture - it played a major part in Sentinel and Bertram. --Errant (chat!) 09:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Barkas didn't know about the radio ops (quite rightly). His G2 Sykes did meet Clarke in February, and did know about Clarke's "deceptive power via wireless messages and agents". He found Clarke "elderly"! (Sykes 1990 p66). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've dug out my Bertram sources. The most detailed account is Alamein, by Jon Latimer (2002). In it he is clear in saying that Bertram was Clarke's plan; the operation involved at least 4 subsidiary plans, plus a disinformation campaign in Cairo and a diversionary attack on the 24th. Latimer says Montgomery briefed Clarke as to what was needed on the 19th August & there is even a specific quote for de Guingand telling Clarke what he was needed from the plan. So, almost certainly, Barkas was given one portion of the finalised plan (a month later) by de Guingand and may have been unaware of the wider aspects of Bertram & Clarke's full role - this is not unexpected, Clarke was obsessed with secrecy (which is one reason he let Maskelyne mouth off, because it took attention away from those doing the real deception). --Errant (chat!) 10:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That all makes sense. Stroud p193 says however that the radio deception before El Alamein, accompanying Bertram, was "Operation Canwell" which consisted of "25 radio transmitters pretending to be the Eighth Army Tactical HQ and the HQ of a corps, two divisions and five brigades... messages from the men of straw." So Barkas may be right after all, Bertram was purely canvas and palm-frond hurdles. Clarke thus ran 4 deceptions for El Alamein: Sentinel, Bertram, Canwell, and Treatment (the supposed invasion of Crete). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On pg. 155 Latimer says that Richardson planned the details of Bertram - any mention of this in Barkas? Latimer notes five subsidiaries; Diamond, Brian, Munassib, Martello and Murrayfield. Diamond was the water pipeline, Martello and Murrayfield related to the movement of X Corps but I am still unclear what that consisted of, Brian was related to dummy admin camps and Munassib was the machine gun pits. You are right about Canwell and Treatment being companion operations, apologies. 24th Brigade (Australia) also mounted a diversionary attack which officially was part of Op. Bertram, but it has no subsidiary name I can find. Actually figuring out who was responsible for what is difficult for this period of the war as it was fast paced and a little frantic - but it appears Barkas was responsible for the camoflage elements (i.e. the most part of the op.) and various other formations were involved as drivers etc. I'm unfamiliar with Barkas' exact placement in the chain of command - from what I can make out he was a staff officer in GHQ for 8th Army? So it seems possible he worked out the camouflage elements with Richardson in charge of the overall Op. planning. Interesting stuff! --Errant (chat!)

Martello was the holding area for tanks, initially populated with trucks, and then with tanks under Sunshields. It ran alongside the railway by El Imayid station. Murrayfield North and South, and Melting Pot, were holding areas for openly placed tanks further to the rear. When the real tanks moved up to Martello, dummies took their places in these 3 areas. Munassib in the south was a double-bluff, with dummy guns badly camouflaged so the enemy would see them, and then replaced with real antitank guns when the enemy attacked there. There's a clear map on pp192-3 of Barkas, and a scan of a messy Dec 1942 plan on pp193-4 of Stroud.

Lt-Col Barkas was Director of Camouflage at GHQ (Grey Pillars, Cairo) for the whole of the Middle East Command, not just 8th Army. He also ran the camouflage school and workshops at Helwan. Like most of his camoufleurs he was an artist (a film-maker) and didn't fit in too easily as a staff officer. Not sure Clarke and his frock fitted in that well either...Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right! That makes a lot more sense. :) A lot of these characters seem oddballs, but I suppose that is what was needed for the role... From what I've picked up out of the sources they all knocked heads with regularity :) Before I get sidetracked; is the article as it reads OK or is there more needs changing? --Errant (chat!) 16:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It reads beautifully. I've been so bold as to add brief mention of Canwell and Treatment. You may possibly want to refer to Steven Sykes (artist) for his meeting with Clarke. The ref is
  • Sykes, Steven (1990). Deceivers Ever: The Memoirs of a Camouflage Officer. Tunbridge Wells: Spellmount.
    ISBN 0-946-771-54-5. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Image review - 1941: Cairo image caption needs editing for grammar, licensing is unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I reviewed the articles in quite some detail at the A-class review and thought it was of FA standard then. I've followed the changes that have happened since and I don't see any cause for concern. This is an excellent and very interesting article and well deserving if FA status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment - briefly, as I commented at the first FAC but was unable to return before I went on a wikibreak, I've looked over the responses and changes made back then, and they all look fine to me apart from a few points I'll raise here (plus the matter of the 'pages' parameter in the 'cite book' template - that parameter is used to generate a cite to a range of pages, never to give page totals for a book!). The one (serious) quibble I have is about where he died. I pointed you to a page in the London Gazette that gave his address at the time of death. The article now says he died there. Unless your source explicitly says he died in his apartment, you can't say that, as he may have died somewhere else (such as in hospital). All I was pointing out was that we have an article on the place where he lived at one point. Other than that, the work done on the article then and since looks excellent (I looked over this FAC as well, briefly), and once the point I raised here is cleared up, I'd be happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - based on the above and the comments at the previous FAC. One further comment: the lead could do with trimming. Maybe ask someone new to the article to see what they think could be done in that direction? Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- per Carcharoth, I've trimmed a little bit that I felt we could do without in the lead, see what y'all think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, Ian. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that looks great. Thanks Ian. @all; thanks for the review, comments and support - sorry for being so uncommunicative, this has been a busy week :) --Errant (chat!) 22:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 02:33, 16 November 2012 [15].

Terms of Endearment (The X-Files)

Nominator(s): Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Terms of Endearment" is a later series episode of the X-Files, featuring a guest appearance by a cult b-movie actor. Hopefully another article in a long series of featured material from the X-Files wikiproject, I believe the article meets the criteria for an FA. The article is a current GA, has been image reviewed, was promoted to an A-Class article, underwent a peer review and has been under seen by about a dozen editors now and has been copy-edited. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Edits and improvements look really good!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on all criteria, per the numerous copy-edits made to it.
    andley 15:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments: While I appreciate that this article has been peer reviewed and had an A-Class review, I'm a little concerned by the lack of comment given to this article for the two supports. To be fair, Gen. Quon commented at the A-Class review (a link to this would be nice), but two supports with no other comments seems cursory. I've noticed this on a couple of X-Files articles at FAC, and I think a little more is needed to be honest. This is not to detract from the articles, which are usually of a high standard, nor to criticise the nominators. But I think the articles deserve better; it is the fussy little comments that make them as good as possible and add the final polish. Just from looking at the lead of this one, I spotted several such issues. Nothing major, but things that should really have been picked up. Having said all that, I think this is a pretty decent article which is just about there. Here are my fussy little comments, and I look forward to supporting. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, nitpicking is welcomed by me if it helps to improve the article. This is an FA after all. I only wish that every editor has such an enthusiasm for getting into the dirt of an article. Thank you for the time. For reference, the A-class nomination can be found in the talk page and both current supporters have copy-edited the article beforehand. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, if your talking about me, I actually did comment on all of the articles first
andley 23:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Lead

  • The 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences of the lead all begin "The episode…" Some more variety needed, I think.
Changed second occurrence to "it", "the episode..." is now only used twice, non-consecutively, same amount as the title of the episode itself. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode received mixed to positive reviews from critics; while the performance given by guest actor Bruce Campbell attracted positive comments, the episode's plot was criticized for various reasons.": Long sentence. I would suggest a new sentence after "critics" rather than a semi-colon. Also, we have two "episodes" in the sentence, and "critics…criticized".
Split up and rephrased. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode received mixed to positive reviews from critics": And still on that sentence, "mixed to positive reviews" sounds like a cop-out. Mixed to positive basically means mixed, unless you are making your own judgement on the overall picture given by the reviews.
Changed to mixed. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mulder is a believer in the paranormal, while the skeptical Scully has been assigned to debunk his work.": Nit-picky, but I'm not convinced that "while" is the best conjunction to use here as it suggests "at the same time" (which may be correct, but is lacking a little something) or "contrast". I'm not quite convinced that either of these works comfortably, but this is just my opinion and you may freely dismiss this one!
  • "an unborn child is abducted from the mother's womb": Maybe "its mother's womb" or "a mother's womb".
Changed to the former. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the FBI dismisses the case as irrelevant to the X-Files, Mulder and Scully steal the case and investigate the creature. While looking into the case": Case … case … case.
Valid point, changed to synonyms such as "assignment" and "report". Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Amann was inspired to write a story that was an inversion of the 1968 film Rosemary's Baby.": Maybe just "Amann wrote a story…"
Done. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many of the special effects used in the episode were created in a simplistic manner not requiring elaborate computer-generated effects.": Perhaps "Many of the episode's special effects were created without elaborate computer-generated effects".
Done. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode has attracted commentary on its unique representation of its antagonist": Not quite sure what this means.

"Attracted commentary" does not really say much, and we have "its … its". Maybe "Critics have commented/complemented/discussed the episode's unique representation of its antagonist"?

  • "has been noted": Similarly, a bit bland.
Changed the whole line to "Critics have complimented the episode's unique representation of its antagonist, who has been classified as a sympathetic villain." Better wording? More direct and distinct IMO. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

  • "and his pregnant wife, Laura,": Do we need commas here at all?
  • "While the police, who believe that the case may be an illegal abortion, are investigating, they find the remains of the baby in the garden furnace.": Is "they" the police? Also, some redundancy. Perhaps "The police, who suspect an illegal abortion, find the remains of the baby in the garden furnace.
Both done. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Betsy has a similar dream, except she recognizes the dream-demon as her husband." Surely Weinsider, not Betsy's (unnamed?) husband? Actually, reading on, I'm lost as to who Weinsider is married to. The first part names Laura as his wife, the second part names Betsy.
The first line of the plot section states "Wayne Weinsider and his pregnant wife Laura". After Laura goes to jail, Weinsider has an affair with Betsy. Betsy and him were not married however, so I just changed it to "recognizes the dream-demon as Weinsider" to clarify. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They have a short conversation before he is shot by the sheriff.": Maybe "After a short conversation, he is shot by the sheriff", but where has the sheriff come from?
Clarified. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After investigating what it was Weinsider was digging for, Mulder and Scully discover the remains of normal human babies in Betsy's yard.": Perhaps "Mulder and Scully discover remains of normal human babies in Betsy's yard where Weinsider was digging."
Changed. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • "who gave him the green-light to write the rest of the episode": Green-light is a little jargony perhaps; what about "commissioned"?
Changed. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This draft also called for the devil to unsuccessfully seek a human baby, leading to the murder of his wife.": I don't quite follow how these two events are connected. And I really hate split infinitives ("to unsuccessfully follow") although I know some people are fine with them, and they are arguably OK to use.
Clarified and re-worded to "his draft also called for the devil to seek a human baby, resulting in the sacrifice of his wife". I think its easier to see how the two things are now connected. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the filming of "Terms of Endearment", a cast member had to withdraw mid-production for religious reasons when the mother of the baby who was to be used withdrew her child from the cast during the final run-through of the "cursed-birth" scene.": Horribly long sentence which needs splitting to make it easier to follow. Maybe split after "religious reasons".
Simple enough, done. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Despite her being a fan of the show, as a devout Catholic she did not want to allow her child to represent a demon because it conflicted with her faith.": Maybe just "Although a fan of the show…". And I'm unaware of anything in Catholicism about not representing demons, so maybe this could be rephrased. Maybe something along the lines of her being uncomfortable owing to her faith?
Done. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pranking the crew members with "farting contests"": Do we really need to know in this much detail what the pranks were? In fact, I would cut the prank part altogether as unencyclopedic, but feel free to disagree on that one.
Good point; removed "farting contests", (although I was just going with what the reference said, weirdly enough) but left the more general information. It adds detail to Campbell's comment and offers a view of what went on in the set, no matter how immature. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my browser, the filming sub-heading is shoved out of place by the Duchovny photo.
Fixed (on my browser at least). Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which had been downgraded from a BMW Z3 in the rewrite process. ": Is this relevant?
Removed. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several of the special effects used in the episode were created in a "low-stress" manner that did not rely wholly on special effects.": This does not quite make sense, as it effectively says that the special effects did not require special effects!
Just changed to CGI. "Computer-generated effects" is already used in the lead and otherwise there would be two instances of "effects" in the sentence. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "set a distance away from a fire-proof bed": Are the qualities of the bed relevant?
Adds detail about the dream sequence. It was the most intricate effect of the episode featured during one of the most notable scenes, so I would presume so personally. There are four sentences dedicated to the effect, plus the lead image. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

  • "The episode has been described as an inversion of the 1968 horror film Rosemary's Baby": Described by who?
Donearoo. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flipping the general way that villains are often portrayed in the genre.": I think we need a better word than flipping, and I think we could lose "general" from the sentence.
Removed general, changed "flipping" to "subverted" (since it has to do with a horror trope). Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast and reception

  • "Years following the episode's original broadcast…": Does this not need to begin "In the…"?
  • "Cinefantastique later named a scene from "Terms of Endearment" as the ninth scariest moment in The X-Files.": I think it's worth saying which scene this was.
  • "Although a positive impression left by Campbell, the character was later portrayed by actor Robert Patrick.": I don't think the two parts of this sentence are connected. Maybe cut everything before "the character was…".
All done. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

  • Maybe make it clear that the photograph of Robert Patrick shows him, and not Campbell, as both are mentioned in the caption but it is not indicated who the photographs portrays. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have altered the article as per your comments. If there are additional things that need to be changed in your view, simply let me know and I'll continue to apply any additional fixes. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I've done some copyediting, but please feel free to revert anything I mess up or which you aren't happy with. I think we're nearly there. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead states that Mulder and Scully steal the case, the main body states that (only) Mulder "salvages the case". Which is correct?
Mulder salvages the case, but both him and Scully investigate it. Would something like "After the FBI dismisses the assignment as irrelevant to the X-Files, Mulder steals the case and investigates the creature with Scully." be better or it is too needlessly wordy? Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That phrasing seems fine, my question was more a case of: did he/they literally 'steal the case, as in the lead, or just take it after someone else had discarded it. The two accounts seem to contradict each other slightly. From what you say here, maybe change "steal" in the lead. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The husband quickly confesses to destroying the evidence after he found his wife had aborted the child in a trance-like state.": Not too sure here, a bit wordy. A little ambiguous about who is in a trance-like state; did he confess after finding his wife, or destroy evidence after finding his wife. Needs a little work.
The wife aborts the child while in a trance (supported bellow with "what Laura Weinsider was to have said while "in a trance""). Changed to be clearer. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the plot section, would names work better than repeatedly using "the husband" or "the wife"?
  • "Mulder deduces that this wife...": Some confusion over wives again?
  • "recognize her husband as a demon in her dream" and "to frame her demon husband": More husband/wife confusion?
Changed where appropriate; reads clearer again (this wife to Betsy, his wife to Laura, etc). Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This draft also called for the devil to seek a human baby, resulting in the sacrifice of his wife.": Whose wife?
It was just a draft, I presume characters didn't have names at that point. Considering why he's called "the devil" and not Wayne at that point, it wasn't established by the writer at that current point. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was composed by Mark Snow": If memory serves, he was the regular composer. Worth a mention?
Added.
  • "The quote "Zazas, zazas, nasatanada zazas"—supposedly what Laura Weinsider was to have said while "in a trance"—": Not quite clear. Did she say it or not? And maybe no need for "supposedly"
She did say it, the "supposedly" doesn't refer to whether or not she actually said it, but that "Zazas, zazas, nasatanada zazas" is "supposedly" what she said. Since incoherent mumbling all kinda sounds the same unless its a reference to something. Removed "supposedly". Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, maybe just switch to "what Laura Weinsider said while "in a trance"." Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to state in two separate sentences that the production and filming took place in California?
  • "noting that it undermines the character's degree from Oxford in psychology.": Not sure that the line can undermine the degree; maybe something along the lines of undermining established continuity within the series that Mulder had a degree, etc.
Both simple enough suggestions, applied I believe. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article had too many instances of "episode". I've reworded quite a lot, but check for others. Also watch out for instances of close repetition of the same word, as I've changed a few things there too. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed some around, with "installment", "entry", etc where appropriate, however "episode" is the most clear word in most of the instances. I removed 16 instances of the word nontheless, which I think is much more reasonable. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, btw, for your copy-editing, I just moved a thing or two around plus applied responses to your changes and otherwise I think it all works. I assume it reads just as fine to someone who has never seen the show. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support: The last changes look fine, although don't go overboard with synonyms for "episode": some of them may be a bit much. I think this pretty much meets the criteria; certainly in terms of comprehensiveness and clarity. And judging by previous reviews, it is fine from the viewpoint of subject matter. My one remaining hesitancy is regarding prose. I think it's just about OK now, but it may stand further tightening in places. I would feel happier if someone else had a look at it as well before I switch to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've gone through it myself, tweaking the prose here and there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say that's very appreciated! Thank you for taking the time. Bruce Campbell (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: OK, happy to switch to full support now. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment: CGI and Rob Bowman are both DAB links. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed at the speed of light. Bruce Campbell (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I supported this one last time on the strength of its scope and presentation (MOS, neutrality etc etc), and now that the prose has been improved to match it I see no reason to support again. GRAPPLE X 18:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check -- appear unproblematic. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 02:33, 16 November 2012 [16].

Anne Hutchinson

Nominator(s): Sarnold17 (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...

  • (1)The subject is quite notable: Anne Hutchinson has been called the most famous (or infamous) English woman in colonial American history.
  • (2) The article gets a lot of hits--more than 70,000 last month. (September 2012)
  • (3) I've been researching and editing the article for the past 15 months, and feel that it is complete and well written.
  • (4) The article recently went through an extensive peer review.
  • (5) I've been with wikipedia for two years, have a handful of good articles, and now it's high time I see what the FA process is all about. Sarnold17 (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - welcome to FAC, Sarnold! Some sourcing and image-related commentary to get you started:

  • I notice you've centred your captions - any particular reason for that?
  • For the look
  • File:JohnCotton.jpg needs a US copyright tag, as does File:JohnWinthropColorPortrait.jpg, File:Nicaea_icon.jpg and File:Calvin.png
  • I'm not sure what I need to do to fix this; I don't want to reinvent the wheel, and could use someone with expertise to help with this seemingly simple fix. Will be fixed shortly The Cotton and Winthrop images have been fixed. Christian History template that contained the Nicaea image has been removed. I am prepared to remove the Calvinism template if the Calvin image cannot be easily licensed.
  • File:Anne_Hutchinson_statue.jpeg: as the US does not have freedom of panorama for statues, you'll need to account for its copyright status in addition to the licensing already present for the photo
  • Can I get some help with this?
  • Do we know who created the statue and when it was erected? If so, we can add a second licensing tag as appropriate (PD-old-100, PD-US, whatever). Here's an example of an image that does this: separate licensing tags for the photo and the statue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new licensing tag has been added to the image file.
  • Make sure all page ranges use
    endashes
    , not hyphens, and decide whether you'd like to abbreviate ranges or write out both numbers in full each time
  • Can a bot do this? Done; numbers written out in full for page ranges
  • There is a script available for the former issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN56 is broken
  • Fixed
  • Web citations should always include publisher
  • All of the web references have been redone.
  • What makes this a high-quality
    reliable source? This
    ?
  • Normally I'd agree with you on the former, but the particular subpage you're citing is a wiki, which raises a big flag as to reliability. Who can edit the page? What kind of editorial oversight does the host site employ? To give you an analogy, an official statement by the Wikimedia Foundation would be a reliable source, but a Wikipedia article editable by anyone wouldn't be. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the website, but the ancestor chart (a photo on the site) that is the source. It is not editable, and can be enlarged to see the relationships.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher for Austin?
  • Added
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher location for books
  • My intent is to always include publisher location (as long as I can find it, which may not always be the case with google books). Have I missed some? Publisher location added to five sources
  • Check for template glitches like doubled periods
  • If I see an example I'll know what to look for. Now fixed.
  • FN130 needs a full citation
  • Added
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher for journals
  • publisher info removed from two journal references so that all are now consistent
  • No citations to Colacurcio, Gomes, Koehler, Risjord, Rogers
  • all five have been removed; they were either from removed material, or else from websites
  • Further reading should be an independent section, not a subsection. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reformatted
  • Comments
    • You have a mix of citation styles, books are sfn, and web sites aren't. They should be consistent. SFN is the way to go here because most of your refs are already in that format. See Franz Kafka and Harry S. Truman for examples of how to put web sites into sfn. Let me know if you have questions.PumpkinSky talk 02:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is MOST helpful. I've been wanting to do this for more than a year, but didn't want to spend an hour reading a technical manual. Five minutes with a good example is all it took. Thank you for the education!Sarnold17 (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the disclaimer that I did the peer review. This is an excellently researched and comprehensive piece of work. A few nitpicks:

  • I agree with Nikkimaria; Familysearch isn't a reliable source, so either we find one (wouldn't the Mormon Church have something?) or that material has to be deleted until something better is found.
  • I'm not sure what the issue is here. The source is the Mormon Church. The source being cited is not the web site, per se, but a photograph of an ancestor chart presented in the website. The ancestor chart hangs on a wall of the Family History Library, which is a branch of the Mormon Church. The Family History Library, which I believe is the largest genealogical library in the world, is basically endorsing that ancestor chart by putting it on their wall. This chart, which can be enlarged by clicking on it, shows every generation between Anne Hutchinson and each one of the prominent descendants mentioned in the article. Since some of the chart is difficult to read, I've downloaded a copy that I can further enlarge to read the fine print.Sarnold17 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't realized that. Change the citation to show the site is published by the Church of Latter Day Saints. In that case it's fine, and if the Family History Library shows a picture of the plaque on the wall that can at a later date be found and not sourced to a wiki, that would be better, but having seen that it's the Church's wiki, I'll accept it. Also suggest linking to
    talk) 23:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Not sure this is required, but the Winthrop quotes are attributed to Winship (presumably quoted from there) which is confusing. When taking a secondary quote from a reference I tend to add something like "qtd. in ..." Not sure whether {sfn}s allow this though. So maybe not necessary.
  • This sounds like a valid point; are there specific places I've done this, or is it widespread through the article? I'd like to attribute quotes to the speaker.Sarnold17 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's widespread because Winthrop is quoted often but no Winthrop in the sources that I can find.
    talk) 23:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's not strictly necessary, but I mean that when a Winthrop quote is taken from Winship, should be formatted as "quoted in Winship, p. xx" or something like that. The problem, as I mentioned above, is that I don't think {sfn}s allow for this.
    talk) 00:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I see what you mean and you're attributing to the secondary instead of the primary source. Adding after edit conflict - agree that it's not worth pursuing.
    talk) 01:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I'm still combing through and if I find anything else will post later.

talk
) 21:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC) I'm still combing through and if I find anything else will post later.
talk) 21:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for your support.Sarnold17 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this well-written article about an especially important American. Kolob1x2 (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to support, with the rider that I'm short of time and have only read the first half. Beautiful prose. The paragraph "Events of 1637" however has no citations at all. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes we just can't see the forest for the trees. Two inline references have been added.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've been giving this article a nice read since last night, and I've gotta to hand it to you; It looks great. I'm happy to support.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes -- hello Sarnold, and welcome to FAC...

  • Going through the lead, while I tend to agree with Hamiltonstone on the overall quality of the prose, a couple of sentences went on a bit, and seemed to benefit from breaking up. Sarnold, could I ask you to walk through the main body of the article to see if there are similar occurrences that could do with recasting. No need to go overboard, we don't want short staccato sentences either, but if you look at what I considered needed attention in the lead I hope you'll get the idea.
  • Truthkeeper and I have gone through and done some sentence maintenance, breaking up a few very long sentences, and reformatting a few others for improved readability.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that TK was satisfied with his spotcheck of sources in the earlier Peer Review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 17:34, 15 November 2012 [17].

Frank's Cock

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a thorough look at an interesting and fairly significant short film. This is admittedly a bit different than my usual FAC material, but I'm certain you'll find it an engaging read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from TBrandley moved to talk

Support - most of my concerns were answered in the peer review, with just a few more minor points:

  • "first venture at directly addressing" - I think this should be either "first attempt at directly addressing" or "first venture directly addressing"
  • "After pondering how to complete the film...chose to complete the film" - repetitive
  • "In screenings Frank's Cock was later marketed" - don't think "later" fits here, either it was marketed during the screenings or after them
  • "films regarding the disease had appeared...had appeared in 1985" - repetitive
  • "early gay pioneers with AIDS" - by "pioneers" do you mean activists or open spokespeople, or just any gay person with AIDS?
  • Source has "artists", changed to that (he gives
    Arthur J. Bressan, Jr. as examples from the first generation). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Were there any copyright concerns raised about the clips appropriated for the non-original quadrants?
  • "touted the short as expressing, humour, and sexual obsession" - is that a stray comma after "expressing", or do you mean "expressive"? (Or is this a quote?)
  • Cole: page range should use endash

Support. Well written, meticulously sourced, educational and encyclopedic. However, like Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), I've just got a few minor points that could be addressed:

  • Any chance of an image for the infobox? Some sort of movie poster, or something like that?
  • Haven't found anything like that. Theoretically we could put the screencap there, but it works better next to where it is discussed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we perchance get a See also section, with suggestions for the reader of between 3-5 articles they might be interested in, and also some links to related portals?
  • Suggest adding a Further reading section, with recommendations of 4-6 books or scholarly articles or other sources of further reading for the reader within the more general topics discussed, not necessarily relating specifically to the film?
  • I've added a bit of both. Not sure on the relevance of the further reading selection, but it would likely provide good background knowledge for the interested reader. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts on this high quality article, — Cirt (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I reviewed this for GA - I found the prose very warm and engaging, really a nice read, and it is comprehensive as well. I can't think of anything else to improve. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Pretty small article, but well researched! It's a pleasant read and I'm impressed with your notes and referencing. Nice job!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes -- picky referencing things:

  • Couldn't see where McIntosh appeared in the citations -- perhaps the ref belongs in a Further Reading section.
  • I had added the author after adding the reference and neglected to update the short references.
  • Inconsistent formatting for multiple authors: "Rush and Baughman 1997" vs. " Reinke & Henricks 1997" (actually, I believe the best method is to mirror the full reference format that uses a semi-colon, e.g. "Reinke; Henricks 1997", but it's not a deal-breaker for me).
  • Standardised to "&", as that is default for SFN.
  • Why is Ann Arbor Film Festival abbreviated "AA Film Fest" while Toronto International Film Festival is abbreviated TIFF? Unless these differ because they're official abbreviations, they should be consistent.
  • I was going based on website names, but it appears Ann Arbor also uses AAFF. Changed.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check -- adequate FUR for screenshot, portrait released with OTRS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 19:10, 14 November 2012 [18]
.

HMS Argus (I49)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Converted from an ocean liner during World War I, Argus was the first aircraft carrier with a full-length flight deck. Too slow to keep up with the fleet and too small to carry many aircraft, she spent much of her career on secondary duties like deck-landing training and as an aircraft ferry. Argus was one of only two out of seven British pre-war carriers to survive World War II, although she was scrapped shortly afterwards. This article had a MilHist A-class review back in February and shouldn't require much work to bring it up to FA standards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • No dab or external link issues.
  • Reviewed and copyedited at MilHist A-Class Review earlier in the year and was happy with referencing, structure, prose, coverage and images (though alt text could be added).
  • No source spotcheck on my part but I'm yet to see any serious concerns in that regard in one of Storm's articles so up to other reviewers/delegates to determine if they need to see one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Consider disambiguating the Brown sources by date rather than first name, as you use a very similar format for multi-author cites
  • FN17: why the date? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "the ship was heavily involved for several years in the development of the optimum design for other aircraft carriers, various types of arresting gear and general procedures needed to operate a number of aircraft in concert, and fleet cooperation" - this is a bit of a mouthful
    • Reworded.
  • "Existing carriers could launch wheeled aircraft, but had no way to recover them" - can you briefly describe the design of these ships? (I presume that they had a flying off ramp, but nothing which resembled a flight deck)
    • Clarified.
  • "and Beardmore began work on converting the ship" - should this refer to Beardmore developing plans for the conversion of the ship?
    • I'm not sure what you're concerned about here; Beardmore was the builder of the Conte Rosso and physically converted her into an aircraft carrier.
      • Read literally, the current wording states that Beardmore did all the physical work on the ship himself. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As it was originally designed for an ocean liner, her hull was built to minimise rolling and most of the changes made to the ship had added weights high in the ship, thus raising her centre of gravity." - this is a bit unclear. Splitting it into two sentences might help.
    • I'm going to have to look at my source again to see if I can clarify this.
      • How does it read now?
  • "The same month, the ship was used to evaluate the effects of an island" - this doesn't seem quite right; how about "The same month, the ship was used in trials to evaluate the effects which an island superstructure would have on flying operations" or similar?
    • Good idea.
  • It should be noted that the ship was commissioned too late to play any part in World War I
    • Done.
  • "Argus was inclined" - what does this mean?
  • "Washington Naval Treaty classified her as experimental" - should 'ship' or 'aircraft carrier' be added at the end of this wording?
    • Seems kind of redundant as the reader already knows that she's a ship and an aircraft carrier.
      • Not many readers will be aware of the systems of classifications included in the Washington Treaty, so material to clarify this would be helpful to them. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In February 1936, it was decided to refit the ship as a Queen Bee tender" - you should note here what this involved
    • Sources don't specify, although I suspect that this really only involved radio equipment to guide the drones.
      • I'd suggest using the wording 'a tender for Queen Bee target drones' or similar to clarify this. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and New Zealander troops" - should read "and New Zealand troops" ('New Zealander' is the singular form, and isn't very common these days)
    • Done.
  • "space was made to land the Swordfish to load the torpedoes" - this is a bit awkward
    • How does it read now?
      • Still confusing I'm afraid (the ship couldn't make space; this was the role of her crew). Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Condors that patrolled the Bay of Biscay and the Western Atlantic" - this should be 'eastern Atlantic'
    • Indeed.
  • "On her return to the United Kingdom she began a lengthy refit." - a refit which lasted no more than two months can't really be called 'lengthy' (a 'lengthy' refit can last for years)
    • Agreed.
  • It's interesting that this ship successfully operated in some of the most submarine-infested waters in the Atlantic during 1940 to 1942. Can anything be said about how she escaped without (apparently) being attacked? - was she heavily escorted, or fast, or just lucky?
    • My sources don't deal with this, but German submarines were not very successful in attacking Allied warships unless they laid in wait outside a port or were escorting slower merchantmen. This was, I expect, because warships typically travelled at speeds that the submarines couldn't match, even on the surface.
  • "When Eagle flew off seven more Spitfires whilst Argus flew 10 Fulmars and two Sea Hurricanes of 807 Squadron covered the operation from Argus." - this is rather repetitive
    • Rewritten.
  • Should Operation Harpoon be linked?
    • Done.
  • The statement in the lead that "By 1942, the Royal Navy was very short of aircraft carriers and Argus was pressed into front-line service despite her lack of speed and armament." isn't directly supported by material in the body of the article (though I believe that it's correct) Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • An indirect reference added after Ark Royal was sunk. Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 05:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 17:42, 11 November 2012 [19]
.

Stanley Savige

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Australian general of World War II. Stanley Savige is one of the more controversial. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

  • File:Savige.jpg: source link is broken
    • Updated. However, because the FAC one-at-a-time rule guarantees that articles take years to come up, so we should not attempt to repair link rot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:KandaSurrender.jpg: source link returns error
    • That's not true. In the box below I noted that I uploaded a new copy from the AWM, and that link was not broken. The original has not moved far in fact. I've updated the page on Commons, but the one-at-a-time rule says that link rot is acceptable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1: page?
  • FN8: what kind of source is this?
  • FN65, 93: page?
  • FN95: publisher?
  • Dexter: formatting
  • Hetherington: formatting

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Reviewed and supported this for MilHist A-Class but it was so long ago that I've treated it here as though I'd never reviewed it, and gone through it again top to bottom making a few edits along the way -- happy with prose, structure, detail, refs, and images.
    • The article dates from 2009. I have 18 articles that could be FAC noms, but I only get six FACs per year due to the one-at-a-time rule. So it takes about three years for one to come up to FAC. This one only made it in 2012 because I was considered it for a good topic. That's why I wanted to replace FAC with a MILHIST A+ review, where articles could be properly reviewed without going through FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One minor thing, the quote box from Blamey reads in part: "Tell me what when he has let me down in this war!" -- is "what" actually in the quote or is that a typo?
    • Typo. Corrected. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I made a few minor tweaks, but not a lot stood out to me. I believe that this article meets the FA criteria. I have only a couple of minor points below:

  • the duplicate link checker identifies a few examples of overlink: Military Cross, Australian Army Cadets, Charles Bean, John Gellibrand, Edmund Herring, I Corps (Australia), Robert Menzies;
  • should OCLC numbers be added for the works without ISBNs?
  • you might consider adding alt text to the images, although I don't believe it to be a requirement

[20] AustralianRupert (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • What's with the linking of countries?
    • I linked "Assyria" because I didn't think people knew where it was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Egypt? Iran? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope. From the Assyria article: Today that ancient territory is part of several nations; the north of Iraq, part of southeast Turkey and northeast Syria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I meant "why are Egypt and Iran [should have been Iraq] linked? Japan too." Per
            WP:OVERLINK those are a bit of overkill. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
            ]

Support This is a very good quality article which meets the FA criteria. I have only the following minor comments:

  • "Later transferring to the Western Front" - this suggests that he had some choice in where he was sent, which I doubt was the case
  • "He was returned to Australia" - 'was returned to Australia' is normally applied to soldiers sent home in disgrace, which doesn't seem to be the case here
  • The lead should note Savige's post-WW2 activities
  • "In 1930, he ran unsuccessfully for the Electoral district of Caulfield on the Nationalist Party of Australia ticket" - you should probably specify that this was an election for the Victorian state parliament

Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor quibbles. Have been watching this develop, but two things for now neither of which are within a stones throw of an oppose. I dont like the two sentance forst para. I also dont like "——" in the refs, it makes me all confused. Thre are a few other small things that I can fix myself. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 19:35, 8 November 2012 [21]
.

Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych

Nominator(s):
Truthkeeper88, Ceoil, Kafka Liz
.

Fairly disturbing c 1430-40

talk) 21:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Hi, thanks for the comments. I've linked
    talk) 13:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments from Maralia - I have made some minor copyedit tweaks to the article. A few remaining grammar problems:

  • "Two figures stand, one each, to the far left and right of the centre group, identified as prophesying sibyls." - Oh, the poor commas :) Perhaps 'The fourth and fifth mourners, identified as prophesying sibyls, stand to the far left and right of the centre group.'
  • "and in its realism, he believes, more terrifying than anything earlier seen in painting." - 'and more terrifying in its realism, he believes, than anything earlier seen in painting'.
  • "The bat-like death figure, with skull extruding into the earth and skeletal arms and legs down into hell" - How can something extrude into something?
  • This has been improved, but we still have " The bat-like death figure, with skull [...] skeletal arms and legs [extruding] into hell."
  • "The panels are today generally accepted as having been completed during the 1430s, although a wide span of dates has been put forward from early half of the 20th century." - Awkward and missing an article. Perhaps 'Today the panels are generally accepted as having been completed during the 1430s, although during the first half of the 20th century a wide span of dates were put forward.'
  • "In 1983, Belting and Eichberger suggested c. 1430 based on the narrative character of the works; a style defined by a "birds-eye view" perspective and horizon, densely packed figures and, especially, a pictorial narrative that moves logically across the areas of the image." - I'm not sure how to parse this sentence; is this a list of 4 things (narrative character, birds-eye perspective, densely-packed figures, pictorial narrative that moves) or are the latter 3 meant to be an elaboration on 'narrative character'?

There are some redundancies or seemingly misplaced bits in the sections for Format and Technique, Dating, Attribution, and Provenance:

  • The 'possible triptych' issue is addressed at length in the Format and Technique section and then twice in the Provenance section; in the latter, the conclusion that the work was not a triptych is obfuscated by language such as "this lost panel" and "the central panel".
  • Likewise, the issue of private vs public commission is addressed in the Format and Technique section and then at further length in the Provenance section, where it seems somewhat out of place.
  • This sentence in the Attribution section seems to more properly belong in the Dating section: "The similarity of a Turin drawing of the crucified Christ to the figure in the New York diptych has led some art historians to conclude they were, at least, painted near the same time, during the 1420s and early 1430s."
  • There is some internal redundancy in the Provenance section, where we have "The panels were kept in a convent in Spain until sometime before 1841", followed shortly by "the panels were bought at auction from either a Spanish monastery or convent", followed two paragraphs later by "He lived in Spain between 1815 and 1821 and is thought to have bought the work from a Spanish convent or monastery near Madrid or Burgos."
  • This still needs to be cleaned up. Chronological order would be an improvement; the sentence "Nothing is known of the work's provenance before the early 19th century" is particularly out of place as it comes some two paragraphs after the subject was addressed.

All that said, this is fine work and I look forward to supporting. Maralia (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, thanks for these good comments. Working on them.
    talk) 16:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Thank you Maralia for these constructive pointers, I had been distracted all week with work, able to help now in going through the page. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck a few more that are definitely resolved. Still have some quibbles with Provenance and the triptych issue spread between there & Format and Technique; taking a look at it now to see if I can offer a solution or at least a better explanation of the problem as I see it. Maralia (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just took a stab at fixing the remaining issues as I saw them, reorganizing the Provenance section and moving a small bit on attribution out to that section. I think it's an improvement, but of course you should feel free to revert if y'all don't like it. I was careful to keep the associated citations, but I did have to minorly rework the wording in a few instances, so please check to make sure I haven't misrepresented the sources.
In reviewing my edit just now to make sure nothing was lost, I see that I neglected to reincorporate the bolded portion of this sentence: "In 1841 the German painter J.D. Passavant attributed the panels jointly to Hubert and Jan van Eyck and believed the lost centre panel may have been a nativity.[1]". I had intended to nudge it into the triptych bit inside Format and technique. Uncertain how to do that now, as "In 1841 JD Passavant believed the lost centre panel may have been a nativity" is somewhat strange on its own; can we say he wrote this, perhaps? Maralia (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, that works very well. Sometimes it takes another set of eyes to see the problem and honestly I've looked at this page so many times, I've lost a bit of perspective. I "rescued" the lost Passavant bit, adding to a sentence in the Technique section [22] - which I think works. This has been a most helpful review.
talk) 19:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for being receptive to my reorganization. I know how hard it is to see something you've read and jiggered hundred times—and likewise how much work it is to check that someone else's rejiggering of it is helpful and complete. My issues are all resolved; will keep an eye on changes resulting from Johnbod's review below, and look forward to supporting. Maralia (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestions have been extremely good and have helped with the structure of those sections. Thanks again.
talk) 19:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Looking very good. Some comments:
  • "By contrast, depictions of the Crucifixion were usually presented in landscape." - ambiguous, "... usually presented in "landscape" format." or "horizontal"
  • "the German painter J.D. Passavant speculated in 1841,2 - barely notable as a painter, but a leading art historian of his day.
  • Reworded as art historian.
    talk) 19:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "far more thematically reserved." - bit unclear - is "limited in subject matter" or similar meant?
  • "Van Eyck seems to regard the onlookers in the mid-ground largely with scorn" bit subjective - "Van Eyck depicts the onlookers in the mid-ground with an element of caricature" maybe?
  • Direct quote for scorn is here: [23]. Because this has been mentioned before, I think it should be reworded by someone other than me. In the meantime, I've attributed it to Burroughs.
    talk) 23:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Ok, not a style I much like - van Eyck was a rather cool observer if you ask me. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tried my hand at this; please let me know if it works. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the armoured centurion, seated on a white horse to the right of the base of the cross, who looks up at Christ with an expression approaching awe" - traditionally
    Saint Longinus - ok linked later, but should probably be introduced here. Mention profil perdu
    ?
Tweaked this a tiny bit - let me know if I've trimmed too much, and I'll work the description back in. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... in keeping with the idea that the panel captures the moment of Jesus' death." maybe spell out this happened during a big storm, per the Gospels?
  • My inclination is probably not necessary. I haven't read this in the sources but maybe Ceoil has in his sources. Up to him.
    talk) 01:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • "Van Eyck pointedly shows members of the nobility and clergy among those condemned to hell.[23]" Is that what the ref says - I can see 2 crowns, 2 mitres, 1 cardinal's hat & several tonsures, but nothing obviously relating to the nobility?
  • Attribution and dating - it perhaps needs to be explained that division of the existing works between Jan & Hubert has involved movement in blocks, with this, the Turin-Milan Hours & other works being reattributed en bloc, generally driven in large part by what is thought of the Ghent Altarpiece.
  • If the Bosch-style monsters here are the first time this developed style occurs, as the Pacht quote suggests, this should aybe be brought out more strongly, refs permitting.

That's it. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for these Johnbod, I've fixed Passavant, will wait for someone else to tackle the issue of rewording scorn and am off to re-read Pacht.
    talk) 23:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support, all comments dealt with. A nice piece of work! Johnbod (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Johnbod! It's been a challenging piece to work on but I've enjoyed it.
    talk) 20:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of Sources
  • FN11: page formatting
  • No citations to Hand et al, either of the Harbisons
  • Vermij et al: is there meant to be a period after Vermij?
  • Nickel: pages? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nikkimaria. I think I got all of these.
    talk) 16:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Why not customary? Why have 2 cites when one will do. Oh well, they've done it now anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The close-up images are very useful. I love the gallery. ceranthor 20:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Ceranthor, the gallery could have contained twice as many images, it was hard to choose and exercise restraint! Looking into your points now, though not sure about the last one (2 pages), if both pages relate to the same train of though or point, its useful to the reader to know they are connected. But not married to the format either. Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, your right. All done except, yet, 5/31/40/57. Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are now done. Good catch here. Thanks, too, for the support.
    talk) 19:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Awesome, thanks. I'm confused, are reference six and seven duplicates? ceranthor 02:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore, looks like a typo from separating them.
talk) 02:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
....presenting the biblical episodes using a "narrative" technique "narrative" looks funny in quotation marks here.
or as the German art historian J.D. Passavant speculated in 1841, the lost centre panel may have been a Nativity - needs a comma after the "or" methinks....
It is now thought unlikely that this lost panel could be the postulated original companion to the outer wings - makes this sound like a definitive panel rather than "any" panel. Would an indefinite article be better here?
  • Thanks Cas, all good catches and hopefully now fixed.
    talk) 19:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 22:18, 7 November 2012 [24]
.

White-eyed River Martin

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A short article of necessity because this bird is probably extinct, and was only ever found at one wintering site in Thailand. Its scientific name commemorates a Thai princess, and an erroneous identification of a Chinese scroll painting raised hopes temporarily that it might breed in that country. Expanded from the previous GA version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Beung Boraphet" or "Bueng Boraphet"? Sub-article is titled Bueng, but has [[25]] as a source, which uses Beung (?). Could be a spelling variety, but you should stick to one - article has both spellings at the moment. GermanJoe (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I thought I'd checked for this obvious inconsistency. I guess it's a question of how people transliterate from the Thai alphabet, "Bung Boraphet" occurs quite often too. However, no excuse for inconsistency, all "Bueng" now, thanks for checking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first sentence of the last paragraph states: "The White-eyed River Martin and Rufous-fronted Babbler are the only bird species endemic to Thailand." However, the

Rufous-fronted Babbler article notes (without an in-line citation) that "An extirpated endemic Thailand form was formerly separated as Deignan's Babbler Stachyris rodolphei (Deignan, 1939), but is now considered as conspecific with to Rufous-fronted Babbler." If the latter is the accepted convention, the statement in this article should probably be clarified. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Support. Meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Comments by Sasata (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • useful lead links?: wintering, plumage, loss of habitat, animal trapping
  • "The sexes are similar," in appearance?
  • "who gave it the bird its" fix
  • "with the White-eyed River Martin probably being able"
  • "It was proposed in 1972" who proposed this?
  • "… but this was contested by other authorities." The citation is to a paper with a single author. Does the paper support the use of the plural "authorities"?
  • link vocalisations, morphology
  • why not include the wingspan, racquet, tail, and tarsus lengths from Turner 1989?
  • "Despite the lack of records from China, some field guides covering the region sometimes include this species, since it is the mostly likely breeding area outside Thailand,[27] although it is omitted from the most recent book.[28]" field guides (plural) -> the most recent book (singular)?
  • the following literature may have additional information (haven't checked myself):
Title: Was the 'Chinese' white-eyed river-martin an Oriental pratincole?
Author(s): Parkes, K.C.
Source: Forktail Supplement: No. 3 Pages: 68-69 Published: 1987
  • Doesn't add anything new, but since the full text is freely available I've added as a ref anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Title: The fate of the 'princess bird', or white-eyed river martin (Pseudochelidon sirintarae).
Author(s): Sophasan, S.; Dobias, R.
Source: Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society Volume: 32 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-10 Published: 1984
Title: When is a species really extinct? Testing extinction inference from a sighting record to inform conservation assessment
Author(s): Collen, Ben; Purvis, Andy; Mace, Georgina M.
Source: DIVERSITY AND DISTRIBUTIONS Volume: 16 Issue: 5 Pages: 755-764 DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00689.x Published: SEP 2010
  • I can't access the full text, but the abstract suggests that this is is an academic exercise which presumably is taken into account by the IUCN Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to my databases, the Thonglongya (1968) paper is pages 3–10 (not 9–15). Can you check?
  • Thanks for review and comments, if you think the extinction paper is useful, perhaps you could let know its conclusions wrt this species, and I'll add a sentence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your hunch was right about the paper, nothing worth including here. Added my support above. Sasata (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Maky:

  • The taxobox image File:PseudochelidonSirintarae.svg is based on photos, but the Commons description is not specific about which ones or where they are published. The description appears to match the photos, but if possible, I would prefer to see some sort of reference to published photos so that accuracy can be fact-checked.
  • Not my image, but I've added two McClure images to the description which I'm pretty sure are amongst those used. In general structure and plumage, Turner's Plate 1 also agrees. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the taxobox, you list the IUCN conservation status, but cite BirdLife International. I suggest citing the IUCN Red List listing (the original source). There might even be some new information covered in that source.
  • Done, although the info is the same since Birdlife does the assessments for IUCN. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, citations should not be needed in the taxobox. The taxobox should be a summary of what is already stated and cited in the article.
  • It's standard practice in the bird project, and it's likely to lead to more grief by taking cites out than leaving them in Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The authority for Eurochelidon should probably be noted in the article. The taxobox lists Kitti, so it should probably be stated that he suggested the taxonomic split.
  • "Although the fact that the first specimens were supposedly collected roosting..." – This sentence is a little long and convoluted to me.
  • "...and sold them to the director of the Nakhon Sawan Fisheries Station who was, of course, unable to keep them alive in captivity." – "of course"?
  • "Despite the lack of records from China, some field guides covering the region sometimes include this species, since it is the mostly likely breeding area outside Thailand, although it is omitted from the most recent book." – Which "most recent book"? You were talking about several books ("some field guides").
  • After reading the body, I feel like the lead was a little too short. A little bit more detail would be nice, considering most people will only read that before they move on.
  • With so few hard facts, I suppose one tries not to put all the goodies in the lead. Expanded now Jimfbleak - talk to me?

Otherwise, it's a good article. Just a few tweaks and a little discussion should lead to my support. – Maky « talk » 02:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for review and comments, I think the two reviews so far have certainly added to the quality of the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source/image comments

  • File:African_River_Martin_Hartlaub.jpg needs US PD tag
  • FN6: not sure series should be italicized here
  • FN8: link points to redirect, and who is the author?
  • Fixed and added
  • Be consistent in whether "editor(s)" is capitalized
  • FN34: page?

http://www.bird-stamps.org/cspecies/12300200.htm

  • I've repointed to here, just showing the stamp, which is all I need this site for. There are several similar sites, and I suppose the commercial sites could be considered more RS than the others, but I'm reluctant to link to a sales site. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting subject. Some quick comments-

  • "narrow racquets at the tips" Jargon in the lead
  • "and its wide bill suggests that it may have taken relatively large species" Tense
  • "The White-eyed River Martin was discovered as recently as" This seems a very strange way to phrase it
  • Maybe an odd question to an ornithologist, but if this area of Thailand is not the breeding ground, what is it?
  • It's only ever been seen in winter at this lake, so it doesn't breed there. Since many swallows and martins are migratory, it could breed almost anywhere else in Thailand, Vietnam, Burma, Cambodia or China. No breeding birds have ever been found, despite searching in likely areas, and if it's really extinct we may never know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I mean what is the area in Thailand? Would it be fair to call it the "wintering ground"? J Milburn (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It already says "wintering site" in the lead, and I've added the same phrase to "Distribution and habitat" now. I prefer "site" to "ground(s)", since to me that implies the whole area in which it winters. I'm not totally sure what you are getting at with this comment, so if I've misunderstood again, please feel free to tweak the text. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly what I was going for; thanks. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contraindication", according to a few dictionaries I've checked, is an exclusively medical term
  • "in site in response to persecution" Persecution is a rather loaded term, I think.
  • "although it is omitted from the most recent book, the 2008 Birds of East Asia.[32]" Even if that is literally the most recent book, which seems unlikely, that statement will rapidly go out of date.

Other than that, looks strong. J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. While it's a shorter article which, by its own admission, provides no information in certain areas, that is completely appropriate for the subject matter. Otherwise, it is well-written and very interesting. J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012 [26]
.

Typhoon Rusa

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Jason Rees (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it does a great job covering a significant typhoon just over 10 years ago. It struck South Korea and was the deadliest storm in 47 years. Hope you enjoy it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hurricanehink has invited me to help him as a co-nom in order to deal with some of the reviews.Jason Rees (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User:Hurricanehink has had to evacuate due to Hurricane Sandy so for the time being i will be responding to the comments.Jason Rees (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am confirming that this is true. The eye will be passing very near me soon, so I'll likely lose power for the next few days. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jesse V.

All of the links work fine for me. I think that toolserver thing is in error. It goes to Oanda, but the link in the article works fine. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Is FN13 also Lexis Nexis?
  • Some publications are missing italicization
  • FN33: newspaper/agency?
  • "Korea Herald" or "The Korea Herald"?
  • FN39: page notation. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all of them but the italicization problem. Which ones are off, specifically, and what is the policy? Should all newspapers be italicized? And what if they are online sources but not strictly newspapers? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article of very high quality. The minor issues in sourcing (formats) are done, so it's good to go. —
    21™ 03:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support - Beautifully economical prose.
Lead
In South Korea, Rusa killed at least 233 people, making it the deadliest typhoon in over 43 years, - This is the deadliest typhoon within the country. Could you tweak the sentence to make that more clear?
Meteorological history
The next day, the agency estimated that the typhoon attained peak winds of 150 km/h (90 mph 10 minute sustained).[1] Around the same time, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC)[nb 4] estimated peak winds of 215 km/h (135 mph 1 minute sustained).[2] - I'm confused, does the "1 minute sustained" refer to the estimation of how long they would last? Otherwise, it would seem to contradict info later stated (After maintaining the peak winds for about 12 hours,).
Easy fixes. ceranthor 15:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the bit about the deadliest bit in the country by adding "there". As for the winds, it refers to the average wind speed over either 10 or 1 minutes. The winds were at least 215 km/h over a 1 minute period, but over 10 minutes, it's only 150 km/h. They're just differences between the warning centers. Thanks for the support btw! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was pretty happy with that state of this article when I GA reviewed it, and it is even better now.
    Pacific Hurricane 18:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012 [27]
.

Imagine (song)

Nominator(s): ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after a thorough copyedit over the last six weeks, I think the article now meets FA standards. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick source comments
  • References 67 to 83 are lacking accessdates. —
    21™ 22:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Right, nice catch, thanks. As I'm a bit unfamiliar with these types of tables, I'm really not aware of how I can add them to these refs. Any suggestions? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just need to add |accessdate= inside the {{
21™ 00:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Fixed and thanks much! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I will scan and spotcheck the references this week to give you more feedback. Regards. —
21™ 01:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support from someone who loves the Beatles and is a musician.
  • I think the first sentence is a bit bland, particularly given how well-known the song is. I think the fact that it was his best-selling single should be in the opening sentence, IMO.
Good point, great suggestion, I've now mentioned that it was his best-selling single upfront. Thanks! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it appropriate for the first paragraph to go so much into what the song is about? It seems to go into a bit too much detail, which I think is problematic because it's often difficult to say exactly what a song is about, and three sentences on what it's about seems a bit much for the beginning of the article. Hey Jude (another song FA) focuses the first paragraph on the evolution and the song structure. If not in the first paragraph, then someone where in the lede of Imagine, there should be a mention of the structure.
Fixed. I've included the song structure detail in the lead. The order in which we discuss the lyrics versus the music is usually an editor discretion thing, but often the lead mirrors the article body, which it does well now. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, makes sense then! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the musical notation detail to a note that comes at the end of the first paragraph. This way readers unfamiliar with musical terminology won't be thrown-off by the jargon-esque text and readers that want that info can hover over, or click on the note, or just scroll down to the "Music" section for more detail. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should mention somewhere in the lede when that album came out (that it came out a month before the single is interesting)
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any lines from that Yoko Ono poem would be good. Right now it's mentioned, but there isn't much context. I'd love to know what exactly inspired the song.
Fixed. I've added the poem in-line at the appropriate spot. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a glaring omission of when and how the actual composition was written (that is, the music and melody, not necessarily the lyrics). Most featured song articles have that.
Can you please explain what you mean by "how the actual composition was written". I'm not aware of anything in the sources that specific as to what you seem to be asking for. That it was inspired by "Cloud Piece" and that he wrote it on his upright Steinway in 1971 is about as much detail as reliably exists. Do you have any specific suggestions? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many song articles I've read say where the composer was when the composition was written. California Girls was while Brian Wilson was on LSD, Yesterday (song) came to Paul McCartney during a dream (and he thought he plagiarized it). Was it written in one day? In a week? Was it ever in a different key? Any different sections chopped off? That's the most interesting part of the songwriting process, how it begins. So I'd love more on that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some specific details (in "Composition and Music") about the when and how. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of the above and as a piano player, I think the main theme is more the opening piano bit, going from C major 7 to F major, not that vocal line. Even if you disagree, that image caption needs to be changed to indicate that is only the main vocal theme. The piano theme is a bit different from that.
Fixed. I've clarified that the music illustrates the main vocal theme and not the main piano theme. Also, I'll try to get a music transcription for the main piano theme for the article. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Special thanks to User:GFHandel, and to you HH, for the fine suggestion, as we now have the first 2 bars of the piano intro as well as the main vocal melody line. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should mention the song's tempo somewhere. Or, would that not be appropriate since it doesn't have a drum machine?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, I feel like it's missing stuff, with how famous the song is. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific please? The article is currently more than 2,100 readable words, but if I can source it I'll certainly consider adding anything notable I've overlooked. Thanks much for your comments. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, it's the lack of the songwriting impetus that's bothering me. Was there a reason he played it on piano and not his primary instrument guitar? Was there anything special going on in his life that caused him to write it? It says how he used the song as inspiration for Nutopia, but I'm wondering about beforehand. Was it the first song written for that album? The last? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestions, thanks! I've fleshed this out now, in both "Inspiration and lyrics" and "Composition and music", but as for why he wrote that song at the piano that day and not with an acoustic guitar is anybody's guess. Lennon wrote using both, perhaps arbitrarily, perhaps because he thought "Imagine" felt like a piano song, the sources (to my knowledge) do not specify the why. As far as "Was it the first song written for that album? The last?", that seems to be a question better answered at the Imagine LP article, but I will certainly try to dig-up the detail and add it if I can properly source it. Thanks again for your insightful and helpful comments. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jesse V.

Fixed the deadlink. The other seems fine to me. Thanks for the catch. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    Time for a chat?) 11:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Image review by Crisco 1492
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. 4 bars of music amounts to about 12 seconds of the song, or about 6.66% of the total. It's my understanding that ogg files can contain up to 10% of the song without breaking the the minimal use clause. Also, as one image is illustrating the vocal melody and the other the piano theme, you could argue that all that music (when played together) is really just two bars of the song, about 6 seconds and 3.33% of the total musical notation for vocal and piano. Further, that percentage is leaving out the bass guitar, drums and strings, so in actuallity, the percentage of musical notation used is likely less than 1% of the total music contained in the song, which would certainly qualify as minimal use to me, unless I am missing something. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I consider an audio sample more useful for the average reader. I can't visualise (audiolise?) the music based on the sheet notes, but the average reader could probably get it from a single 18-second clip. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I agree in principle, but there is already an audio sample in the infobox. The musical notation images are for readers who want to see what the music looks like, which is something you cannot demonstrate with audio. Am I correct in my assumption that the 4 bars (less than 1% of the total music) does contitute minimal use? Thanks much for the review BTW! I appreciate your taking the time to help. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about moving the clip out of the infobox and into the section? That would be a bit more viable, and the audio clips are not meant to be married to infoboxes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the NFCC state "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I think the clip would be "equivalent significant information". A link to sheet music hosted (legally) elsewhere in External links would be fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really don't think an audio file and an image of musical notation are equivalent. A sound file is audio and the musical notations are visual. I'm curious, why would 1% of the total music of the song not constitute minimal use, and why would 2 bars be okay in your estimation but not four? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the NFCC. 1% of the total music is "Minimal extent of use", not "Minimal usage". Minimal usage is the number of items. In describing the composition of a work there is no need for three different files (one audio clip and two sheet notes). You've got four NF files in the article already, with another that may or may not be free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." All four NF files covey different, non-equivalent information. 1) The single artwork (which really shouldn't count as it is pretty much required, not?) demonstrates what the single sleeve looks like. 2) The audio sample conveys what the song sounds like. 3) The musical notation images demonstrate what the music looks like. Also, to count the musical notation images as two is a bit inaccurate, as they are both images of music from the same song, that occur simultaneously throughout most of the song. If I wanted to demonstrate the intro and the outro with audio files, would they also count as two? Thanks for taking the time to educate me about this stuff, I really appreciate it! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've yet to express any concern over the single's cover, as it is indeed relevant. They are two files, and so counted separately. If you want a third opinion on this one be my guest, but I strongly suggest removing at least one of the two pieces of sheet music. I've offered an alternative above that you could use as well (instead of using an external link at the bottom you could use {{External media}}...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per: "I've yet to express any concern over the single's cover" you said: "You've got four NF files in the article already", I assume one of those four is the single's cover, another the audiofile (which I would personally rather ditch than the notation) and two musical notation images. Question. - Since music is a language of its own, in order to convey it visually, one would need to include an image of the sheet music, no? The context of sheetmusic is the only place the language of musical notation makes any sense. Why is this any different than a direct quote from the English language source? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned the number, but not the cover specifically. I have no issues whatsoever with the cover (except the FUR, which you've fixed). Have you considered the external media template like I suggested? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now drastically reduced the resolution of the non-free musical notation files. Does this solve the issue? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works a bit better... the audio sample should show what it is being used for (i.e. the refrain, with the beat and tempo). I'd actually stop after the oo whoo oo ho (yeah, I suck at onomatopoeia) as "you may say I'm a dreamer" is a sentence fragment — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've uploaded a sound file with better timing and fading. I think it should resolve the issue, let me know if it does not. Thanks again for taking the time to comment here, it's much appreciated. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is filed at WikiCommons as public domain, so I'm not sure what to do with this one. Are you asking me if I can prove that the image was not ever used in Britain? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that it was never used in Britain, but that it was originally published in the US and not Britain. If originally published in the UK than UK copyright law would apply and this would be non-free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main question is the image. The text is negligable. Was the image first published in this ad, or was it used before, in the UK? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I'll do some research and see if I can't answer the question as to where the image was first published. Thanks again for all your great advice! Question: Assuming the Billboard image is in fact NF and not PD, the accompaning text is critically analysing "Imagine", and it mentions that Spector first attempted to record Lennon's piano part on the piano in the picture, in the room in the picture, the same room featured in the 81-minute film and the well-known music video. Could a decent FUR be written to justify the images use for these reasons? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Theoretically it's possible, but I wouldn't feel comfortable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see no evidence that this image was first published in Britain, in fact, considering that Imagine was first released in the US on 9 September 1971, and not released in Britian until 7 October, chances are that the image was first published in the US, since the image is from an ad from 18 September 1971, three weeks before the UK release. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of argument/education: could a mosaic tile based work of art really be deemed two-dimentional? The tiles and surrounding grout have significant height differences that constitute a third-dimension. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, as the work is in the US, 2- or 3-dimensions makes no difference as both are completely protected. No chance for FOP. If the mosaic were in the UK that would be a valid arguing point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll only be doing an image review, per the WT:FAC talk page request. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media looks okay now. Thanks for your patience. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- with my delegate's hat on I generally comment on form rather than content but in this case I'll make an exception: we have some criticism in the article regarding hypocrisy in the lyrics but is the music (which personally I consider blancmange, though that's neither here nor there of course!) universally regarded with favour? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into what I can source on that. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a bit of scholarly criticism of the music to the "Composition and music" section. Thanks for the suggestion. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012 [28]
.

Frank Pick

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pick was involved in the management of the London Underground from 1906 to 1940 and was the chief executive of London Transport between 1933 and 1940. Pick had a strong interest in design and his support for this through the art and architecture he commissioned and the brand he developed led to him being described in 1968, a quarter of a century after his death, as "the greatest patron of the arts whom this century has so far produced in England, and indeed the ideal patron of our age." His interest in urban planning and his impact on the growth of London between the world wars has seen him likened to Baron Haussmann and Robert Moses. DavidCane (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - File:Tube_map_1908-2.jpg needs evidence of reasonable search for author identity, per the licensing tag used. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image appears on three featured articles and a featured list already and was discussed during the Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield FAC (see the comments here about three-quarters of the way down). The artist would have been a house artist in the UERL's publicity department. Also, the map appears in Christian Wolmar's book The Subterranean Railway. Tellingly, the book provides copyright notices for most of the illustrations used, but nothing for this one.--DavidCane (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Lemurbaby

  • The lead is short relative to the size of the article and doesn't appear to summarize all the key points.
  • Image captions don't need periods when they are not complete sentences (several instances of this)
  • "The lower than expected passenger numbers were partly due to competition" - long sentence is a bit confusing
  • "the company's railway lines; tripling the number..." ; --> ,
  • "run as far as Tooting. but Pick " - copyedit
  • "a common advertising policy; improving the appearance" - ; --> ,
  • "which was only available for a short time, Pick did not have time" - can you find another word than time?
    • Amended "short time" to "limited period".--DavidCane (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all rail operators in the area; increasing those" ; --> ,
  • "government backed loans; this time through the" ; --> ,
  • "modern not garbled classic or Renaissance" - needs comma after modern
    • That is how the quote is punctuated. --DavidCane (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "new type of station for the more open sites of the stations" - can you find another word than station?
  • "all of the possible equipment and signage that might be wanted" - a little unclear, wanted by whom or what?
    • I've changed this the "needed". It might be the LPTB, the local council or the people responsible for traffic signage.--DavidCane (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the beginning of the 1920s with its vehicle numbers" - revise this sentence - it needs a comma or, even better, restructuring to remove the initial "its"
    • Comma added. The "its" can just be removed I think.--DavidCane (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instigated a rationalisation of services" - initiated? introduced?
  • "During 1938 and 1939, with war anticipated,..." the first several sentences in this paragraph are all very similarly structured, and that jumps out at me when I'm reading it. I'd recommend restructuring some of these sentences to diversify
  • "led to his involvement with the..." - involvement in?
  • "lecturing on the subject; giving talks" ; --> ,
  • "an area of design he became interested" - interested in? rephrase
  • "1930s when he outline " - outlined
  • "Board of Trade... Board of Trade..." used a piped link for the second one (just show "President")
  • "for 1931/32" - 1931 to 1932
    • I've used an oblique in accordance with
      WP:SLASH because the appointment was for 12 months from 1 October 1931 to 30 September 1932. I avoided using "1931 to 1932" as it could be a period of from a few weeks to up to two years.--DavidCane (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • "Pick had not been well for some years." - vague, the reader needs some sense of the time frame here.
  • "countries." and that - punctuation
  • "In his will he bequeathed a painting, Ely, by Francis Dodd to the Tate Gallery." - reads with difficulty, try: In his will he bequeathed a Francis Dodd painting..."

- Lemurbaby (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all my concerns have been adequately addressed. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a very good quality article on an interesting man. I have the following comments and suggestions.

  • It seems a bit unusual to list a bachelor (or honours?)-level degree after someone's name in the lead of an article.
    • OK. I have removed the LLB. I think it is worth keeping the Honorary membership of the RIBA as this is something bestowed rather than earned.--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest merging the second and third paras of the lead (which are short and flow into each other nicely)
  • "to apply to be admitted to practice" - I'd suggest rephrasing this to cut down on the number of times 'to' is used
  • Can more be said about how Pick developed the UNDERGROUND brand and other aspects of the systems style? This para is a bit short for such an important topic.
    • The term "Underground" had been in use informally for the various underground railways in London and "Tube" was used commonly from 1900 when the Central London Railway began to advertise itself as the "Twopenny Tube", but there is not much in any of the sources on how they arrived at the exact form of word used from 1908 with the enlarged U and D. Other aspects of the corporate identity ("bulls-eye" and "typeface") are dealt with in the following paragraphs of this section.--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its control over transport services in London through the purchase" - 'through the purchase' is a bit passive - how about 'by purchasing' or similar?
    • Done. I seem to write in the passive voice a lot.--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Permitted schemes put on hold" - this is a bit awkward, as it's not clear what a 'permitted scheme is'. How about 'Schemes which had been approved, but put on hold during the war'... or similar?
    • OK. I have change "permitted" to "approved".--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finance for the latter two extensions was obtained under the support" - 'under the support' is a bit passive and unclear. Could this be replaced with 'through' or equivalent?
  • "with plans for the C&SLR extension developing" - I think that 'under development' would work better than 'developing'
  • "and quicker to use" - this is a bit awkward. Could this be replaced with 'and efficient to use'? (or just 'and efficient')
    • OK. The nature of the efficiency improvement is covered later in the sentence.--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pick had become joint managing director of the Underground Group in 1928" this should be noted earlier in the article, as by the time I reached this I was wondering what Pick's role was given the range of things he was doing.
    • I realised that this was a rather late introduction of this fact, but I couldn't find a comfortable place to insert it earlier in the article as the preceding sections deal with specific aspects of his activities and it broke the flow of the sections. I'll have another look, but I don't think that it has too much relevance earlier on.--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a good point. I'd suggest adding prior to or at the start of the paragraph which begins with "Pick wanted a new type of building for the more open sites of the stations on the Piccadilly line's extensions." (but even then you'll need to play with the wording a bit). Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've played around with different formulations, but I can't find one that fits naturally here without, to my eyes, it feeling like an intrusion on the flow.--DavidCane (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, fair enough - I wasn't able to think of a way to make it fit neatly either. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given Pick appears, at least to modern eyes, to have had a very 'hands on' management style, do any sources discuss whether his focus on small details came at the cost of attention to the big picture or other aspects of his high ranking job? How did his staff view these interventions into matters which more junior managers would have had primary carriage over?
    • I'll see if I can find something specific on this in Barman. He was one of Pick's junior managers and just seems to indicate that it was accepted - probably because Pick ran the show and had very much formed the organisation in his own image. There is an interesting section where Barman outlines a typical week for Pick, showing that he was very much a workaholic - working almost a seven-day week. He is described a couple of times as a virtual dictator or benevolent dictator - see the Holden quote on the operation of his meetings.--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Outlining an average week in Pick's life would be a great addition to the article. I found that this kind of detail worked well when I developed the John Treloar (museum administrator) article (which also covers a workaholic of roughly this period). Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pick was considered by many of its members to be achieving the organisation's aims" - this hardly seems surprising given that he helped to found it! I'd suggest tweaking this wording.
  • "Initially scheduled for 30 September 1938, these were cancelled when Neville Chamberlain's Munich conference with Adolf Hitler averted war that year, but were activated a year later at the beginning of September 1939 on the declaration of war with Germany" - the subject of this sentence could be made more explicit (I'd suggest adding 'plans' after the first 'these')
  • Do we know anything about Pick's political views? The final para of the 'Personality' section suggests that he was left-leaning (also, can more be said about what his contribution to the Moscow Metro involved?).
    • He does not appear to have been overtly political, but he definitely had a very strong social conscience and many of his ideas were aimed towards the general betterment of society. I think that this was more the result of his strongly moral and religious upbringing and the philosophical influences of the writers he admired, than a political agenda so I'm not sure that this can be directly interpreted as left-leaning or socialist. Perhaps I will try to list out some of the writers and works that influenced him.--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Little explanation of what he did for the Moscow Metro is provided in the sources - I think it was in the facilitation of an exchange of information and ideas. Wolmar just makes a single mention in a sentence where he comments that Pick met both Stalin and Hitler. Barman just says that some of the Underground's designers had been in Russia when the Metro was being planned and that "the Russians had learnt a great deal from their visits to London's Underground". The award seems to have been given to Pick as the CEO of the LPTB.--DavidCane (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • More detail on that would be great. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments have now largely been addressed. Extra material on Pick's relationship with the Moscow Metro would be good per the above point, but it's not a barrier to the promotion of this fine article. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot that one. I'll see what I can find.--DavidCane (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on prose and research. Kolob1x2 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are the problems with the prose and research? Drive by opposes such as this which don't give the nominator anything to respond to are bad form, and aren't given a lot of weight by the FA delegates. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No weight at all, in fact -- objections need to be specific and actionable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kolob1x2, unless you can explain what you think needs to be fixed, I can't do much.--DavidCane (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article is charming, and was a pleasant read. The footnotes are extremely helpful; thanks for those. I admire the headers because they give the article a certain style, but I have to question whether or not they are encyclopedic. I don't know if we have a specific guideline prohibiting them but they strike me as textbookish. Not sure though, so feel free to ignore my niggling criticism.
From "Early life"
Before becoming a draper, Pick's father had had an ambition to become a lawyer and he encouraged his son to follow this career.[5] He attended - I think you mean Frank Pick by "He", but it's unclear from the structure.
The first "he" is Francis Pick, the father; the second was Frank Pick. I've changed the second to "Pick", to clarify a bit.--DavidCane (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article. ceranthor 03:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012 [29]
.

Periodic table

Nominator(s):
t • c) 01:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I am nominating this for featured article because after all the comments I have received on PRs and on talk pages, I believe that it is FA-ready. It seems to be well-written, does not have any bias, and is comprehensive in its coverage.

t • c) 01:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from indopug

Done by restructuring the article so that the table itself is closer to the lead Sandbh (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Double sharp

Not required English Wikipedia has History of the periodic table into which any new content of this kind can go. Sandbh (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial names of the groups
Group Trivial name
1 alkali metals
2 alkaline earth metals
11
coinage metals
12
volatile metals
13
icosagens
14
crystallogens
15 pnictogens
16 chalcogens
17 halogens
18
aerogens
)

Drive by Duplicate links detector found the following overlinks in the body of the text: Julius Lothar Meyer, flerovium, livermorium, isotopes, carbon, alkali metals, lanthanum, lutetium, electron shell, quantum theory, lutetium, lanthanides, hafnium, transition metals, fluorine, germanium, lead, d-block contraction, flerovium, copernicium, atomic number, relativistic, Dirac equation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done
t • c) 16:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from Sandbh

  • I'll help when and where I can

Current content

  • The lead. There is a mismatch between the sequencing of the lead (which is fine) and that of the main body of the article. In the lead the history of the periodic table follows the definition-organization-components content whereas in the main body of the article the order is the other way round i.e. the history comes first then the discussion of components and organization etc. Also, the discussion in the lead of 'blocks' is disconnected from anything tangible i.e. it is not made clear where these blocks are located.
Done Sandbh (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First systemization attempts. Should say something about the work of de Chancourtois (1862) since he published the first system of elements in 1862, via his telluric screw, showing periodicity; also Odling(1864) and Hinrichs (1867).
Done Sandbh (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mendeleev's table. The first sentence refers to Mendeleev's table (1869) and that of Meyer (1870) but the supporting citation only refers to Mendeleev's table. Meyer in fact published his table in 1864, as noted in paragraph two of the previous section. The third sentence talks about the success of Mendeleev's table but does not explain what is meant by "success".
Done Sandbh (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Periodic trends. The picture duplicates content set out in the earlier Periods section. Three of the trends shown in the picture—EA, metallic character, nonmetallic character—are not elaborated in the accompanying text. I have read paragraphs 1–2 many times and still do not understand their relevance. Much duplicated content. More editing required.
Done
    • About this...do you think that the section is currently excessive? In my opinion, since there is already a
      t • c) 04:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Yes; agreed. It is currently the largest section of the article and will become even bigger with some more content about metallic/nonmetallic character. So there should be scope for some trimming. Sandbh (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atomic radii. Paragraph 2 says that, 'As the atomic number increases along each row of the periodic table, the additional electrons go into the same outermost shell...'. This is not the case with either the 'd' block or 'f' block elements, where extra electrons usually go into the outermost but one shell.
    • Done
      t • c) 19:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Paul-Antoine Giguère's periodic table. Need a better reference to a 3D periodic table here. Any periodic table which omits hydrogen and helium due to their anomalous properties is dodgy. H and He are still subject to the periodic law notwithstanding their anomalous properties.
Done Sandbh (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New content required

Done Sandbh (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments Comment: Per WP:When to cite a source is needed for: Under this approximation, any element with an atomic number of greater than 137 would require 1s electrons to be traveling faster than c, the speed of light. Hence the non-relativistic Bohr model is inaccurate when applied to such an element. in this section. JZCL 15:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be necessary here? Whenever the fraction of the speed of light is greater than one, it is self-explanatory that the object would have to be moving faster than light, and thus, it would be obvious that the equation breaks down for z > 137. I don't see why a cite would be needed here.
t • c) 19:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Question -Is elaborating the Bohr model and Relativistic Dirac equation predictions really necessary in the "Future and end of the periodic table" section? I could hardly understand what the equations mean. I could be wrong, but it might be better to not go into details and just briefly mention what those models predict, and save the details for that main extended PT article. --

talk) 01:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Done
t • c) 04:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Done Sandbh (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes even the beginning of the transition metals is disputed, with Sc and Y taken as not being transition metals because they almost always form Sc3+ and Y3+ ions, which have empty d-orbitals. A ref. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Sandbh (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section-headers: Per
    MOS:HEADINGS
    , section-headers should be statements rather than questions. Currently there are three consecutive subsections:
    • Which elements are transition metals?
    • Which elements make up group 3?
    • Is there an optimal form of periodic table?
Every subsection there is within the "Open questions and controversies" section so there's no need to reiterate that there is uncertainty about each subtopic. I adjusted them in the article but am not sure the results are optimal for each. DMacks (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done (good call) Sandbh (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment I heard that a dream inspired Mendeleyev to create the table. Is this true and does it belong to this article? Regards.--
    Tomcat (7) 22:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
it's a very common belief, born while he was still alive, and he commented that he had been thinking of it for 20 years, and that it was very unfair to say it was a dream instead. Note also he didn't think the table was his best contribution to science. About that if it belongs, let's hear the author.--
talk) 22:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Eh, to be honest, I somewhat question the notability of this, especially seeing that we have a
t • c) 04:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Do you think it's worth mentioning the potential g-block? Or because nothing post-118 has been discovered, it's not worth it?

That's it! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A very comprehensive article that is also easy to read. Double sharp (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments reading through now - I'll make straightforward fixes as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning!) and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
''Glenn Seaborg, an American scientist, made the 'revolutionary' suggestion - why is 'revolutionary' in quotes?
Removed the unencyclopedic word, so Done.
t • c) 16:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The number of physically possible elements is not known - I'd say "physically" is redundant (?)
Done.
t • c) 16:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Looking good otherwise....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


PS. I am happy for any remaining issues to be resolved on the Article's Talk Page. I also recommend downloading the PDF version - it looks great.

talk) 22:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012 [30]
.

Dream of the Rarebit Fiend

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive GA article with lots of illustrations, and I think an article about crazy dreams would appeal to a large audience. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 03:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment you have a tendency to link extremely common English words—cartoonist, dreams, cartoon, nightmare, homelessness, illegibility, mosquito... Please review

WP:OVERLINK and expunge accordingly.—indopug (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Done. I've done so, but I have to admit that this goes right over my head. Given that the article is about dream cartoons, I would have thought "dream" and "cartoon" would be prime candidates for linking. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's wonderful that this article can be supported by several high-quality free images, but I think they should be trimmed for easy visibility (from the article page itself). For eg: the giant in NY comic needs only a couple of panels to illustrate that, and this removes the necessity of clicking on the image. If the image becomes too wide (to be visible), consider placing it in the middle and across the width of the page. Of course, if you intend for people to read the entire comic to get an idea of the sketch, then the leaving a few comics as is is fine.—indopug (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Replaced two of the strips with strip details. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support excellent article. The most problematic issue was the rather awkward prose in the first sections, but now as it was copyedited I don't see any more issues. Regards.--
    ✔) 09:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Working through this now, an interesting article all round! Reviewing for prose/style issues:

Lead
  • a character—usually after eating a Welsh rarebit (a cheese-on-toast dish)—has a nightmare or other bizarre dream; consider rewording this, the aside interrupts the flow and makes no sense till the end of the sentence is read. Maybe: "Instead it had a recurring theme, in which a character has a nightmare or other bizarre dream, usually as the result of eating a Welsh rarebit (a cheese-on-toast dish)". Not a big issue, just a suggestion.
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • their dreamers; personal preference, I think this reads better as "the dreamers'", otherwise the possessives in that sentence get confusing.
Background
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • lightning-quick; I'd suggest changing this to a quote and attributing Heer in some way, as it has some artistic license in the expression. Or alternatively tone down the language a bit.
Done. I reworded it instead. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He produced a large number of cartoons for various newspapers, and some of his; "various", "some" - very vague! You expand on it a little in the next sentence which makes me question the utility of the former. Perhaps cut it, and add more detail about his past dream comics (e.g. Prior to Dream of the Rarebit Fiend and Little Nemo McCay had shown an interest the topic of dreams in his work. He had drawn at least ten regular comic strips, some with dream-related titles such as Daydreams and It Was Only a Dream_). Just a suggestion.
Done? Actually, the source says "publications" rather than "newspapers"—he would have been producing cartoons for magazines as well. I change it to "He produced cartoons prolifically for various publications. Prior to Dream of the Rarebit Fiend and Little Nemo, McCay had shown an interest the topic of dreams in his work. Of the at least ten regular comic strips he worked on before Rarebit Fiend, some had titles such as Daydreams and It Was Only a Dream.—though this doesn't get rid of the offending "various". Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta, I'll have a go copyediting it - see what you think. As an aside; it is good practice to avoid "-ly" words as they are a little informal, my writing tutor referred to them as "lazy" :)
"it is good practice to avoid "-ly" words as they are a little informal"—that seems like an awful broad swath of English to avoid. What was your tutor's reason for that?
"He used this talent performing chalk talks on the vaudeville stage alongside the likes of Harry Houdini and W. C. Fields. He was also a prolific cartoonist for various publications."—the problem with that is that it seems to imply that he was a vaudevillean who produced cartoons on the side, when it was the reverse that was true. In the original, I was trying to convey that he was an extremely quick, prolific artist—he could draw quickly enough to hold a live audience's attention. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originally, McCay had conceived the strip in 1905 with a tobacco theme.; again, repetition (words and information) in the following sentence. Merge for clarity.
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • McCay's employer; who was his employer? I notice you cover this in the lead in more detail; which is the wrong way round, the lead should summarise material in the body of the article. Should be easy to address.
Done. I think I've clarified his employment situation (which is dealt with in more detail in "Publishing history"). Please check to see if it reads more clearly now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again sorta, see my copyedits. Sorry, I didn't get as far as publishing history.
  • Is the paragraph about his wife as an influence on the work in the right place? Seems more related to influences rather than background to how he began the strip.
I'm not sure that would count as an "influence" in the sense most people think of the word. It's also not clear that it was a conscious influence. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's a reasonable argument. I see you reordered the article quite a bit - I think that works better.
Overview
  • A year before the dream romps aimed at children of Little Nemo; who are the "children of Little Nemo" :) I think the subject of that sentence is a little mixed up!
Done. Changed to "children's dream romps of". Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe :) that's not quite right either. ('s is a possessive; the dream romps are Little Nemo's, the strip is for the children - correct?) Will copyedit.
  • unleashed their subconsciouses on the public; feels a little overdone. Also a misspelling (subconsciouses -> subconsciousness) Edit: Actually I see what you are trying to say there - drop the "es"
Done. Change to "the subconscious". Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you changed it back to "their subconscious"...I have trouble with the idea that two people would have one subconscious... Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pluralising "subconscious" is awkward, from a style perspective. Using it as a collective noun is the generally accepted solution (their being a plural possessive pronoun). The alternative "subconsciousness" would be acceptable. --Errant (chat!) 12:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winsor McCay first produced the hallucinogenic comic strip Dream of the Rarebit Fiend.; isn't this covered by the background? That whole first sentence should probable be reorder, starting with something like "Dream of the Rarebit Fiend was published a year before McCay's Little Nemo, and a full generation before the Dalis and Ernsts of the..."
Done. Reworded, but I've also moved the sections around. I think "Overview" comes better before "Background". Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strip had no recurring characters, but only a recurring concept; slightly stifled. Maybe: "Rather than feature recurring characters, each strip followed the same plot theme;"
Done? Change to "The strip had no recurring characters, but followed one theme". Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • to the underside; not the easiest word to understand in this context, more specific discussion on this would be good.
Done. Changed to "darker side". Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better!
  • You use a lot of colon's - that's not against the style guide, but it does interrupt the flow.
  • it was not the sort of dish one would likely associate with having nightmares; an odd comment. A well known urban theory is that cheese gives you nightmares. Maybe attribute it to the source?
Done. Really? I'd never heard that. I've attributed the line to Scott Bukatman. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup :) perhaps it is a UK thing, I don't know!
  • "sometime"; personal preference, I'm not a huge fan of the word. I'd rewrite that whole sentence.. such as: "In later Fiend strips the rarebit was replaced by lobster and other foods, or occasionally no source for the nightmare was given".
Done. Changed to "In later strips, occasionally a lobster or other food". Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have details on "other foods"?
Yes, but they are all trivial, infrequent one-time things. The lobster stand s out, as it shows evidence of the influence of Harle Oren Cummins' book. Curly Turkey (gobble)
I'd suggest just mentioning it in the influences then, and taking it out of the earlier part, as the latter lacks any such context. Again, just a suggestion.
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section references Nemo, a later strip, a lot. But in a disjointed way. It may be worth considering collating all the comparisons to Nemo at the end of the section. Then just focus on first introducing Fiend
Done? I've consolidated a bunch of the Nemo stuff in one place. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far pretty good! More later --Errant (chat!) 11:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed out some, will also do some copyedits. --Errant (chat!) 09:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. --Errant (chat!) 11:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced or removed three of those, but the I've kept the essay by Huib van Opstal (the actual address is this). Van Opstal is a Dutch comics scholar who has published a Dutch-language biography on Tintin's Hergé (Essay RG) and contributed in English to Paul Gravett's 1001 Comics You Must Read Before You Die. The essay linked was also previously excerpted in Broken Frontier. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose- The quality of this article is without a doubt, high. The media and detail is spectacular! The prose isn't quite there yet. At times, it's fantastic, and at others, it's awkward. A bit of tuning-up is needed. I hate to be a pain, but...
Lead
Dream of the Rarebit Fiend was a newspaper comic strip by American cartoonist Winsor McCay which began 10 September 1904. - Odd that it doesn't mention when the strip ends, too.
This is mainly because the strip "ended" several times—it ended when McCay switched employers in 1911, but then was revived (in color) by the old paper he worked for (with unpublished material), and separately under different titles between 1911 and 1913. It was revived again in 1923 and was brought to an end again sometime in 1925. In this last run, only seven examples have survived—the paper in which they were run hasn't really survived in archives, so the start and end dates for this last run are simply unknown, and may never be known. Different sources state the strip ran 1904–1911 or 1904–1913. Merkl's book, which reprints strips from the 1920s, says 1904–1913 right on the front cover. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre dreams made up the content of the strip, as they would the following year in McCay's signature strip, Little Nemo. - An awkward sentence. Better as "The strip focused on bizarre dreams..." The "as they would" strikes me as particularly awkward.
Better? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, it had a recurring theme: a character has a nightmare or other bizarre dream, usually after eating a Welsh rarebit (a cheese-on-toast dish). The character awakens from the dream in the last panel, regretting having eaten the rarebit. - Switching tenses here.
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The popularity of Rarebit Fiend and Nemo led to McCay being hired for William Randolph Hearst's chain of newspapers with a star's salary. - Star's salary needs to be replaced.
Is "star" the issue? Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overview
Winsor McCay first produced the hallucinogenic Dream of the Rarebit Fiend in 1904, a year before his dream romps of Little Nemo and a full generation before the Dalis and Ernsts of the Surrealist movement unleashed their subconscious on the public. - I don't think the Dalis and Ernsts bit is formal. I'd suggest just "a full generation before the artists of Surrealist movement unleashed..."
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Background
He became known for an ability to draw quickly, a talent he often employed during chalk talks on the vaudeville stage (alongside the likes of Harry Houdini and W. C. Fields). - This probably needs a citation.
The citation is Heer 2006, which follows the next sentence. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the bleak view in the strip, McCay's work was so popular that he was hired by William Randolph Hearst in 1911 with a star's salary. - Star's salary again.
Publishing history
McCay mode over 300 more Rarebit Fiend episodes than he made of the more famous Little Nemo.[34] - A total count would be useful! (I fixed the typo).
Difficult, given that the exact number of episodes from the 1920s is unknown. I just used the "over 300" number from the source. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collections
The Dover edition was missing the final strip from the original collection, however, as it contained ethnic humor that the publisher believed would not be to the taste of a 1970s audience. - Was missing isn't the right way to phrase this. Lacked or dropped would be better.
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checker released Dream of the Rarebit Fiend: The Saturdays (ISBN ) - Did you mean to include the ISBN number?
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conversions. This is an article about an American author, so conversions should be, for example, inches first, then cm. You switch between systems, using ft at one point and converting to m (correct way), then converting cm to inches.
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers. In Collections, you spell out three hundred. It should be 300. In Influences, you spell out fifteen; 15.
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great work so far. ceranthor 22:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My concerns have been addressed or answered adequately. The star's salary bit isn't a dealbreaker by any means. ceranthor 22:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012 [31]
.

The Way I See It (album)

Nominator(s):
talk) 14:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is well written, its topic is fairly notable, and it fulfills FA criteria.

talk) 14:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Images check out; sound extracts I don't know enough about to assess. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both audio samples are 10% of the original songs' length and of reduced quality, at most 64kbit/s (
talk) 15:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Withdrawn comments from User:Indopug
Comments My initial impression of this article is similar to that of OK Computer—it's been thoroughly researched, but is so comprehensive that it gets to the point of being overwhelming for the reader, especially in terms of stats, dates, details and technical language. Examples:
  • For his touring, all you need is that first paragraph. The rest is excessive detail that is redundant to "performing in venues throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia". Remember that we write for a general audience, who don't want to know every last show and festival he played.
He performed more shows than mentioned, so two short paragraphs noting some doesnt seem excessive. I'd understand if there was a separate tour article, but notable venues ought to be mentioned; not all dates are listed, notable festivals are noted (ones that cater to different genres, audiences, higher profile artists, etc.), guest/other artists he performed with, and, since this was not billed as a single tour, the different legs of his collective touring are noted (
talk) 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Why does Critical response have 19 reviews (excluding the aggregator) which basically say the same thing—this is a very good, subtle and retro album, that might be a little too derivative. I can't imagine anybody being able to read the whole section.
Just one quote mentions it being too derivative; the rest may complement the same thing about it, but different aspects: Vibe called it "a unique alternative to his previous work", Allmusic commended the "accuracy", while The Independent did the "subtle variations".
talk) 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Just a brief glance at Production reveals it to be astonishingly technical—"they used a Neumann U 47 for guitars, a U 47 and U 67 alternating as overhead microphones for Saadiq's drum kit, a combination of AKG D 12 and C 414 mics employed on the kit's bass drum, Amplex tape machines for extra warmth". The section probably needs a bit of a rewrite/trim keeping a non-specialist audience in mind.
That statement is prefaced by a "relatively basic" utilization of the gear, any technical stuff is generally linked to the related articles for readers, and is followed by quotes further clarifying the use. I know it's somewhat specialist, but very relevant, and it shouldnt seem arbitrarily detailed if clarified. All in keeping with any notable recording techniques (
talk) 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I found the accolades table to be surprisingly counter-intuitive. I wonder if two separate sortable tables for album of the decade and album of the year would be better.
  • Watch out for repetitions: Pareles repeats what Whelan says about homage in M&S.
The latter distinguishes it as "purist" with respect to
talk) 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Release and promotion: again, so many release dates don't add value to the reader, nor does it make for engaging prose. Avoid banalities like "Saadiq travelled to Europe for promotional television appearances and press for the album" (who doesn't?).
Saadiq never did before, so lower-profile artists? How could promotional activities by the artist be banal? The release dates (apart from the US, only four) should add context to the release of the album; I would have added a release history table as the style guide suggests, but the sources do not note any distinguishing label or format information (
talk) 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Singles: wouldn't such detail be better off in the songs' articles? Even otherwise, I think all you need is a couple of sentences naming and giving the most-prominent chart positions; the rest of the chart positions can be in a table below. (I think the eight-paragraph R&P can thus be trimmed to four more-readable paragraphs losing no vital info but only excess detail).
No song articles exist for them. Not all the singles charted, and the ones that did only charted on the R&B chart; one did in Belgium, but that would lead to an awkwardly constructed table. Anyway, there doesnt seem to be enough to warrant a table over prose (
talk) 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Clearly most of my concerns are

WP:FA? #4 as the article definitely goes into "unnecessary detail", apart from being quite technical in places. Also, this causes the prose (a little workmanlike already, but definitely fixable) to be far from engaging (1a). [Note: I'll be off-wiki for the next couple of weeks]—indopug (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Overall, I understand the response, but
talk) 18:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I gotta say, the release history table, along with the separate sections for singles and touring, make the article flow better! Diff.
talk) 19:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Reduced review prose slightly, replaced some of the ambiguous equipment names with more accessible terms.
talk) 19:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Further reduced techical terms.
talk) 20:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
(replying to your responses as a whole) Dan, judging by your responses it's clear that we have entirely different philosophies on writing an article and what it should convey. Here's one that I wrote, and here are what I hold to be model album articles. As you can see (esp from the latter two), although they are very comprehensive and thorough, they don't get bogged down with details—festival names and dates, release dates, excess sales figures, tables, reviewer quote-farms...—which results in a highly readable and engaging narrative emerging across the entire article. On the other hand, your approach is better for somebody who wants to know something really specific and reads only that relevant section.
With this in mind, I don't think me continuing the review would be productive; we're heading in completely different directions.—indopug (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for the comments anyway. I feel the article is better after editing in response to them.
talk) 05:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Done.
talk) 02:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Done.
talk) 10:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Initial comment I'm just starting to dig into this article. I'll have a full assessment soon, but I have to say that I'm leaning towards an oppose at the moment due to various issues with redundancy (both in prose and sources), excessive detail, and inappropriate/unsatisfactory usage of certain sources. As I said, I'll provide a full assessment soon, but even though it's becoming clear I cannot support the article at this current junction, all my feedback will be constructive, as I hope all issues can be resolved during the FAC (well, there's one portion that might involve a massive overhaul, but we'll get to that when the time comes). WesleyDodds (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: While I think the article is lovely; the very first thing I noticed is the accolades graph, and generally aren't these things suggested to be turned into prose instead? I know it can be hard to make "some publication said so and so about said album and put it somewhere on some list" again and again read interestingly, but it's somewhat jarring in context to the rest of the article.

Since omitting the less notable ones would mean it would fail comprehensiveness, I think there are multiple ways to deal with this. One could simply expand the section with prose, or say something akin to "the album was listed on many top 10 lists" and use a few bullet reference, or move some of citations that listed it amongst the Albums of the Decade to the legacy section. You could also create a subsection dealing with an international reception of the album, using the references from Adresseavisen, Dagbladet, Gaffa, The Irish Times etc, which, as far as I am aware, are all European publications.

Furthermore this always come down to preference, but it's a rather long article, and there are four images used. This isn't a problem if there aren't images to be used, but this album has a long range of influences including legends like Smokey Robinson, Curtis Mayfield and Stevie Wonder and had involvement with Rick Rubin and a bunch of other notable figures. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced accolades. Definitely looks less jarring; cleaner, better prose.
talk) 19:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Strong support per changes. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment Sorry about the delay, but I'll get to detailing my objections to the article later today. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm still waiting on some others I've solicited to comment as well.
talk) 11:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Support The article seems comprehensive and well-written. There were a few nits that I fixed—Time Out linked to the company instead of the magazine, Robert Christgau was cited by first and last name in two consecutive paragraphs—but nothing that should prevent this article from promotion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I was hoping to only cast a "weak oppose", but given the large numbers of supports already given, I felt it important to firmly declare that there are aspects of the article that are in need of revision before it can be promoted to Featured status. And the more and more I dig into it, the more I wish I had had a chance to peer-review the page first. In short, my oppose is based upon the article not yet meeting points 1 and 4 of the Featured Article Criteria: there are notable issues with the prose, the article is overly detailed in spots, some of the cited material is either not accurately represented or used inappropriately, and summary style needs to be better implemented. Here's a brief breakdown of my main concerns:

  • Overall, the article needs to summarize more effectively. There's lot of needless repetition, even in the lead, which talks in the first paragraph about how Saddiq wanted to recreate the Motown aesthetic, then we read about how the album draws upon the Motown sound, then we read about how music writers considered it a Motown homage, then we read about critics praising his "appropriation of 1960s soul music". Yes, these are all slightly different things that can be elaborated upon in the article body, but outlining that the album draws inspiration from '60s soul should not span the entire lead section.
It's not outlining that; the first sentence is about their goal in production, which is not about the music, as the next sentence is about. "appropriation of 1960s soul music" is not repeating anything, it's noting one of the aspects that was well received by critics; would be less of a summary without. Removed "view it as an homage to classic soul such as 1960s" from lead.
talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You are indeed being redundant and needlessly wordy in the first and second paragraphs when discussing how Motown informed the album. Yes, the lead is talking about the production goal then the musical content, but the phrasing is such that hits you over the head with the Motown influence when it's not needed. Try to reword the lead, and if you are stymied, I can have a go at it. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph's discussion of musical/stylistic characteristics is one aspect of how Motown informed it is, hence the reference to "
talk) 22:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Among the album's traits listed in the lead is its use of "bright melodies". How do you define a "bright melody"?
The source supporting that says "big, sunny melodies", so that's the synonym I settled for; can be that the melody is lively, cheerful, clever, pretty, etc. (merriam-webster)
talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
"Bright melodies" aren't something that are quantifiable; "bright is very much used as an adjective. If you must use the word, attribute it to the writer in the prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's various oddly-worded sentence to be found (ex. "In an attempt to recreate the Motown aesthetic of the 1960s, Saadiq and Brungardt eschewed their past experiences of modern music production . . .", "The two shared a fascination with historic recording techniques and equipment, and they studied the 2006 book Recording The Beatles together, noting an interest in the knowledge of recording gear by engineers and technicians for English rock band The Beatles", "He explained the album title to be him declaring to music listeners that . . ."). In a sentence like "He wrote the songs extemporaneously, often with a guitar in hand and improvising riffs." the tense changes partway through.
Dont see your point about the examples. Could you be more specific, especially about the last one; are you thinking that "often" is a different tense or "improvising"?
talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The sentences are awkwardly structured; these are but a sample of the many I've found in the article. In some cases they'd be much improved by splitting clauses into separate sentences. In others the language is unnecessarily convoluted (ex. ""He explained the album title to be him declaring to music listeners that . . ." The subject is doing something to the object that is him doing something to another object--and that's only in the excerpt of the sentence I posted). In "He wrote the songs extemporaneously, often with a guitar in hand and improvising riffs", I get what you are trying to say, but the relationship with time gets muddied going from "He wrote" to "improvising". You can rectify the confusion by strengthening the associations between clauses--an alternate phrasing could be "He wrote the songs extemporaneously, often improvising riffs on a guitar". Another could be "He wrote the songs extemporaneously, and often improvised riffs on a guitar". You should ask an experienced copy editor to go through the article and rework prose where necessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revised the aforementioned sentences. Was the issue with the "In an attempt to recreate the Motown..." sentence about the phrase "...experiences of modern..."? I think one of the other commenters changed the italicized word, unless it's something else?
talk) 00:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, it was the "of"; the sentence could still stand to be streamlined, but it's not glaringly awkward anymore. There are still many sentences in this article that need to be reworked--there's simply too many to list. Having a copy editor with fresh set of eyes look at this article would really do the prose wonders. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on topic. For instance, why is Saadiq's work with Brungardt on the Joss Stone album worth mentioning aside from the fact that they ended up working together on The Way I See It? Did their collaboration on the former lead to their working on the subject of this article? If not, take it out.
It's background information; dude started interning for him, and this is an example of the culmination of Brungardt's growth as an engineer under Saadiq, as the source suggests; revised to better reflect that.
talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Saadiq being born is background information--doesn't mean it's directly relevant. The association between their work on the Joss Stone album and this record is still flimsy--the information is not necessary to better understand this topic, and is therefore extraneous. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague cites like the ones used to cite the sentences "After releasing his second studio album Ray Ray in 2004,[1] Saadiq continued working as a producer, composer, and instrumentalist on other recording artists' music.[2]" should be strengthened by replacing them with more concrete references. Looking at an itemized list of his credits doesn't really tell me anything beyond "He's done stuff". Find a cite that actually says outright "After his second album, he worked on these other projects, which lead us to this article's subject". Once again, the relevance of the information to the topic needs to be more explicit.
Once again, it's background. His role in the music industry before the album puts the rest of the article into perspective, particularly the section on "Saadiq's career". The source shows the credits and the works, and for who, so how is it vague?
talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
As I state above, a lot of things can fall under the broad scope of "background information". What you need to focus on is background information that is directly relevant to the subject of this article and is essential for context. As it stands, his work on other artists' music after putting out Ray Ray is more important to the article on the man himself than it is to this album. The relevance to The Way I See It needs to be strengthened or the information should be removed. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Saadiq continued working as a...." ←→ "before that record - after I'd been in Tony Toni Tone! and Lucy Pearl - most people had thought 'Oh well, he's a producer now. He’s never gonna be an artist, he's not gonna put the time in' ... Whereas The Way I See It showed them that yes, I could put the time in still and be an artist!"
talk) 22:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I still see a few redundant citations--that is, a sentence is cited to reference Z, and then the one following after it is also taken from reference Z. You only need one citation for both. Certainly, add another cite note once you move on to another paragraph or if the sentences are interrupted by something taken from another source, but trim down on the redundant footnotes you don't need.
I thought all sentence should be cited; makes it less challengable by readers or any editor looking to remove uncited content. Is there a guideline for this or preferential?
talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
See
WP:CITEFOOT. If you feel it necessary, you can add extra cites after "particularly contentious" information, though nothing here strikes me as such. In instances where you cite an entire paragraph to one source, just cite the end of that paragraph, as most editors would logically assume it's all sourced to that footnote anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Why do you need three citations for "He viewed the bass playing of James Jamerson as an integral part of Motown's recordings and cited it as the inspiration for his own bass sound on The Way I See It"? At most I can see needing separate cites to verify that "He viewed the bass playing of James Jamerson as an integral part of Motown's recordings" and that it inspired Saadiq's playing.
Removed 3rd cite; 1st supports first half of sentence, and 2nd supports after the "and".
talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I suggest adding a comma after "integral part of Motown's recordings", and then placing the relevant citation next to that clause, and then leaving the other citation at the end of the sentence next to that relevant clause. That will make it more readily apparent what is being cited by what. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really should reduce as many citations to the liner notes and to retail stores as you can. If something isn't remarked upon by a reliable secondary source, it probably isn't noteworthy.
I only used retail store citations for release dates; what else would be used for that kind of information? I dont see the correlation between the information from liner notes and notability; again, where else would I get the most reliable source, for instance, where the album was recorded or who it was engineered by?
talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Secondary sources are preferred. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes the paraphrasing process can subtly distort what is being cited. Take the sentence "Ashford's contributions on the album exemplify its Motown-influenced sonic details, as he played tambourine, vibraphone, bells, and shakers on songs like "100 Yard Dash", "Love That Girl", and "Staying in Love"." That's not quite what David John Farinella is saying. What he's saying is that they will remind listeners of Motown songs--which in of itself an assumption, and not hard fact.
An assumption by who, me or the writer? Removed part of it anyway.
talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
That phrasing is a definite improvement. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of my pet peeves is editors titling sections discussing the musical content of albums "Composition". "Composition" relates to structure, which these sorts of sections are not normally restricted to. "Music" or "Music and composition" would be more appropriate.
  • Why are three citations needed for "The album has a traditional soul music style fashioned after the 1960s Motown Sound and Philadelphia soul.[3][15][16]"? And why is one of them an album review? Reviews aren't meant to be authoritative statements or reports of fact; they are meant to represent an opinion. At the very least, remove that.
Removed two from that sentence. What would be an appropriate source for analysis on an album's music if not a review, BTW? I dont understand where "authoritative statements or reports of fact" factors in here; these arent album sales.
talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Describing music isn't entirely subjective--there are definite musical qualities that can be talked about (beat, tempo, arrangement, etc.). Typically, what I do for such sections is draw from sources that make analyzing (and not necessarily critiquing) the music their main focus, and uncover why an artist did what they did (reviews, on the other hand, are all about interpretation, not investigation). I must note I tend to write articles about bands with guitars, so it's relatively easy to for me to trawl through guitar magazines featuring article by writers educated in music theory. I understand such sources may not be available for this album. But for a section like this you should draw mainly from sources like the "A Modern Throwback" article that is already cited here, which is a piece of reporting and interviewing tasked with figuring out what informed the album's musical content. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Music and style section" is bogged down by critical quotes that would be more appropriate for the critical reception section (and even then, that section is pretty packed, meaning a lot could simply be scrapped as needless detail--remember, you're writing a concise encyclopedia article, not a book). For example, I see a way where the first paragraph could be rewritten to reduce its length in half and it would still get the same overall points across. Overall, that section needs to be more firmly planted in proper facts (verification of what Saadiq was trying to do, what inspired him, and how he achieved it) rather than drawing heavily from album reviews.
Reviews have both the critics' interpretation and their opinion, whether they thought it was good or not. I'm maximizing review sources for the analytical content, not just favorability. Which quotes in particular in the "music and style" section seem to bog it down?
talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The first sentence of the lyrical themes section is problematic--I understand that there's probably not a singular source you can point to where someone breaks down the album's lyrical themes yet, but in its current state it's a Frankenstein sentence that stitches together select bits from disparate critical voices.
Rearranged.
talk) 15:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The "Content" section is the most problematic section as a whole. We don't need to detail every passing comment made about each song in a track-by-track breakdown. Furthermore, the section's overall purpose--describing the musical content of the album--is the same as the one preceding it, except waaaaaaaay more detailed. Merge the two sections and perform a ruthless cull of extraneous information. Summarize, summarize, summarize. There's also a recurring issue with critical comments being offered as fact. You can't quantify a refined groove, for instance. Sometime like "It is written from the point of view of a man in New Orleans reacting to Hurricane Katrina and looking for his lost lover" begs for a stronger cite. How do the reviewers know that's what the song is about? If Saadiq confirmed it in an interview, cite that instead.
Changed "refined" per source, "written from..." to "sung from..."; less contentious. The preceding section is about the album in general terms; this is about the songs. Didnt seem to be a problem for
talk) 15:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
It was, actually, and the editor of that article has said he will get around to revamping that section before the FAC closed. WesleyDodds (talk)
  • On a related note, spin off what you can that's not essential to the understanding of the album as a whole into song articles. All the album's singles meet the notability requirements, and given the size of this article (I understand the cite templates add tons of coding that adds to the kb count, but still, it's pretty long) there's no reason for those pages not to exist. As of right now, this page doesn't use summary style effectively.
  • And related to that, move the excess detail in the Singles section to the individual song articles. Keep only what is necessary for context.
Reduced singles section to chartings in commercial performance section.
talk) 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • There's more that I need to list, but my time at the computer needs to come at an end at the moment, so this is not meant to be a comprehensive listing of all the issues the article has, but it's something to work from in the meantime.

Having said all that, there's quite a bit about the article I do like, and all told Dan56 has done a great job so far. But it does require important revisions before I can support its promotion. Good luck to you, and I know you'll do your best. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does the number of supports have to do with whether you "weak" oppose or not?
talk) 18:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I was sort of thinking/typing aloud and working through my thoughts about the article, so don't mind it. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comprehensive, well written with engaging pros. I believe the major issues have been addressed. – Et3rnal 15:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well written and comprehensive. Seems like Dan56 addressed the issues. I love his writing style and enjoyed reading it. Teammm talk
    email     02:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article is comprehensive, very well written and interesting indeed. It really deserves the bronze star. Good job! — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made request at FAC talk page for spotchecks.
talk) 20:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I have decided that spotchecks are not required on this occasion.


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

GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012 [32]
.

Sudirman

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is ready. The article is comprehensive, cites numerous sources in both English and Indonesian, and has gone through thorough GA and A-class reviews. Sudirman, if passed, will be the highest-importance Indonesian-biography FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: File:Sudirman.jpg seems fine. I was about to point that the license talks about 50 years and not 25, but it is correct, the image is subject to the copyright law at the time of creation. Perhaps the Commons tag should clarify this, or have one for pre-2002 works and another for post-2002 work, but that is beyond the scope of the FAC. File:Signature of Sudirman.svg is fine. File:Capture of Governor-General Stachouwer .JPG is fine (same context of lead image). File:Indonesian Military Headquarters, Gondokusuman, Yogyakarta.JPG seems to be an anonymous work, is the term 50 years after publication? File:Panti Rapih Hospital 16 June 2012.JPG is another building, with another explanation about the copyright on the building itself (I will read about this before approving or rejecting those 2 files, as copyright is a complicated thing and this just got beyond my current knowledge). File:Sudirman saluting 27 May 1946 KR.JPG Is fine. It would be better if you can get somewhere else a better sample of that photo, but the copyright status and the relevance within the article are fine and that is enough. File:Sudirman in Jakarta (1946).jpg is fine (it needs to be moved to Commons, but that's just technical stuff, again beyond the scope of FAC). File:Van Mook.png is fine, but you should explain the meaning of the colors in the file itself, not just in the caption here in wikipedia (remember that wikipedias in other languages may want to write articles about these topics, too). File:Sudirman surrounded by guerrilas 17 August 1950 KR.jpg seems fine. File:Sudirman consulting after guerrila war 11 July 1949 KR.jpg seems fine. I assume that Suharto is the man at the right whose face is visible, right? File:Sudirman's funeral procession 31 January 1950 KR.jpg seems fine, but someone requested a better description of what's going on in the event of the photo (no need to go very long, just a couple more sentences, with wikilinks to specific articles if useful, should be enough). File:Grave of Sudirman.JPG seems fine. File:Sudirman 5 rupiah note 1968.JPG is fine, COM:CURRENCY agrees with the licence used on banknotes of Indonesia.

I will review the article itself later. Have some patience: it's a long article, and I will have to go slowly, I'm from Argentina and don't know anything about Indonesia (but I hope that I will learn something interesting about that country while reviewing this article). Cambalachero (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the image review
 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been investigating, and I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that in the case of annonymous works, the copyright goes to the state (Article 10A). The section "Duration of copyright" does not say anything about annonymous works or copyrights held by the state, so they might be permanent. However,, the two buildings we were talking about can stay. They were built when the Netherlands has not acknowledged yet the independence of Indonesia (27 December 1949, if the country article is correct), so the Freedom of Panorama of the Netherlands applies to them (because of using the law of the time, rather than the current law). A bit complicated legal stuff, I know, but in short words, the two photos are fine and can stay. Cambalachero (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon? Article 10 refers to "prehistoric remains, historical and other national cultural objects," as well as "folklores and works of popular culture that are commonly owned". These buildings would fall under paragraph 11, meaning the buildings were copyrighted "for 50 (fifty) years as of the first time the work is known to the public." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article review First of all, sorry if I sound as a complete ignorant, but is the name only "Sudirman"? There is no first name and last name? As for the article, I will go by sections

  • Lead: I did not see any problem
  • Early life: "According to the family's records, Sudirman – named by his uncle – was born on a pon Sunday in the month of Maulud in the Javanese calendar; the Indonesian government later established 24 January 1916 as Sudirman's birthday". This seems like something important, and should have a specific footnote. If I understood correctly, he is the son of Karsid and Siyem, but Siyem was married with Cokrosunaryo, and so he was raised by Siyem and Cokrosunaryo, and also received a nobility title. Wasn't there a problem with this? As far as I know, nobility give great importance to the blood ties, and being born out of wedlock could be a problem. However, when I think this I'm aware that I'm thinking about European nobility, and Javanese may be different. Was it acceptable in that context, that an adopted son becomes a noble? Or was it kept hidden, with Cokrosunaryo posing as the biological father before the law?
  • Teaching: "In 1936 he returned to Cilacap to teach at a Muhammadiyah-run elementary school, having been trained by his teachers at Wirotomo; that year he married Alfiah, the daughter of the rich batik merchant Raden Sastroatmojo, whom he had known since his time at Wirotomo". You said "Wirotomo" twince in a sentence, you should reformulate the sentence to avoid this.

I will continue tomorrow Cambalachero (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, Sudirman is his only name. Many Javanese share that: Sukarno and Suharto are among the better known examples, but there's also Notonagoro, Kuntowijoyo, Koentjaraningrat...
  • He was the son of Karsid and Siyem (a married couple); Cokrosunaryo was married to Siyem's sister, Tarsem. No question of being born out of wedlock. Cokrosunaryo raised Sudirman as his own and essentially adopted him, a practice not uncommon among the Javanese: Karsid and Siyem had a better chance for their son (nobility = education, at least during those years) and Cokrosunaryo had a heir.
  • Done.
  • Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese occupation: "In Cilacap, Sudirman's school had been closed..." It is "was closed", not "have been". "have been", the past perfect continuous, is for actions in the past that took place in a steady and regular manner, not for a specific action that took place once and then it is done.
  • Commander-in-Chief: "Although his fellow internees wanted to attack the Japanese soldiers, Sudirman convinced them against it; after ordering his fellow internees to return to their hometowns, Sudirman made his way to Jakarta and met with Sukarno, who asked him to lead resistance against Japanese forces in the city." Again, you repeated "internees" and "Japanese" in the sentence. Perhaps it is too long and should be slip in 2 or more sentences, it's a 4-lines long sentence. "The government renamed the Army twice in January 1946, first to the Peoples' Salvation Army (Tentara Keselamatan Rakjat), then to the Army of the Republic of Indonesia (Tentara Repoeblik Indonesia, or TRI)". Use quotations marks ("") when talking about words as words, in this case the name of the army (in this sentence, the name itself is being talked about, instead of being used as a noun).

I will continue later Cambalachero (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • past perfect tense
      (not present) in this situation, which indicates that at the time something happened, something else had already happened; this is the correct usage.
    • Agree, split at the semi-colon. Changed one instance of internees, agree with you there. Can't think of another way to express "Japanese forces"
    • Stet.
      MOS:FOREIGN. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Negotiations with the Dutch: Sudirman is watching to the left in the photo, so it should be placed in the right (the main idea is to have the people watching to the side with the text). The other photos and the box have no people in them, and may be aligned as desired. "...and involved Sudirman. Sudirman took a specially commissioned...". You repeated the name at the end and begining of a sentence, you should replace the second one with "He". "His rank was reduced to lieutenant general..." should be "He was demoted to lieutenant general...".
  • Guerrilla warfare: "He and a convoy, consisting of Sudirman, a small group of soldiers, and his personal doctor...". Isn't "he" referencing Sudirman? Because if it is, he is being listed twince: if you say "he and a convoy", it's implied that they are separate entities, and those in the convoy are others. You should reformulate the sentence, either removing him from the composition of the convoy, or talking about a convoy that includes both him and others (wichever fits better for the case). "After several days in Kretek [...] where there were still several bases" is a very long sentence, 4 lines, please reformulate it
  • Post-war and death: I did not see any problem.
  • Legacy: Perhaps you should link the movies, even if they are red links. A movie about a national hero is likely to be notable, and red links are not a problem for featured status.

That's it for now. I noticed that some of the things I pointed were being fixed in my review intervals, I will check them later. But, overall, the article is a great work, and I will take note of some things from it to apply them to the articles I write. Cambalachero (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images switched. Done. Done.
  • Changed to "His convoy". Split at the semi-colon.
  • Movies linked. Both won awards too (Serangan Fajar even won Best Film at the 1982 Indonesian Film Festival)
Thanks for the review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have been either fixed or explained, and I have no more requests to make. However, I must point that I'm not a native speaker of English and there's always the risk that I do not notice a problem, so in that aspect I will follow what other reviewers say. I think that this is a very good article, and should be featured. Cambalachero (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, Cambalachero! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "but later dropped out for a lack of funds." -> perhaps "owing to a lack of funds", as is, it implies he dropped out to achieve a lack of funds
  • Done
  • "The couple went on to have three sons (Ahmad Tidarwono, Muhammad Teguh Bambang Tjahjadi, and Taufik Effendi), and four daughters (Didi Praptiastuti, Didi Sutjiati, Didi Pudjiati, and Titi Wahjuti Satyaningrum)." -> I think we could just list these names rather than keeping them in brackets as asides.
  • Done.
  • "led to a delay in Sudirman's confirmation." and "While waiting to be confirmed" -> it's his appointment which was to be confirmed, not Sudirman himself; in the sense used here it implies a Catholic sacrament rather than formal recognition of a post.
  • LOL. Changed two occurrences, although I think context suggests otherwise (he would have been 18 years too late)
  • "his assault was counted by an air strike and the use of tanks" -> counted = countered?
  • Dur, done.
  • Thinking the "speedy order" box could be brought in a little bit; as I'm seeing it, there's only one line which spills onto a second line and that's only by one word; bringing it in by 50 to 75px would help it seem a little less sledgehammery without causing it to grow height
  • How's this?
  • "and a devoted, incorruptible, leader." -> comma after "incorruptible" is unnecessary
  • Done.
  • I have it in Oerip Soemohardjo. However, I haven't footnoted it here because it would require footnotes in footnotes. The Rabbit is gone, so I don't know how to fix that.
  • A footnote inside an explanatory note? Episode 2 (Twin Peaks) has one if you want to copy that. It's not necessary though, the article on the awards explains them fine. I hadn't noticed the link was present during my read through (saw it in Soemohardjo, searched and found it in Sudirman after that) so perhaps piping it as a phrase and not one word, to match how it's piped in Soemohardjo, would be useful. GRAPPLE X 22:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind, it's working. Seem to remember it not working last time, but whatever. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from these I'm a happy chappy with this article, it seems more than suitable in terms of comprehensiveness, neutrality, layout etc etc. An interesting read. GRAPPLE X 22:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Aside from one new pipe link suggestion everything I've seen has been addressed. Looks great to me. GRAPPLE X 22:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I requested a third reviewer at the Military History wikiproject. Let's hope that someone notices the request and provides the third review needed here. Cambalachero (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I posted a detailed review of this article during its A-class nomination and subsequently lightly copy edited it, and I think that it now meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I promoted it to A-class and believe that it meets the FA criteria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Hawkeye! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries. Your work on Indonesia-related articles is much appreciated. Australians have a great deal of curiosity about Indonesia, but not a lot of information. I for one have learned a great deal from reading your articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may want to check out Margaret George's dissertation/book Australia and the Indonesian revolution; it's pretty interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012 [33]
.

National Football League Players Association

Nominator(s): The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...I feel it meets the criteria. A little over a year ago, some of the pieces were in place however, the article was largely in disarray and what I thought would be a back-breaking venture actually turned into a very informative history lesson regarding the functions of the NFLPA and how they protect and champion the rights of professional football players. I was quite intrigued by how primitive the NFL was in its heyday; of course now we have lockouts and strikes at the drop of a hat. But who doesn't like to watch people fight over money?! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 19:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Excellent article. I'll have a more thorough look later, but here are a couple points for possible consideration. These are based upon parts of the history I know about or have read about.

  • It might be worth making clearer that in addition to complaining about not being paid for exhibition games, players were typically not paid for participating in training camp (and only got paid for making the roster and playing in regular-season games, as the article says).
  • You also might consider a very brief explanation of why the Bears' players didn't sign up for the NFLPA in the early days. I'm almost sure it was out of loyalty to Halas, and I can find some sources on that if you're interested. That said, it isn't necessary to get into too much detail on this point.
  • You could also consider explaining in a little more depth why
    NFL Championship Game
    in the early 1950s, and many of his players felt they weren't getting their due. I can give you some sourcing on this if you need it, too.

These are just suggestions, really. All in all, great stuff. --Batard0 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your insight. I'd be interested in those sources (per your second and third points) if you have them readily available. I will admit finding sources for the article was not easy at times. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 12:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments and observations in the lead (will try to add more later). These are mainly quibbles and copyedits:

  • Should the first sentence say "the labor organization that represents professional football players" instead of "the labor organization for the professional football players"? I think "for" is a tiny bit vague, although the average reader will probably understand quickly. Is "represents" accurate? Also, you might consider saying "professional American football players" for the benefit of association football fans.
  • In "led by its president", I think "its" could probably be removed without altering the meaning.
  • Suggest rephrasing the following: "In the early years of the NFL, bargaining took place between player and management; team owners were reluctant to engage in collecting bargaining." to "In the early years of the NFL, contractual negotiations took place between player and management; team owners were reluctant to engage in collective bargaining." It is collective bargaining, not collecting bargaining, right? Apologies in advance if I'm not getting labor terms right.
  • "League rules which punished" -> "League rules that punished" is perhaps better here.
  • "for dealing with the NFL's rivals" might be clarified -- I suggest letting us know what kinds of dealings these are. I think we're talking about players who jumped leagues and signed with the NFL's rivals, but I'll leave it to you to consider.
  • You might specify when the NFLPA was formed in the second paragraph.
  • "for the players" -> "for players" suffices here, I think.
  • "has the responsibility to represent and protect" could be simplified to "represents and protects"
  • "discipline which the organization" -> "discipline that the organization" might work better here.
  • "bargaining agreement are being adhered to" -> could remove "being" without changing the meaning.
  • "enhance and defends" should be "enhances and defends," although I'd consider simplifying this whole bit to "defends"
  • I can go in there and do some copyedit-type stuff to save you the hassle, if you'd like, with revert and discuss if there's disagreement. --Batard0 (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the copyediting, I'm flexible either way. Whichever works best for you. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 17:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source comment – What makes Real Clear Sports (ref 31) a reliable source? The other sources appear reliable, though I haven't checked the formatting closely or performed spot-checks. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the mold of ESPN and has been cited by them and other reliable news sources such as The New York Times, Houston Chronicle, CNN, the Los Angeles Times as being a reliable source for sporting news. If it's that suspect I can easily find another source. Thank you for your comments. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article again and didn't see this source. Did you remove it? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I replaced it with a source from the NFLPA's website. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 16:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - logo appears problematic and needs more info (Done). Can you clarify, why File:NFLPA_Red_w_black_wdmrk.png is PD? (Fair-use uploaded)

  • NFLPA website claims a generic copyright on their trademarks and logos (see Terms of Use) and the commons tag requires additional copyright info anyway.
  • You could use a FUR (if you host the file on Wikipedia itself) or maybe PD-textlogo, though the logo is borderline original and may not meet the treshhold to be copyright-free itself.
  • If all else fails, the good people at commons:licensing or similar talkpages could assist with deeper copyright knowledge.
  • (Unlikely, but if the original uploader was authorized by NFLPA, this should be clarified in the summary.) GermanJoe (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it unlikely that the NFLPA through "nflpagirl" released their logo into the public domain. I would suggest that TW 2.0 re-upload to en.wi as fair use. The image of the player takes the "just text" argument out of play, so it's going to need fair use if it stays, which it should.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wehwalt's suggestion, I've re-uploaded the image using Fair Use. Hopefully that will resolve the issue. Thank you both for your assistance. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 23:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved with a fair-use upload on Wiki, thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've reviewed this article at least twice. With TW 2.0's skills and the support of other editors, it meets FA criteria. Source check not done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your support and thoughts as always. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 17:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "contractual negotiations took place between player and management". Is "player" supposed to be plural?
  • For the lead, I wonder if "uncapped season" is a bit too jargony. What do you think of "season without a salary cap" as a replacement?
  • Formation and struggle for recognition: "that uniforms and equipment paid for and maintained at the clubs' expense" Add "be" before "paid"?
  • Gene Upshaw era: Quotation mark missing in Plan B free agency.
  • "The agreement also established a salary floor". En dash after this should be spaced, or you could make it a bigger em dash and keep it unspaced. This violates the MoS as it stands now.
  • En dash needed for 30-2.
  • DeMaurice Smith era: Ref 45 should be moved to after the semi-colon. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 12:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry must have missed your fifth point. I replaced it with an em dash. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 17:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This seems quite interesting, even to someone who has little knowledge of football. However, the prose needs a little work, and there are parts of the article so far where I am completely lost. Maybe a little more explanation within the article rather than relying on a link. I've read the lead and Early history sections so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "is the labor organization that represents the professional American football players in the National Football League (NFL).": Probably just a personal preference, but I'm not sure "that represents" flows quite as well as "representing", but not a big issue.
  • A little jarring to have two consecutive sentences beginning with -ed: "Headquartered…", "Founded…" Maybe just replace the first one with "The NFLPA, which has headquarters…"
  • "to provide players with a formal representative": Sounds like one chap doing all the work. Maybe "formal representation"?
  • I'm afraid the third paragraph of the lead baffles me completely. I'm really not sure who is doing what to whom.
  • I'm still not sure on this one, but maybe will be able to clarify what I'm not sure about when I've read the whole article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including filing grievances against player discipline": Again, -ing -ing is a little jarring.
  • Maybe say briefly in the lead what a collective bargaining agreement is, rather than relying on the link?

Early history

  • Early history is all one section, so why does it have a sub-heading, when everything is contained in that one section.
  • "The establishment of the National Football League in 1920 saw…": I'm emphatically not a fan of "saw" in this sense.
  • "often saddled with poor talent, attendance rates and financial difficulties": Not too sure what this means. Poor talent? Does this mean the players were not very good?
  • A little clearer now, but "often saddled with poor player talent, attendance rates and financial difficulties" suggests that the teams had "poor financial difficulties". Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "players were provided no formal representation": I think this would be better with a "with".
  • "offered to increase his salary": Fussy point, but "increase" suggests they were paying him already and gave him more. Maybe "offered him a greater salary", but I'm possibly being ridiculous.
  • "unable…unable" in the section of Radovich. Also, could we have a date for him lawsuit?
  • "The players grew tired of incidents such as these and complained.": Who to? Each other? Fans? Press? Higher authorities in the game?
  • What year did Gibron and Lavelli approach Miller?
  • "Gibron, Lavelli, and Miller, by way of their associations with Cleveland, were instrumental in the founding of the union due to Paul Brown's staunch view that "it was both just and necessary that management could cut, trade, bench, blackball and own in perpetuity anyone and everyone that it wanted"." Something a little off here. Is this saying that Brown's attitude influenced Gibron, Lavelli and Miller? Or that Miller's attitude was instrumental in the founding of the union? The "due to" doesn't quite work.
  • "Miller, a former Notre Dame football player turned lawyer continued to represent the NFLPA in their early days.": We already know he is a lawyer, so I don't think this needs repeating. And we just read that he was assistant coach at the Cleveland Browns, so I think introducing him in this way here is a little confusing. If it is necessary to say he played for Notre Dame, do it on the first mention.
  • "Unable to win the owners' attention by organizing…": Organizing what? This is sort of hanging; does it mean unable to win attention through the act of formation?
  • "threatened to bring an antitrust lawsuit against the league": A what? Maybe explain as well as link.
  • "From its inception, the members of the NFLPA were divided over whether it should act as a professional association or a union": The subjects are clashing here: as written, this seems to refer to the inception of the members. Maybe "From the inception of the NFLPA, its members…"
  • "Against the wishes of NFLPA president Pete Retzlaff and later Bernie Parrish, Miller was reluctant to engage in collective bargaining…": Later in what sense? Was he later the NFLPA president, or did he disagree at a later date? Also, this does not quite work. Maybe "Against the wishes of the NFLPA president […] Miller ran the association as a "grievance committee" rather than engage in collective bargaining".
  • "NFL players viewed the new league as potential leverage for them to improve their contracts. The NFL tried to discourage using the AFL as leverage…": Leverage … leverage.
  • A few more "leverages" in this section make the word seem overused.
  • "Sources speculated that Miller quit…": What are sources in this sense? A source in the sense of wikipedia sourcing cannot speculate as it is a text. If it means sources in the sense of inside information, surely they would know the truth rather than speculate?

More to follow. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to address the majority of your concerns in those two sections. Hopefully it reads more fluidly now. It would seem somewhat awkward to explain the antitrust lawsuit in the middle of that sentence but I'm open to suggestions. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 16:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: A few more from the "Recognition and certification" section. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Six months after the NFLPA declared itself an independent union, many players were dissatisfied with the lack of compensation the teams provided.": Not sure about starting with "Six months after…" Seems a slightly arbitrary date, and the point is confusing. Were the players dissatisfied with the NFLPAs performance after six months, or is the players' unhappiness unrelated to this, and these incidents just happened to occur after six months?
  • Just to clarify my point, from what does the six months arise? Is it that the players were not happy with the NFLPA after 6 months? Or that the strike vote came after 6 months? I've no problem with "six months" being here, I would just like a little more precision as I think it's ambiguous. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) resulted": How did this result from the strike and lockout? It does not immediately seem to follow.
  • Lots of use of "former" in the second paragraph. Maybe some variation: we have one sentence which has "former NFL players … former AFL player".
  • "The strike lasted for two days ending with a new four year agreement which was reached after the owners threatened to cancel the season.": What sort of agreement? A CBA?
  • "Even before the 1974 strike,…": Given that this section is to tell us about the strike, it is possibly not a good idea to begin the section like this, when we don't know what it is yet!
  • "instead choosing to pursue free agency through the Mackey lawsuit": Through the what?
  • I'm a bit lost again how this lawsuit invalidated the Rozelle Rule. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I've done:
  • I changed the sentence from "offered to increase his salary" to "offered him a greater salary"
  • I changed the wording so that the bit about financial difficulties comes before the poor player talent and attendance rates
  • I clarified the type of agreement (CBA) that came after the two day strike
  • I removed the "Even before the 1974 strike"

Some points I wanted to bring up:

  • It is not clearly stated when Gibron and Lavelli approached Miller it is just stated that despite some early reluctance he accepted their offer in 1956.
  • The six month number, I feel, isn't all that arbitrary: leading up to that point the union became frustrated with its lack of progress and as you'll notice six months coincides with the start of the strike/lockout that occurs as a result of this sentiment.
  • When you asked what was the Mackey lawsuit, it was stated at the beginning of the sentence that it was filed by John Mackey in 1971 challenging the Rozelle Rule which brings me to my next point: the ruling invalidated the Rozelle Rule because prior to that teams would be able to sign free agents however the league commissioner had the authority to award the team losing the particular free agent multiple players from the team he's signing with (Basically you sign a really good player but run the risk of losing other valuable players on your roster). That point is explained in the paragraph--I could insert another mention of it but I'm not exactly certain how to go about doing that at this point.
  • To your point about an agreement resulting after a strike and lockout, both sides came together and found some sort of common ground though the owners were still reluctant to truly increase benefits however, this is not explicitly stated in any sources I have read.
  • I'm still trying to come up with an explanation for the antitrust lawsuit without it making the sentence look terribly awkward. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 15:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replies: I think my problem at the moment is that parts of this article are not too easy for the general reader to understand. Maybe you need a background in the NFL, or in law, but I find I have to read each part several times to understand it. This may say more about me that the article! Also, it certainly would not lead me to oppose but may make it harder to support. To take "instead choosing to pursue free agency through the Mackey lawsuit filed three years before", it is not obvious to me how the Mackey lawsuit brought about the option to pursue free agency. I understand more or less what the Rozelle Rule was, but can't see how the Mackey lawsuit stopped/changed it. I think a fairly obvious point which is not explicitly stated but would make it easier to follow is to state that the NFLPA won the lawsuit. Also, at the start of the paragraph, maybe explain the Rozelle rule, then state that the NFLPA challenged it in court; currently, the challenge comes before the explanation of what is being challenged. And I think there is a slight disconnect between the way the rule is described ("allowed the commissioner to award compensation, which included players, to a team losing a free agent") and "instead of choosing to pursue free agency through the Mackey lawsuit". To the non-specialist eye, it seems that free agency was allowed but there was a penalty; so then saying that the players could pursue free agency through the ruling... It is not made explicit what the difference is. And I think it is this lack of explicitness with which I am currently struggling. But this may possibly just be me, and please feel free to tell me to stop being ridiculous. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: Read through to the end now. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there any particular reason why "For more information, see 1987 NFL Season" is in the middle of a section? It looks a little odd, and I think the MoS suggests that it should go below the section title.
  • "During his time as tenure, he oversaw the 1987 strike...": Once more, the article is referring to something when it has not yet told us what it is.
  • "The NFLPA struck for a month in 1987 upon the expiration of the 1982 CBA with the major matter in dispute being the league's free-agent policy...": A little clunky. Maybe "The NFLPA struck for a month in 1987 upon the expiration of the 1982 CBA; the league's free-agent policy was the major matter in dispute."
  • "Having failed to achieve their demands, and given the willingness of the players to cross the picket lines and networks to broadcast the replacement games, despite a 20% drop in ratings, the union voted to end the strike on October 15, 1987 without a collective bargaining agreement in place.": Long sentence, with too much going on. Maybe "Given the willingness of the players to cross the picket lines and networks to broadcast the replacement games, despite a 20% drop in ratings, the union failed to achieve their demands. The strike ended on October 15, 1987, without a collective bargaining agreement in place."
  • "The union filed a new antitrust suit, and on December 30, the NFLPA asked federal judge David Doty to rule that the league’s exemption from the federal antitrust laws had ended with the CBA and that players were free to challenge free agency restrictions and seek damages under those laws.": Another long sentence with a lot going on. This doesn't make it easier to follow some quite complicated ideas.
  • "Smith has been largely praised...": Who has praised him? Players? Teams? Journalists? Makes quite a difference who did it.
  • "found his leadership style to be too confining": What does it mean to be a "confining" leader?
  • "However, the NFLPA filed papers to decertify as a union on March 11, 2011 and filed an antitrust suit, with lead plaintiffs quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Drew Brees, to enjoin the lockout.": The phrasing makes it ambiguous who is "enjoining": maybe better to move the list of plaintiffs to after "to enjoin the lockout".
  • "The league asked Nelson to stay the order while it appeals to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals": Why the switch to the present tense?
  • "After the emergence of information pertaining to what would later be dubbed as Bountygate, where New Orleans Saints players were allegedly paid bonuses for hits that injured opposing players, the NFLPA, on behalf of Will Smith, Scott Fujita and Anthony Hargrove, three players suspended as a result of an investigation by the NFL, filed a lawsuit against the league." Very long sentence, needs splitting.
  • Having read the whole article, I'm still not too sure why the lead concentrates so much on the 2011 dispute rather than any others. As it is the most recent, and affects current playing conditions, I can appreciate that it needs a specific mention in the lead, but I question whether it needs to be so detailed in the lead.
  • Also going back to the lead, "Founded in 1956, the NFLPA was established to provide players with formal representation to negotiate compensation and the nomenclature of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which regulates the terms and conditions of the workplace, with NFL franchises." What is the purpose of "and the nomenclature of a collective bargaining agreement" here. Is this to give a definition of CBA? If so, it is not too clear. Just looking through the article, it would be good to have a simple definition of a CBA somewhere, and to explain what "antitrust" means. While these can be explained by following a link, I always think it is better in a FA to have this explanation within the article to remove the need to follow a link. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe at this point, I've addressed the majority of your concerns. I still have to provide a definition for the CBA and further explain the Mackey lawsuit/Rozelle Rule outcome and I hope to finish that by the end of today. Per your point about a CBA resulting from the strike and lockout, the sources do not specifically state how it came about but just that it did. Obviously there was some sort of negotiation but that's pure speculation unless someone else can suggest a source that explicitly states so. One other thing: about the lead, I know there is an emphasis on 2011 and you're right that's due to the fact that it's the most recent issue. I can include more about other CBAs if you think it would be a good idea but I don't want to turn it into a laundry list either. Thoughts? -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 17:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning supportComment: All the changes look good, and I will be happy to switch to full support once the last clarifications mentioned above are made. Also, feel free to disagree on any remaining points, as there may be things which it is impossible to explain simply within the scope of this article. Regarding the lead, maybe just say something like "the most recent CBA arose when..." or some similar wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It took some time but I think we've just about made it through. I included the explanation of the Rozelle/Mackey outcome and the antitrust lawsuit, I've hopefully cleared up the six month issue, I removed the mention of the 1987 strike in the opening of the Upshaw era and I added some language to the lead regarding the recent CBA. If there are any other points you'd like to bring up please let me know but otherwise, I think we've about hit the nail on the head. Thanks for sticking with me through this. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Everything has been addressed, and I think this is now pretty accessible to the general reader. Although I cannot speak on comprehensiveness, I am happy to switch to full support now. The Writer 2.0 has been exceptionally patient with my fussy requests and nit-picks, and has done an excellent job of making it clear for non-experts like myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and kind words. I was happy to do it—quality is what it's all about. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 20:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; very nice article, I'm still reading through it, but it definitely looks to be FA material. I agree with the comment above about the third paragraph in the lede section, especially the first sentence. It almost reads backwards to me and I think could use a little copyediting. I'd do it, but I'm not sure about the best way to express the content in that paragraph.

Dreadstar ☥ 20:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I thank you both for your kind input. I realize the language is unfamiliar to the reader especially before having read the entire article so I simplified it and hopefully made it a bit clearer. Although it's shortened, I believe it still effectively explains the function of the NFLPA. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Giants has approved the changes and made a minor tweak. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 04:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012 [34]
.

Triangulum Australe

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I've done all I can to it, and had help from the Good article process and then some Peer Review feedback. It is short and sweet, and I've put in it just about everything I've found. I have a nagging concern about the listiness of constellation articles so am happy to hear prose tweaks. Have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a
    talk) 00:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments - nice article, some minor points (Done)

  • Lead "...[deep sky objects] are not prominent." - wiki-link, hyphen deep-sky objects?
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[Other] notable features include ..." - The preceding sentence is already about "deep-sky objects", so clusters and nebulas are not "Other" notable features.
good point. removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fixed first 2 points, an edit was probably lost along the way. GermanJoe (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • history "...a catalogue for his patron king Manuel I of Portugal, which is now lost. In 1504, he had published his work Mundus Novus" - a bit unclear (for me), was the catalogue called "Mundus Novus" or are those two separate works?
two separate works. I didn't want to digress too much into this story, but added a bit more to clarify it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • wiki-link "Jacob Floris van Langren" and "Houtman" (if one of the Houtmans on the DAB-page is the correct one, not sure).
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Petrus Keyser" - wiki-link "Pieter Dirkszoon Keyser" (if it's the same guy?).
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If mentioned persons are not astronomers, briefly add their profession or other important qualifiers (f.e. "cartographer Jacob Floris van Langren").
added professions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characteristics "The [recommended] three-letter abbreviation for the constellation ... " - i'd remove "recommended", as the IAU appears to be commonly recognized as de-facto naming authority.
good point - there were some two and four letter variants early but I agree these are universal and uncontested now. removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable features "It consists of a white dwarf and a donor star which [orbit each other] every 1.5 hours." - Technically they don't orbit "each other", but maybe that's too nitpicky (feel free to ignore).
Technically they orbit a common centre of gravity, but that comes over a bit wordy for this...happy to consider succinct alternatives...is it too wordy? hmmm. Casliber (talk · contribs)
no worries, was just nitpicking for the sake of it. The short version should be close enough for a summary text. GermanJoe (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Triangulum Australe lies within the Milky Way, so has many stars, yet is not well represented with deep sky objects—one open cluster and a few planetary nebulae and faint galaxies." - that sentence structure looks odd, several short stubby clauses where the flow could use improvement. "Well represented" sounds odd for a constellation. Some thoughts: The info "it lies within the Milky Way" probably would fit better in the general characteristics and location info. Maybe start the para with "Triangulum Australe has many stars, but only a few notable deep-sky objects." No need to list them, this info follows with the next sentences anyway.
tried rejigging the bit and placing Milky Way sentence in characteristics. I think it works. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your concern about a lot of listy data, but besides some minor prose-tweaks i don't see how to avoid this situation. You can't add a lot more narrative detail without blowing up the article's length and the mentioned facts seem all notable enough. GermanJoe (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I can think of to make the listiness less listy is highlighting the most interesting tidbits a bit....just not sure if any more are needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All Done, thanks - except the catalogue <-> Mundus Novus question, could you check please? GermanJoe (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did some more minor copy-edits to avoid repetitions and added a few wiki-links, diff is [[35]]. GermanJoe (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very neatly written and though I'm not an expert in the field is seems both historically and technically informative. I took the liberty of copyediting a few things, nothing critical though so feel free to revert anything if you don't care for my changes. Cheers, · Andonic contact 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
changes look ok - thanks for the support! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check all (both) images are OK. GermanJoe (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - (did some very minor ce) The general information appears comprehensive, sourced and well-written (for an article with a lot of data). A few quick source checks showed no issues. Two remaining minor points:

  • "HD 147018 is a sun-like star of apparent magnitude 8.3 and spectral type G9V,[28] which was found to have two exoplanets, HD 147018 b and HD 147018 c, in 2009.[29]" - Is HD 147018 the third star of the previously described Iota Trianguli Australis or is it a new separate object? Could be made a little bit clearer.
agree. just trying to get some info on the fainter star of iota to put in...but that is proving tricky to find to add.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article still has several "X is ...", "Y is ..." sentences. I realize, some of them are unavoidable, but if you could find a few more spots for rephrasing, it would help to improve the prose flow. GermanJoe (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • orange giant, celestial globe, Arcmin, optical double, spiral galaxy — links please
Unfortunately
bright giant. Others linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • He grew to recognize the stars in the southern hemisphere — learned to recognise probably more normal
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
aligned now Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A9IV/V — this and similar are pretty impenetrable, you have to read most of the spectral types article. If you are going to keep them, I suggest pointing to the Yerkes subsection instead
I've de-linked that as better links elsewhere Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • C2, CH and CN — I have a chemistry degree, most of your readers will not. A bit of help here would be good
I've blue-linked them. The names won't mean anything unless the reader reads the target article. if you can think of a few words that might help then that might be good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I like that - was wondering whether just molecules was sufficient but this is exacter Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light years — some, but not all, have parsec conversions, need consistency
added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mennickent, Ronald E.; Arenas, Jose — format ref
no idea what happened there....but fixed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photoelectric photometric Catalogue of homogeneous measurements in the UBV System — should "Catalogue" be lc?
dang. meant to do all titles in Title Case... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give publisher locations for some, but not all, books
added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • please write US states in full in refs
added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, I'll be happy to support once the outstanding minor items are fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
great/thanks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More ref comments

  • FN2 and similar should be endash
tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4: page?
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schaaf ISBN returns error, please check
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ségransan: why is there a date in the middle of an author list? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
bleh, no idea - fixed now anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 22:16, 7 November 2012 [36]
.

Daisy Jugadai Napaltjarri

Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This rather short article is on one of hundreds of artists to emerge from the contemporary Indigenous Australian art movement that commenced in the 1970s. Daisy Jugadai's work is from a small group amongst these artists who represent the landscape in a kind of 'hybrid' style, between the traditional iconography of the Papunya artists, and the realist landscapes of the Hermannsburg School. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support based on a read through of content. Quite short, but seems to cover the topic well.
    talk) 17:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments: Although brief, this article is very readable and interesting, and seems to be comprehensive. There are one or two things which may require further explanation or elaboration, but no major issues that I can see. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "fine observation of the complex structures of the vegetation and environment": Fine is ambiguous here. Is it meaning "good" which would suggest POV, or fine meaning "close"? If the latter, then maybe "close observation" would work better.
  • "operate using a different conception of time": Different to who?
  • "may be associated with particular totems": Not sure what totems means in this sense.
  • It has what I think is the everyday meaning, but have wikilinked. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus 'Daisy Jugadai' is the element of the artist's name that is specifically hers.": Any reason for preferring single quotation marks to double?
  • Do we know the cause of her death?
  • Not that I've been able to locate, though i found one more snippet on a major work during my search. I have one more source to check at home but, subject to that, it's a no. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Background" is a little clunky and hard to follow.
  • "Contemporary Indigenous art of the western desert began when…": This seems an odd way to phrase this; how can contemporary art "begin"?
  • "However, there was also a desire amongst many of the women to participate…": Do we need "of the"?
  • "large numbers of them began to create paintings": Sounds like some sort of group art work, where large numbers of women paint together.
  • "Her works reflect her Tjuukurrpa, the complex spiritual knowledge and relationships between her and her landscape;[21] she also portrayed those of her late husband and late father.": Not quite understanding "Tjuukurrpa" here, in particular how she can portray someone else's. But that could just be me.
  • It's a tricky subject, and I also wasn't sure it was discussed at the correct point in the article. I've added some explanation, and relocated the text to the "background" subsection. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her painting reflects fine observation of the complex structures of the vegetation and environment, its features "obsessively detailed", with the artist "devotedly [including] all the bush tucker of that area", as well as choosing "a time of year in which to depict her country".": In-text attribution? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a cite at the end of the sentence for all three quotes - it would be clunky to repeat the cite three times, no? Or are you getting at something else? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sorry! I meant WP:INTEXT; i.e. saying who said it in the text: "According to X...". However, not a big issue if you would prefer not to, as there is some room for manoeuvre in the MoS for quotes like these. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An interesting article. All changes look good, and with the qualification that I know little about the subject, I am happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review. I also tweaked the tjukurrpa stuff, if you want to take a look. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A distinguished artist in her community, her death coincided with a period of "brilliant revival" of artistic expression amongst her successors - I'd try and write this without the direct quote.
Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any other info/critique/commentary on any other paintings at all? If none published in reliable sources then ok, but the article is quite short and would benefit from a bit more on her work.
I combed through the references, including one that I had, inexplicably, overlooked. But while I have been able to add a little more information (about geography, administrative role and style), I have found nothing further in the way of commentary on individual works. Unless I happen to turn up something in an auction catalogue (a long shot), I think this is everything. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was worth one last look...anyway all good now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking pretty good....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Fn7: ISBN?
  • FN10: pages?
  • FN23: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 20:15, 4 November 2012 [37]
.

Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because as part of my on-going effort to improve articles about Maya Angelou, I believe that is now ready for FAC. Its GAC reviewer has stated that he believes that it is ready too. Enjoy and learn! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this has taken me a while to address; it's been a busy and stressful week. I'll start now and hopefully finish by the end of the weekend.

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Missing bibliographic info for Bloom, Arensberg/Arensburg, Cudjoe, Lauret, O'Neale
  • Why include date in short cites to Lupton?
  • FN54: missing space
  • Check page formatting throughout
  • Look for template glitches like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the above is now fixed. Thanks for the catches. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lead doesn't seem quite there yet:

  • The lead doesn't summarise the article very well (there's very little about the actual themes). I'd have expected at least a couple of sentences about every one of the four themes, but instead there's one paragraph introducing the books and another talking about their genres and structures. The only relevant thing I can find is that racism is present in all the books. Suggestion: trim the present lead of its tangential stuff and add two paragraphs summarising the four major sections of the article.
After thinking about it, it occurs to me that the problem with this, other than my weakness in writing leads, is that the content in this version's lead belongs in an "Overview" section, so that's what I did: I created a new section, placed the content there, and then I wrote a new lead that correctly summarizes the rest of the article. Does that help?
  • Prose: variants of the word "autobiography" are used thrice in one sentence.
Pretty sure that I fixed that, if I got the sentence you're talking about.
  • The last sentence repeats the first one: "racism, identity, family, and travel."
Fixed.
  • I haven't read the rest of the article, nor any Angelou, but I'm surprised that no "Other/Minor themes" section is necessary. Can all the themes in these six books be placed into these four headings?—indopug (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes. Themes are discussed in Lupton and McPherson; please give me a few days to look again and see if there's anything that I've missed. I tried, however, to include all major themes that appear in all six books as complied from writing articles about them. Would it clarify if I were to state that these four are the "major themes" in them? We may need to change the name of the article as well, to "Major themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so after looking back at the major sources, I've come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is to change the title of this article as I suggest above. Yes, there are other themes that the authors discuss, but they don't represent the consensus. For example, Hagen has a chapter about Angelou's use of humor, but he's the only reviewer that does so, and I hesitate writing an entire section based upon just one viewpoint. There are also themes that are exclusive to each autobiography, but they're discussed in the individual articles. The four listed here are common to all the autobiographies. I don't think this is the place to list every single theme--again, another reason to change the title of the article. What do you guys think? If a reviewer directs me to do so, I'll go ahead and change the title. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to change the title. My incination is that the reader would expect this article to cover themes that recur across the books, and not cover subject matter that was a theme in just one of them. I think that is the common sense position. The 'humour' issue is a trickier one. However I would suggest that humour is not a theme, it is a mode of writing / genre / style. "Themes" to me relate to the subject matter, and the four headings to me share that nature.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Likely not doing a full review with too little background knowledge, but a few comments:

  • Lead - "Angelou's autobiographies are distinct in style and narration, and 'stretch over time and place',[3] from Arkansas to Africa and back to the US." ==> The first part sounds very vague, what exactly is so distinctive about her style and narration? I realize, the main text elaborates this, but the lead should atleast name 1-2 main features of her writing style.
Perhaps this issue is addressed by what I describe above: move the lead in the previous section to a new section, "Overview", and write a new lead. In case you still have the same issue after this, I added a note to refer to the "Style and genre in autobiographies" section in Maya Angelou because I'm not sure a discussion of this would fit here.
  • "...and 'stretch over time and place'" ==> Is that quote note-worthy for the lead? Most autobiographies describe the different "life stations" of the author - that's kind of their point to begin with.
Again, in "Overview" section now. Actually, what you describe isn't how Angelou structures her books. Again, that's discussed in the main article.
  • "Angelou's autobiographies have been characterized as autobiographical fiction, but scholar Mary Jane Lupton has insisted that all of Angelou's autobiographies conform to the genre's standard structure: they are written by a single author, they are chronological, and they contain elements of character, technique, and theme." ==> This statement seems problematic, one opinion is mentioned without any supporting arguments and background, the other is backed up with additional arguments. Who is characterizing it as autobiographical fiction and why? 1-2 main arguments for this position would be good to balance this out. Also the statement is not completely clear about, which one is the accepted mainstream position or are both opinions equally popular?.
Lupton seems to be the only one who makes this statement--that critics have characterized Angelou's works as autobiographical fiction. I clarified this statement by adding to the beginning of the sentence, "According to scholar Mary Jane Lupton..." There aren't any glaring controversies about how to characterize the genre of the books.
  • The article is a bit difficult to read, as the main text immediately jumps into a very detailed analysis of the themes. Maybe a small general "overview" about all autobiographies (Name, timeline, main topics of each) could help readers with little background knowledge. Obviously you can't rewrite the whole autobiographies sub-article, but maybe a 1-2 para summary would be possible.
See above re: "Overview". There has been articles written about all six books, so couldn't the writer refer to them?
  • The article structure in "themes" appears logical, but i miss some kind of analysis, how those themes influence each other and build up a common narrative. Some of this information is buried in the sub-sections, but without any overarching commentary it's difficult to get a complete picture.
Okay, here's the problem with writing articles about Angelou. Most of the scholarship about her was written before all six of her autobiographies were written, even in the scholarly literature, at the time of her speech at Clinton's inauguration, most likely due to the fact that she became so well-known at the time. There was also a long period between the fifth and sixth autobiographies (16 years), and her popularity in comparison had waned. There's a need for something that unifies all her books, and for good scholarly work done on how the themes in her books go together, but it's just not out there, and the main Angelou scholars are no longer in the picture. I suspect that much of this need will be filled after Angelou's death, when much scholarship is done about writers. For our purposes, I think that I've done a good job at demonstrating the scholarship that been done up to this point. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes: the article uses several very short "quotations" (some only one or two words), which are referenced, but not directly attibuted in-text. The over-usage of this small quotes should be trimmed - quotes are only necessary, when the quoted text can't be paraphrased or the quote is a unique, relevant text, which is needed to understand the article. Most of those small quotes can be easily paraphrased and consist of relatively common phrases, so they should be rephrased in your own words.
I believe that I've cut many of the small quotes you mention. I've kept some when they're unnecessary, although choosing which quotes to keep and which to remove is based on my editorial judgment alone, so if you feel like I should do more, let me know why and I'll follow your suggestions.

As mentioned, i am certainly no expert in that area, so take that as some outsider's perspective. GermanJoe (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I appreciate it. That's partly what this process is for--to get feedback and assistance in improving these articles. Outside eyes are always helpful. Sorry it's taken me so long to address the comments; I'll try and get to the other item (adding an "Other/minor themes" section over this weekend when I have more time to devote to it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just realized, i should have numbered those points from the start, oh well. Anyway some quick replies:

  1. Lead and Overview - that change helps a lot to get into the article, but you may want to split the second lead para in 2 - it's too long for the lead and contains a lot of info to digest.
  2. Lupton and genre - OK.
  3. Themes - further general analysis. If there is not enough material about this aspect, no worries. The article can only use available sources.
  4. Quote situation - has improved. It's a case by case decision, as you said - just avoid quoting common or easily paraphrased statements.

Thanks for addressing those points. GermanJoe (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks again for the review. I split the paragraph as you request. What do you think about the change in title? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both the first lead sentence and the first overview sentence already make it quite clear, that the article only talks about major themes throughout her autobiographies. Themes, which have little or no secondary discussion by other scholars, are probably not notable enough and do not need inclusion. ==> I think, you could leave the article title as is. When more scholarly discussion about other themes is published, you can always add a new section.
  • Support - I was the GA reviewer. GermanJoe has already addressed what my outstanding concerns were with the quotes and lead. The article fully meets the FA criteria now. maclean (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment. An engrossing sequel to the main biographical article. The structure appears sound, the idea is good, the scholarship too looks good. The copyediting seems to perhaps need a little work. Some specific comments or queries:

  • lead has "The rest of the books in her series also include..." I'm assuming this is a comprehensive list (it should be), so it should simply read "The rest of the books in her series are..."
It is comprehensive. Ah, simple is always better.
  • This sentence needs work: "Their unity underscored one of Angelou's central themes: the injustice of racism and how to fight it and consisted of "a sequence of lessons about resisting racist oppression"" - the two "ands" create a problem; also, the subject of the sentence is "their unity", and their unity cannot "consist" of something.
Fixed by separating the sentences and added "According to scholar Pierre A. Walker, all of Angelou's books described..." to the second sentence.
  • "in African-American autobiography specifically, which had its roots in the slave narrative,..." SHould that be "has"? Does it no longer have those roots (I don't know).
Fixed. I looked at the other instance of this phrase, in the "Travel" section. You'll see that I changed things to reflect that Black autobiography is developed from the slave narrative, but kept the term "rooted" as a subtle reference to Alex Haley. Not sure if that will fly here in the FAC world. I'm willing to change it if I must and if reviewers direct me to do so.
I don't think there's any problem with that subtle reference, except this non-American completely missed it! :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the overview section, there is a conceptual/definitional problem. Lupton states that the autobiographies "conform to the genre's standard structure: ...they are chronological,..." Two sentences later, however, we are told they "did not follow a strict chronology". This apparent contradiction should be resolved.
Hmm. Lupton states that Angelou's books are autobiographical because, in part, they are chronological, but Walker states that the events in her books don't follow a "strict" chronology. I see a big difference. The Caged Bird article explains a bit more (which I avoided doing here because it's meant to be a summary), about how although the events are presented chronologically like most autobiographies, they aren't necessarily presented in the order in which they actually occurred. Should I expand that explanation here?
I suspected this would be the explanation. I don't think it needs much expansion, just a slight rewrite to clarify, so that it doesn't trip the reader up. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the problem might best be solved by deleting the phrase "although their arrangements did not follow a strict chronology". The key points surely are 1. that the series is, in general, chronological (stated in the earlier sentence) and 2. the structure is thematic. The phrase I've suggested deleting just muddies the second of these points and, bearing in mind that this is an overview section, doesn't need to be made. i will leave it to you. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have done as Ham has suggested, since he makes a lot of sense. Of course, that meant that I had to revise the following sentence; done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting article. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Thanks for the helpful review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - Did I miss the image review? I would hate to see this archived for lack of support, and encourage reviewers to commit, one way or the other, to make consensus apparent.

talk) 23:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Just a note to say I have pinged GermanJoe and Indopug asking whether they would consider revisiting. For my own part, I'm done and supporting. Thanks Graham.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, i'll try to take another look over the weekend. GermanJoe (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS. The two images are not problematic.
talk) 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - some additional comments (close to support):

  • Racism "At least one reviewer has criticized Angelou for harboring "a fanatic hostility expressed toward all white people"" ==> Such a strong statement doesn't work with the vague "At least one" source. Reviewer Daisy Aldan is mentioned in the source as author of this statement, any reason why she is not named here?
Other reviewers have commented on my tendency to over-utilize the statement "according to...", so I went overboard to the other extreme in this case, which is another tendency of mine. I realize that there are times when it's necessary. I changed the offending statement, which meant that I had to revise the following statement.
  • "She was not completely comfortable with the arrangement, however; as Lupton pointed out, Angelou never named her roommates." - the connection between both parts of this sentence is a bit vague. Is "not naming her roommates" indicating, that she didn't really get close to them and kept some distance?
I'm wondering if I should just remove that statement. Lupton says that Angelou didn't name her roommates, despite the importance she places in a couple of places in her books on names and naming, which indicated how little she thought of them and the lack of closeness she felt with them. Yes, I realize that's another theme, but there's not enough information to dedicate an entire section to it and it smacks of OR. (Ah, yet another topic to write about if I ever got the opportunity to write scholarly articles about Angelou.) I didn't even think it was important enough to mention in the Singin' and Swingin'  article. It may be too complicated to explain here; what do you think?


  • Travel "The travel motif [is demonstrated] in Traveling Shoes, as evidenced in the book's title,..." ==> "is demonstrated" sounds awkward for an encyclopedic article. Maybe "The travel motif is a recurring theme in ...".
Ok, done.
  • Besides those minor points i am still concerned about the handling of source attribution, several relatively common statements attribute their source immediately in-text, some examples (please check throughout the whole article):
  • "As feminist scholar Maria Lauret has indicated, Angelou and other female writers in the late 1960s and early 1970s used the autobiography to reimagine ways of writing about women's lives and identities in a male-dominated society."
  • "Lauret has stated that Angelou, as a woman, demonstrated the formation of her own cultural identity throughout her narratives."
  • "Hilton Als has insisted that while Angelou's original goal was to write about the lives of Black women in America, her goal evolved in her later volumes to document the ups and downs of her own life."
None of those examples appears especially controversial or extraordinary. Only controversial statements and direct quotes need immediate in-text attribution to their source. Make sure, statements like the above are phrased in your own words, then the original source does not need to be mentioned in-text ("normal" citation is sufficient). When you trim down in-text attribution to only the necessary cases, you can avoid a lot of those repetitive "According to ..." and "X stated ..." phrases.
Ah, see what I mean! ;) I will do as you suggest.

Overall a very nice article, that seems to cover all aspects of its topic - interesting even for a semi-ignorant reader. If the usage of direct quotes and attributed text can be trimmed a bit more, i'll be glad to support. GermanJoe (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A bit more easy, if tedious work is needed. There is overuse of state and assert verb forms. Honestly I think the text could use a copyedit for structural variety, but that's not a deal breaker imho.

In general, I thought it was accepted that when citing an author we use the present tense (hence Joe Shmoe asserts...). I see that Brianboulton didn't use that for Rite of Spring, however, so this may not be true. Disregard this rambling.

Lead:
  • Their unity underscored one of Angelou's central themes: the injustice of racism and how to fight it. - The last bit "and how to fight it" doesn't match with the rest of the sentence. I'd prefer a revision of the injustice of racism and a method for fighting it, or something more eloquently-put but with the same idea.
  • I'm confused why it's Black-white relationships. Should they both be capitalized, or neither?
Racism:
  • Reviewer Hilton Als observed that Angelou's witness of the evil in her society, as directed towards Black women, shaped Angelou's young life and informed her views into adulthood. - I'm not sure witness is used correctly as a noun. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  • Again the Black-white issue.
  • The word "stated" is overused in this section. I'm making an attempt at reducing it.
Family:
  • O'Neale maintained that "no Black woman in the world of Angelou's books are losers",[2] and that Angelou was the third generation of intelligent and resourceful women who overcame the obstacles of racism and oppression. - Is this a typo, or is this taken from the source? If so, it should probably have an nl [sic] tag.
Travel:

"white" - capitalized or not?

Good work. ceranthor 22:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where Christine is right now. On the B/black W/white question: per MOS, proper names are capitalised per standard usage. The question is: what is the standard usage? There is little question that the standard usage is Black; what I'm not clear on is standard usage regarding white. Here's an abstract of an article from American Speech that, while written about the term 'Black', in the process suggests the proper thing is to capitalise white. This site suggests APA style is to capitalise both. However, I am not convinced that white is generally used as a proper noun, whereas Black is used in that way. I think one would need to be satisfied that the usage was intended to be equivalent in nature (not an adjective, for example). Sorry that isn't more definitive. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant to address this earlier but it's been a busy weekend. This issue has come up in most reviews of Angelou articles; I really should put a disclaimer explaining it when I nominate them. (I think I will from now on.) This is an editorial decision made early in the progression of the creation and improvement of Angelou's articles; see here. The short explanation is that "white" isn't capitalized because Angelou doesn't, and "Black" is because she does. All other editors have found the explanation acceptable. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Spotchecks

  • Article: The setting in Angelou's first two autobiographies was limited to three places (Arkansas, Missouri, and California), but the "setting breaks open"[Lupton, p. 98]
  • Source: This is on p. 99
  • Article: Lupton stated that Angelou's travel narrative in Singin' and Swingin', which took up approximately 40 percent of the book, gave the book its organized structure. Angelou's observations about race, gender, and class made the book more than a simple travel narrative.[Lupton, pp. 99–100]
  • Source: Her observations of race, gender, and class, along with the personality that she brings to every situation, prevent Singin' and Swingin from becoming a travel narrative.
  • Article: As she told an interviewer, she brought her son to Ghana to protect him from the negative effects of racism because she did not think he had the tools to withstand them.[42]
  • Source: Between 4:17 and 4:28 in the video.
No issues except the page number.
talk) 16:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Despite a formatting issue which may or may not be a bug, I fixed the discrepancy. ceranthor 17:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Wow, thanks Graham. I was planning on coming here this afternoon and address the final comments, I promise, but you passed it anyway. How nice you are! I will deal with the feedback now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 17:42, 3 November 2012 [38].

Giant eland

Nominator(s): Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have put much effort in providing literature and expanding this article. It is also a GA. I think it has much broad coverage, and agrees with all Wikipedia policies, and believe this could be an FA. Thank you. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: File:Western Derby Eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) 3 crop.jpg, File:Western Derby Eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) 4.jpg, File:Western Derby Eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) 5.jpg and File:Western Derby Eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) 1.jpg should have a description in English. File:Taurotragus derbianus gigas.jpg does not describe the content of the image but the file, it should do both. And if it a derivative work of another file, as suggested by the description, that other file (and the author, if it is another) should be mentioned. Same goes for File:Giant eland map.png, which should mention the blank map of Africa used. The other files are fine Cambalachero (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. About File:Western Derby Eland (Taurotragus derbianus derbianus) 3 crop.jpg, I have added a caption. But I think the rest images tell about the behavior of the animal, and that everywhere there need not be a description of the location where the image was taken (but tell me if this is important, there is no objection of mine). I have rewrote the caption. I do not know the source map used by File:Giant eland map.png, I just used the image available in Commons.
The descriptions in English that I mentioned are not the captions used in the article, but the image description at the pages of the files themselves. The files I pointed have only descriptions in cesky, add one in English as well. It's not needed to be very complex, things like "A Giant Eland eating a plat" is enough. The original map is needed and mandatory, for copyright compliance, but if you don't know where was it taken from, I will see if I can locate the original map myself. Cambalachero (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As there is a same discussion below about captions, you can look there. Thanks for your offer of locating the base map, I have failed in finding it. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I could not locate the base map either. I left a question about it to the uploader, let's hope that he visits Commons and notices it. Cambalachero (talk) 01:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article review: The "Subspecies" subsection is perhaps unneeded, it has a list of just 2 entries. A paragraph in the "Taxonomy" section should be enough. "However, the giant eland is the slightly larger species...", do we need the "however"? The text is not introducing an idea that contradicts or contrasts the one stated before. The trophy head should be placed inside the "uses" section. And according to

MOS:IMAGELOCATION, File:Houston Giant Eland.jpg should be at the right, as the Eland is looking to the left (but perhaps that page does not apply for pictures of animals). I did not see any other problems. Cambalachero (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Good point. I have removed the 'Subspecies' title. Removed 'however' and fixed sentence. About the trophy head picture, if its placed in 'uses', it pushes the References section to the left, which according to me does not look fine. Same for File:Houston Giant Eland.jpg, if it is placed at the right, it squashes the text. And, however, I do not think it is so significant. --Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I noticed in another discussion, we have different screen sizes in our computers. In mine, the change would not be problematic, but if it is at a higher resolution, then we may leave this as it is, so I removed that request. Cambalachero (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I hope the rest issues you mentioned here are resolved (article review). Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Jim Looks comprehensive, but a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me?

  • All the English-speaking countries in the current and former range use BE, AE spelling is therefore inappropriate (color, behavior, defense (noun), -ize endings)
Fixed those you mentioned (some -ize ending words may be left)
  • Taurotragus derbianus, composed of three words: — "derived from"
Fixed.
  • Duplicate link detector found overlinking for Tragelaphid, Terminalia, sexual maturity, bongo
Thanks for that help. Did not have that tool, but now I know the links.
  • It belongs to the order Artiodactyla, family Bovidae, subfamily Bovinae and genus Taurotragus. — pointless repetition of what the taxobox says and doesn't tell us the important thing, how the genus is related to other bovids
As the section gives taxonomical information, this information is required. The order and subfamily could be removed. And, I could not understand what you said to be the important point.
  • Well, if you are going back to the order, you might as well add the class and phylum for completeness. It's too much information, I'd start at bovinae. The info on relationships within the subfamily is actually there, perhaps give an example of a member of the other part of the tribe, like the bongo? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, class and phylum if mentioned would be pointless, the purpose of the taxobox is to mention the full hierarchy. So we could have here only the family (if you prefer subfamily as well, though I think it is not needed) and genus, these are most relevant. I would not like mentioning subfamily and tribes, these do make the taxonomy confusing and are not much needed. Still, what are your views?
  • The species has been differentiated from E. canna and E. triffittae, which parasitize the common eland (T. oryx). It is also parasitized by Carmyerius spatiosus… — last species mentioned was Eimeria derbani,, but I assume these are eland parasites not parasites of E. derbani
No, it is for the giant eland.
  • Centric fusion, ungulate — link or gloss
Linked.
  • Nigeria is not part of the range in lead, suddenly appears lower down
In "Threats and conservation" section, it is mentioned that the presence of the eland is uncertain in Nigeria, so it is not a part of its range.
  • Nor are the four countries listed in the lead as being no longer part of the range. Its presence is uncertain in Guinea-Bissau and Nigeria I took to mean that it may be extinct, are you now saying that there are doubts whether it ever occurred there? Needs clarifying Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the lead. I have tried to write in a bit clarified way there.
  • The western giant eland is in a more dangerous situation, being listed as 'Critically Endangered' by the IUCN. Today they — "today it"
  • Captions shouldn't include article title, they are assumed to be giant elands unless otherwise stated
So instead of the name "giant eland", would it be fine to use the word "specimen"?
  • Pointless though. Just taking a couple of examples: T. d. gigas, a subspecies of T. derbianus, in Cincinnati Zoo = Subspecies T. d. gigas in Cincinnati Zoo If it's not T. derbianus,, wouldn't be on this page. Or Giant eland is a herbivore = Feeding on plant material, I can't tell it's a herbivore from the picture, might eat a rabbit ten minutes later. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the name may be unadvisable but it's not forbidden, we may seek other equal terms or ways to structure the sentence to avoid the name, but if that breaks the accuracy or leads to unneeded wordy or complex captions, then we should simply use the name. For example, we may replace "Distribution of the giant eland" with just "Distribution", but the "Western giant eland" and "Eastern giant eland" color code references of the map should stay as they are. Other suggestions, turn "Giant elands fighting over dominance" to "two males fighting over dominance". As for the picture eating a plant, that criticism is a bit over the top: the giant eland is herbivore, and the photo shows the animal being herbivore. There's no inaccuracy in the photo. Cambalachero (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine, I have made changes in captions, hope they shall be satisfactory. As the picture caption in diet is still being discussed, I haven't disturbed it. See here. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Robertsonian translocation suddenly become "Rob"⋅?
Changed to Robertsonian translocation
  • They form groups among themselves, like the males group, and that of females and juveniles.— clunky They form separate groups of males and of females and juveniles
Reworded as you said
  • giant elands are also known to scrape — giant elands scrape
Reworded.
  • the delivery ends — we don't have a midwife, "birth" I think
Rewrote it
  • You need to be consistent about publisher locations, all or none
Better none
  • Don't abbreviate US states, we are not all Americans
Oops, left this out! But what is 'abbreviating US states'? Didn't understand the problem
  • An apparently English language source has "éléphants" Pouquoi?
It was the original name of the article. Well, I have changed it to "elephants".
  • P. Hejcmanova in refs needs italics
Couldn't understand, please clarify.
  • Oops, I thought it was a binomial! However, ref 27 should have italics, and ref 34 has "giant's" instead of "giant" I know you have just copied from the sources, but they should be corrected Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • '' Bibliography — these aren't cited texts, should be "Further reading" and this section seems to ignore all the rules for formatting books and italicising genera
These are not of much importance, I think their contents are already in the article. I have removed this section.

Thanks Jimfbleak for your comments. I have answered to them, please reply soon. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments. I made these edits (a typo, captions, expand MD) please check. The taxonomy section still has an issue, I don't think you need all the taxa, you decide which are relevant. A new quibble is that you appear to have forced image sizes. This is generally discouraged since it overrides user preferences. Also, the sizes seem to be chosen at random, so not even consistency of presentation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need help with images. About this issue of image sizes, could you help me more? Also say whether the captions now satisfy you or not. I have rewrote the line in taxonomy as: "Giant eland is placed in the genus Taurotragus of family Bovidae". Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Users can set their preferred image display size in "my preferences". Using parameters like "180px" overrides this, so they see your preference, not theirs. Best to remove the image sizes, especially as the sizes vary from one image to the next. I'm not going to oppose on this, so I've changed to support above, and I'll leave this with you.
I have removed all image sizes, and all looks fine. I think this issue is resolved now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a minor point, but the synonym authorities in the taxobox aren't quite right. Brackets should only be used where the name represents a
    new combination (usually a species transferred to a different genus). So for example "Boselaphus derbianus (J.E. Gray, 1847)" should be "Boselaphus derbianus J.E. Gray, 1847" as that was the originally published combination for the species derbianus. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks for the comment. Done as you said. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing all the brackets doesn't solve the problem either, since some of the taxon authorities should have brackets. I've corrected the synonym list after this snippet view of Mammal Species of the World, and I've done the same for Common eland. mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 11:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support (except on prose, which I can not review because I'm not a native English speaker). All my previous concerns have been adressed Cambalachero (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Text: "Giant elands have comparatively longer legs than the common eland, as well as much brighter white markings on the legs and pasterns"
  • Source: Compared to the common eland, the giant eland has longer legs with much brighter black and white flashings on the legs and pasterns."
Fine, added black. Flashing implies bright only, and I do not want to write with the exact words from the source.
  • Text: "Giant eland are alert and wary, making them difficult to approach and observe or to hunt"
  • Source1: "...giant elands are even more wary than the common eland, so they are very difficult animals to apporach."
  • Source2: "The giant eland is a difficult antelope to hunt, because of its furtive habits and nomadic movements".
No need of changes, thanks for showing a grammatical mistake; should be elands in the text.
  • Text: "A female can remain in estrus for three days, and the estrous cycle is 21–26 days long"
  • Source: "Estrus lasts about 3 days." Can't find any mention of the estrous cycle length.
It is the 'Nowak' reference. I have added it now.
  • Text: "According to zoologist Jakob Bro-Jørgensen, the colour of the male's coat can reflect the levels of androgen, a male hormone, which is highest during rutting"
  • Source: "Its overall colour is ruddy fawn or chestnut, sometimes with a tint of bluish grey in adult bulls. This depends on the animal’s age and the climatic period or according to Bro-Jørgensen (1997) it may reflect the androgen status reaching its extreme in mature bulls during rutting."
Do we need a change here?
  • Text: "They are also immune to some diseases that cattle may succumb to."
  • Source: "Domestic cattle also suffer from diseases to which eland and other wild game animals are immune to."
No need of mentioning about wild game animals here.

Sourcing looks okay overall. I did find one problem though. LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have solved your problem now, and have replied to the other comments (I don't know if you point out a problem or not, so I just made it clear). Hope you are satisfied. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, all good. Support. LittleJerry (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 17:19, 3 November 2012 [39].

Isabella quarter

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The Isabella quarter was the second commemorative coin struck by the US Mint, in 1893, and remains the only commemorative quarter not intended for circulation. A short tale, with the usual bureaucratic nightmare at the Mint, plus some sexism thrown in to spice it up. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I performed a good article review and was impressed with the quality. So much so that after all my comments were resolved I felt that I should be adding a star instead of the circle. Also I spotchecked three refs and found no issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is withdrawn to allow another article to be nominated.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, given that you're one of three co-noms on the other article in question, as a delegate I'm happy to let this one stand if you'd like to continue with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A well-written article, though I don't particularly like how the Palmer picture sits in Chrome (it seems to fit in decently on Firefox). Is there a less colloquial way to phrase the sentence "The last straws for Peddle were two letters dated April 7."? Something like "What finally wore down Peddle's patience"? ceranthor 16:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed per suggestion. I'll look at the Palmer photo but probably don't see what you see.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You're lucky you got power back so quickly. I had to wait five days. ceranthor 21:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back and thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: A few prose issues:

  • The Board of Lady Managers ("Lady Managers") - the parenthetical repetition looks unnecessary
  • A few points arising from this paragraph: "In January 1893, Bertha Palmer approached the House Appropriations Committee, asking that $10,000 of the funds already designated to be paid over to the Lady Managers by the federal government be in the form of souvenir quarters, which they could sell at a premium. Congress duly passed an act on March 3, 1893, authorizing the piece, which was to be to the specifications of the quarter struck for circulation. Total mintage of the special quarter would be limited to 40,000 specimens."
  • Suggest replace "the piece" with "the souvenir coins"
  • Presumably these souvenirs would had some distinctive features rather than merely "to the specifications of the quarter struck for circulation."?
  • I wonder why Palmer asked Cox to produce sketches when she was determined to have a female designer?
To give her something to work from, and possibly in the interest of time. Peddle was to create the three-dimensional models, most likely in plaster, which the Mint would then scale down on a reducing lathe to the hubs from which the coining dies were made. But creating that three-dimensional sculpture, which also fit guidelines which she was given by the Mint, would be something she received credit for.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be a BritEng thing, but so far as I know the adverb "in-house" has a hyphen.
  • We have the possessive apostrophe Columbus' in the lead, and "Columbus's" in the text. To me, the latter is much preferred - but either way they should be standardised.
  • "While this was going on" - verbose? "Meanwhile, ..."
  • "Uneasy about the neutrality of "The last straws..." I suggest "Peddle's resignation was precipitated by two letters dated April 7". (I see this point has been raised, above)

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having reviewed many coin articles, I suppose I should know what is meant by MS-50 and MS66, but I have forgotten. And, of course, others may wonder. Some explanation required, maybe?

I am going on to do a sources review, and will post momentarily. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • The OCLC for the Taxay book is 1357564, if you're interested.
  • The links to Ch. 8 of the Bowers Encyclopedia go to pages that don't mention Bowers, or the encyclopedia. I'm not questioning the links, but how should a researcher, say, convince him/herself that he/she was looking at sections from the encyclopedia?
I have added a note to the citation.

That's it: all fine otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will work through these, but at present we are having a small amount of weather and it's unaccountably affecting the power supply, which has gone away once so far. There may be some delay, also for Ceranthor, thank you both for your reviews. I see nothing problematical.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, we know about the weather. The headline over here was "Sandy rampages through the States" which, for some reason, caused a strange chill to run through my body... Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have power restored. I will have to see what the track was, the last I heard Sandy was dead set at Newark, Delaware, where that state's university is. You can imagine what was running through my mind. I know what you mean, but fortunately, it appears that for me at least Sandy was a bit of a blowhard, as she has left me undamaged. I should be back to these soon, but am first enjoying the restoration of comfort with hot drinks and so forth.
Thank you for your patience. All these things have either been done or commented on.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the fixes and have switched to support. I'm glad the worst effects of the storm have passed you, and hope that it soon disperses altogether. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you on both counts, and I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 17:19, 3 November 2012 [40].

Russula emetica

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russula emetica is a very common mushroom of damp woodlands throughout the Northern Hemisphere. It is toxic, but can be made nominally edible with suitable preparation (not sure why anyone would want to though). I've expanded the article recently and think it meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a
    talk) 00:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

A couple grammar issues on a quick read-through:

Image check - all images are OK (own work or CC 3.0 on Mushroom Observer).

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't italicize editions
  • FN28: is "London" part of the publication title?
  • FN36: what is S.I.? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments from Jim More than the usual number of nitpicks this time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • red-coloured — why not just "red", lose "coloured"
  • The gills are white to pale cream in colour — just " The gills are white to pale cream ", lose "in colour"
  • new genus Russula in 1796,[7] where it remains. — maybe neater as its current genus Russula in 1796.
  • R. betularum, R. nana — overlinked in main text
  • .It is a bright scarlet or cherry red in colour — just " bright scarlet or cherry red " lose "in colour"
  • bluish-gray — rest of the article is BE (colour etc)
  • The active agent has not been identified but is thought to be sesquiterpenes, — sesquiterpenes is plural, "The active agents... are"
  • many red-coloured species of Russula; — why not just "red", lose "coloured"
  • Many, such as the bloody brittlegill (R. sanguinaria), are inedible; it can be distinguished from R. emetica by the reddish flush in its stem — "Many... it", changed number
  • Fruit bodies grow singly, scattered, or in groups in sphagnum moss near bogs, and in coniferous and mixed forests. It occasionally — "fruit bodies... it", changed number
  • and can be very common — "locally very common"?
  • to any red-capped white Russula encountered — not sure you need the last word
  • 0.24–0.49 million mushrooms/hectare/year, corresponding to a fresh weight of 265–460 kg/hectare/year —. Much as I hate to say this, you need imperial conversions for consistency
  • its fruit bodies were most abundant in the 40-year-old forest stand. — not sure what you are saying here. Is there a "the" missing, or are you saying that it is the part of the forest that is this age where this mushroom is commonest?
  • Good suggestions; I've trimmed and tweaked the prose like so. Sasata (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was quick! Diff very useful, I'll have to do that more often myself in my FACs. No further queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport (moral or otherwise as wikiproject Fungi member and person who buffed it for DYK) reading through now. not much to complain about at all really..item below not a deal-breaker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Rolf Singer's infrageneric classification of Russula - interesting....the last two words are somewhat repetitive but can we lose them without introducing ambiguity - not sure on this one....
  • Thanks for reviewing & support. I simplified the taxonomy statement and reduced the word repetition. Sasata (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments by Maky:

  • "is edible and good" – good in what sense? palatable?
  • I remove "and good" – it's subjective anyway, and "edible" covers what I'm trying to say. Sasata (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Everything else looks good. Very nice. – Maky « talk » 01:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 17:19, 3 November 2012 [41].

May Revolution

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

All the issues pointed during the previous nominations were addressed by then. This article has been promoted to A-Class by the Military History wikiproject. Cambalachero (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Great images, respect Wikipedia policies and are correctly used. Just a few things related to positioning. File:Declaration independence.jpg could either be pushed a line or two up or the heading 'National causes' be written with a gap between the two sections. The heading pushed to right does not look so good. Same with File:Carlota Joaquina por Manuel António de Castro.jpg and File:Mariano Moreno en su mesa de trabajo.jpg

Article review: Much detailed and well-composed article. My comments:

  • Could the lead be a bit more summarized and trimmed? If possible, the causes and sequence of the events during the Revolution could be made into a paragraph, and the results discussed in the next.
  • In the lead Viceroy Cisneros tried to conceal ... open cabildo (an extraordinary meeting of notables of the city) In what way was it extraordinary? (You see, it seems a bit too strong a word to use without explanation.)

That is what I have for now. Will read more to find more suggestions. Overall, good for FAC push, nice way of guiding the reader through the long and complicated series of events and no worries about verifiability. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My monitor is usually set at 1024x768, and in the highest resolution I can get (which is not much, my video card has burned and imports are forbidden in my country, so I have to live with what the onboard video allows me) I still don't see the images disrupting the section titles below them. I will have to ask you if you can fix that, because with my current hardware I can't notice the problem. I have removed or reduced some sentences of the lead; not much, because the lead s supposed to work as a "mini article", and don't want to risk making it hard to understand. As for the open cabildo, "extraordinary" is not meant with the sense "of great quality" but with the sense "out of the routine". Open cabildos were not called on a regular basis (such as monthly or annually), only when some grave event required it; such as in this case. I looked up for synonyms of "extraordinary", but they are either synonyms of the wrong meaning, do ot work for this case, or have the same problem. I guess we should leave to interpretation by context: being a government meeting, and not a creative work (the usual recipients of such praise), it should be implict what "extraordinary" means. Cambalachero (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, the lead. I think now it is well for such a long and detailed article, no more problems I noticed. I have fixed the images now, they will look proper on normal computer screens now. As for extraordinary, perhaps uncommon would do. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the details requested. Do you have any further requests? Cambalachero (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though not so much on prose. My comments are addressed, and the article satisfies me greatly. I rarely come to military-related articles, but I am certain this is fit for being an FA. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 07:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page

  • Support on prose. Looks like a solid article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "A law enacted in 1778 required to move the treasury to a safe place in the case of foreign attack, but Sobremonte was still seen as a coward by the population" -> this seems off to me; surely there should be a subject between "required" and "to move"?
  • "This was an unprecedented action, the first time that a Spanish viceroy was deposed by local government institutions, and not by the King of Spain himself.[43] But King Charles IV ratified the appointment later.[44]" -> I don't think this needs to be broken into two sentences, especially one beginning with a conjunctive.
  • "de Elío created a Junta in Montevideo" -> I believe in this sense, junta is not a proper noun (the pipe points to "Junta of Montevideo", which would be a proper noun, but "a Junta" should just be "a junta".
  • Might be worth an aside to explain what an afrancesado is.
  • Any particular reason why "May Week" (an event) is italicised? If you need to create a separation, try quotes instead ("May Week" rather than May Week).
  • "The "Café de Catalanes" and the "Fonda de las Naciones"" -> don't see why these are italicised and quoted; just the former would work.
  • Just picking this up now; there seems to be some disparity between whether loanwords are italicised or not. Phrases like "cabildo", "alcalde", etc aren't, but "afrancesado" is; I don't mind which is used so long as it's consistent throughout, it would seem easiest to leave them unitalicised as this means the least amount of changes.
  • Seeing several duplicate links here; try using
    User:Ucucha/duplinks
    to spot these.
  • "That night, many of the revolutionaries attended to a theatre production on the theme of tyranny, called Rome Saved" -> attended to, or attended? Prose seems to suggest just the latter.
  • "At 3 pm, the Cabildo began its routine work" -> why has this now become a proper noun? I get the sense that it's being used as synecdoche for the powers-that-be, much like "Westminister", "Stormount" or "the White House" might be, but this isn't made readily apparent.
  • "criollo-Spanish unity." -> should be an en dash, not a hyphen
  • Stopping for now; it's seven in the morning and I should go to bed. Have reviewed up to, but not including, "Wednesday, May 23"; I'm impressed with the depth of detail and the existence and deployment of other suitable links (causes of, Carlotism, etc) show that this size isn't simply a coat-rack situation, but is suitably researched. As such I can't see myself having much in the way of non-prose concerns but I'll not come down either side til I'm actually finished here (I may be rambling as I'm quite knackered) GRAPPLE X 06:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resuming
  • "Thus the Primera Junta came into being." -> Not sure I'm keen on a new paragraph beginning with "thus"; it seems too reliant on there being a previous sentence to stand alone.
  • Have to agree with Crisco that a heading of bullets for the Primera Junta's make-up seems unnecessary; another sentence or two in the previous section could cover this
  • "To put an end to these activities, the Junta assembled Cisneros and all the members of the Royal Audiencia on the pretext that their lives were in danger, and shipped them into exile aboard the British ship Dart." -> repetition of "ship", try another verb instead of "shipped them"
  • "The ruse is known as the "Mask of Ferdinand VII"" -> again, I don't think should be italicised and quoted, one or the other (the latter, probably) is enough
I'd say that's all the prose concerns I have. GRAPPLE X 18:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The repeated links have been adressed in the past, have in mind that most of them are repeated with the links at the image captions, section "main article" or "see also" hatnotes, or the navboxes at the bottom. The rule of not repeating links applies only to the prose. Cambalachero (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a good few linked several times in the prose; the tool linked above will only count the prose section and ignores the lead as well so it won't throw up false positives. I'd advise you use it as it's easier than checking manually, but to get you started, Antonio Beruti, Cornelio Saavedra, Juan José Paso and Mariano Moreno are repeatedly linked in the prose. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cambalachero (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Culled out the last few myself but it looks good enough to me now. Support. GRAPPLE X 23:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • The Advisor.js script returns a bad checksum for Mariano Moreno's ISBN -- could you double check the digits?
  • I'd expect to see the Aftermath section end with a citation, as others do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Yes, the ISBN is exactly as it is written in the book. Cambalachero (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 10:21, 3 November 2012 [42]
.

Eusèbe Jaojoby

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discover Jaojoby, the "King of Salegy" music from Madagascar. Inspired like many of his young Malagasy peers by the American funk and soul stars of the 60s and 70s, he experimented with fusion of the genres with the traditional instrumentation, rhythms and vocals of trance singing from rural northern Madagascar. In doing so, Jaojoby became a main originator of the modern form of the ancient salegy musical genre and popularized it nationally and internationally. Salegy has since become emblematic of the island, and Jaojoby has gone on to become its undisputed king, touring internationally and producing albums for over 30 years. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments On a first scan through it looks pretty good :) some comments:

  • The lead is very short for the size of the article, and does not appear to summarise the article completely.
  • Thanks - I"ll take another look at that. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this or this a
    reliable source
    ?
  • They are both primary sources where secondary sources were not available. The Olympia source is the official website set up for his concert at the Olympia in Paris (kind of like a Carnegie Hall concert, a major achievement for musicians performing in France), and the other is the actual fundraising website set up by fans, as referenced in the narrative. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of reliance on RFI music for the source material - you might need to look into the diversity of sources.

More later --Errant (chat!) 07:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is lots of good information in the RFI source. It looks especially heavily cited because of how I break up information in the narrative. If I clustered together all the RFI info and followed it by one cite rather than inserting info from different sources into one sentence and putting the cite after each related piece of information, the RFI source would look less cited but the same amount of info from the source would be there. So don't let the numbers fool you. And I can confirm that I've dredged out every quality source on this artist available on the net or in major publications available on google books. Anything more would probably have to come from archival research in Madagascar itself, not doable at the moment. That said, I've still included the most important aspects of his life and career. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Maky:

  • "continued to light up dance floors and airwaves across the island" – This wording doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me. Hopefully I'm not being hypocritical...
  • It was bugging me too. I changed it to "received regular airplay". Lemurbaby (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the GAN I just finished reviewing, I don't think you should red-link the album names in the table until you can blue-link some of them.
  • I'm not sure about all the audio samples in the article. Personally, I like it. But with the anime article you're reviewing, I've learned that fair-use content must be very limited, and I'm not sure if you can defend the inclusion of more than one sample. Maybe someone else who is more versed on fair-use can chime in.
  • I chose these samples because one shows his very early sound (1970s), another shows his modern sound (1990s), and the other is a sample of malesa, a style he also pioneered. It's tough to pick between them but if I had to lose one I'd take out the malesa track, since it could be moved to the salegy article as a sub-genre (although that one also has quite a few non-free samples...). If I could keep only one, it would be the modern salegy track. I'll take out the malesa for now and let others weigh in. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I see nothing wrong with samples. If anything, it helps advertise the product. It's more of a concern because of the people on Wiki who are anti-fair-use. – Maky « talk » 10:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems a little brief given all that's written about his history and style.

Otherwise, everything looks pretty good. Good work. – Maky « talk » 01:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cassianto
Lead section
  • "He is considered one of the originators of the modern salegy style that emerged in the 1970s and has been credited with transforming the genre from an obscure regional musical tradition into one of international popularity. He is also considered the originator of two genre offshoots, malesa and baoenjy."
Although it's the lead, I think we should still say who considers him to be so good.
  • It's cited in the body, which the lead summarizes. Since this is a general fact rather than an opinion statement, I'm adding a couple more sources to this in the body.Lemurbaby (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jaojoby has been called the most popular singer" - Again, by who?
  • The year range (1998-1999) - needs have its hyphen deleted in favour of an endash.
  • Do you know the coding for an endash? The coding I used to use has been replaced by bots in other articles by the actual endash itself, but I don't know how to put that into my articles without using the old coding. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy and past this – for the date range dash.
  • Strange use of "full-length album" here. As opposed to what, half the length album?
  • Instead of the 45 rpm albums he had released prior to that point. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took an explanation for me to understand that.
Early years
  • "He began to perform at nightclubs..." at nightclubs or in nightclubs? Also, "whenever the opportunity presented itself" seems a bit lazy. Maybe lose that in favour of intermittantly or occasionally.
  • "At nightclubs" gets more results according to Google, so I lean toward keeping it as-is. Changing the current wording to "intermittantly" or "occasionally" loses a part of the meaning (his eagerness to seize every opportunity), and it more accurately reflects what the source material says, so I'd prefer not to make changes here either. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just think "in" flows better than "at". For example, a choirboy sings in church, not at church. Singing at nightclubs conjures up an image of someone facing a nightclub and singing at it. -- CassiantoTalk 05:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...to the young man's parents" -- "to the young singer's parents" sounds better IMO.
  • "Although no single individual can be credited with creating the modern salegy genre, Jaojoby ranks among the earliest originators of the nascent musical style." - This is a bold claim and could do with a citation all by itself. Who ranks him?
  • This is a general fact, so I'll provide more sources in the body. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...before accepting an offer to work for the national radio as a journalist at the end of 1980" - is that the station's name, national radio? If not then maybe replace "the national radio" with "Antananarivo's national radio station".
  • I'll use "the national radio station" as it wasn't limited to Antananarivo. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think it was the missing "station" which I think this needed.--CassiantoTalk 05:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the song had finished, the owner offered Jaojoby a contract..." What, he stopped him mid-song?
  • "For the next three years the young man..." - I would omit calling him "young man". His surname would be preferable.
King of Salegy
  • "The 1992 release of Jaojoby's first full-length album, titled Salegy!"- Full-length album again.
  • "professional-quality" - or just professional?
  • Professional quality, because the previous album was produced by professionals, but using a local studio with less than the highest quality equipment. A small nuance but worth capturing. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jaojoby's success and popularity attained new heights with the 1998 release of E! Tiako." - "Jaojoby's success and popularity attained new heights in 1998 with the release of E! Tiako."
  • "semi-live conditions" What are these?
  • That's the term used in the source to describe the fact that it was performed "live" before an audience of his friends only, as stated in the article. I suspect it may be technical, music industry terminology. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The March 2008 release of Donnant, Donnant celebrated..." - Is there a comma between the Donnant title. If so, it's mention in the table below is missing this punctuation.
  • Good catch. It seems to vary depending on the sources. I've decided to go with a hyphen between both instances, since that matches the French expression. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Style and legacy
  • "Jaojoby has been called the most popular singer in Madagascar and the Indian Ocean islands and is widely referred to as the "King of Salegy"." - by who and who?
  • For the first I will identify the source, but for the latter as it's a general fact I will provide several more cites. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His voice has been described as a "supple tenor"[4] that is "clear, powerful and energetic... his trademark, which makes him stand out in the Madagascan musical panorama"." Again, by who?
  • It makes sense to me to cite the latter, but providing the name of the person that indicated his vocal range seems unnecessary as it's mainly objective (the "supple" part being subjective). Breaking it up makes for what, in my opinion, would be clunky prose. It would look something like this: The artist sings in the tenor range. His voice has been described by X as "supple"[4] and Y considered "clear....". See my general comments on citing the names of reviewers below.Lemurbaby (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think you need to
    attribute these comments. --CassiantoTalk 06:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Kept in mind thanks. The cite is not the problem here, it's the non-attribution within the text where the critical quote is. Maybe I'm wrong. A lot of FA's adopt this attribution before the text as you state below. Otherwise it leads the reader to ask "I wonder who said that?" etc, and then we click away to the cite to find out who it was who said it. No hurries for this so please don't feel pressured :-) -- CassiantoTalk 15:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made the changes - what do you think? Lemurbaby (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes much better. Per Sarastro1, avoid the cite clutter for this paragraph. Sorry, I was reviewing from the edit screen so this was not obvious to me at the time. -- CassiantoTalk 22:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Family and personal life
  • "lineup" or "line-up"
  • "Jaojoby and his family were involved in a road accident that left the singer severely injured. Four broken ribs, lung damage and a fractured pelvis" - perhaps say "He suffered four broken ribs, lung damage and a fractured pelvis"
  • "Fans of the singer organized through mail and internet communication" - organized what?

CassiantoTalk 09:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Cassianto, for taking the time to provide this detailed review. Your comments help to polish this article. Your remarks on the need to cite who has made certain statements about Jaojoby prompted me to look at other FA articles of international musicians as models. Similar claims and descriptions in these articles were handled in a variety of ways within each article. In some instances only the sources were provided as citations (the way I have it now), in others the publication was mentioned, and in still others the name of the reviewer (often in conjunction with the publication) was mentioned. I'll apply the same logic here and look forward to your feedback on the changes. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per my comments. A nice little article, congratulations. -- CassiantoTalk 07:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Overall, this looks good. Although I know literally nothing about the man or his music, I followed this article easily, and it seems comprehensive enough. My main nit-picks are over prose; nothing major, I think the article just needs a last little bit of polishing here and there. The only other point I noticed is that the article is very positive about Jaojoby. Has there ever been any criticism of him, or are there any critics who do not like him? In fact, criticism generally is a little light in the article; what do critics say about him? Also, any information on sales? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There has been almost no criticism of him in the press, as he's something of a national institution and hero. Only one album met less that universal acclaim, and that was the only one what wasn't done in the salegy style (Donnant-Donnant). I'll try to find some review that states as much. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • To echo Cassianto, the phrasing of the first paragraph of the lead is a little weak; using the passive voice in ways such as "is considered" and "have been attributed" sounds vague and weakens the prose slightly. Given that there is no doubt that the information is correct, a simple rephrasing such as "critics consider…" or adding a name (e.g. X describes him as…) would easily solve this.
  • The challenge is he is viewed this way by critics, musicians, fans... there isn't any group or particular writer who disputes this. So it doesn't strike me as accurate to provide a name or single out one group when the reality is he is all but universally viewed this way. Do you recommend I use "Critics consider..." regardless, in the interest of keeping this simple? Lemurbaby (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My personal preference would be to use "Critics consider..." but I appreciate that not everyone likes this. In my view, it just makes it clearer who is saying it, as it could refer to fans, journalists, critics, or anyone really. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, since this is what's supported later in the text, I've made that change. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Inspired by the American soul and funk musicians of the 1960s, in 1972 Jaojoby began singing with bands in the northern coastal town of Diego-Suarez that were experimentally blending these sounds and modern rock instrumentation with the Malagasy musical traditions of the region": This is a long sentence and probably should be split. It may also require rephrasing of "these sounds" as that is a little vague.
  • "After a short hiatus from singing in the 1980s while pursuing a career in journalism…": Maybe better as "After a short break in the 1980s to pursue a career in journalism, Jaojoby resumed his musical career and rose to national prominence in 1988 with "Samy Mandeha Samy Mitady".
  • "He then reoriented his career toward music": A little awkward. Maybe "He decided to concentrate on music; he recorded his first full-length album in 1992 and became a professional musician"? [I think full-time is implied by professional].
  • In this case, given that he had already recorded, toured and achieved prominence without being a full-time musician, I think it's an important distinction to make. I prefer to keep the original wording here. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who perform in the band with him": Maybe "with whom he performs in the band"?
  • This puts the emphasis on the wife and children, as if he is the one joining them and not vice-versa. I'd prefer to keep the original wording in this case as well. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but I personally feel that the phrasing is a little awkward. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted. I'm open to changing it if a better phrasing is found. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

  • "led him to recognize his vocal talent": Seems slightly unusual; usually someone else would "recognize his vocal talent" rather than him do so himself. Maybe "made him realize that he possessed vocal talent"? Or maybe realise that he loved music?
  • "who in the 1960s became the first to use an electric guitar to perform coastal Malagasy musical styles": Became the first what?
  • "and managed to win over the many other contestants despite singing [although he sang] unaccompanied and without a microphone"
  • This edit is an improvement - thank you Lemurbaby (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh, this and the next must not have saved properly. It's been changed now, although I kept "and" (it stresses both distinct "winning factors" more clearly, in my opinion). Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and performing at night for the next several years"
  • "Although no single individual can be credited with creating the modern salegy genre, Jaojoby ranks among the earliest originators of the nascent musical style.": Perhaps this should be attributed in the text (e.g. "according to X…") or it looks like editorial voice, and that this is the opinion of wikipedia!
  • I hope now this has been sorted out by providing more references that explicitly make this point. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any changes here either. Also, my point is not about the references, and I'm sure the references are fine. My issue is with the text. If we say "Although no single individual can be credited with creating the modern salegy genre, Jaojoby ranks among the earliest originators of the nascent musical style", I'm sure that is correct and can be attributed to several critics. But the reader who looks at this (and who may not follow the references) may believe that it is wikipedia giving this as an editorial opinion. This is why we need in-text attribution so that the reader knows whose opinion this is without following the link. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struggle with the justification for needing to provide attribution for a fact beyond the citation provided. It's not an opinion ("J- is the best musician..."), but a fact, like saying he performs salegy music. Do we need to provide a name of a critic who states that fact too? Why would I include the name of one critic as opposed to another to prove that he performs salegy, when so many sources will repeat this same fact? Why should one critic be credited with the statement, as if s/he was an original contributor of this information, when any number of other sources confirm it (including sources that don't have authors)? How much does it add to spell out that X source (cited) states XYZ fact? "According to X Magazine, Jaojoby plays salegy music." Why does this cited fact need to be attributed when none of the other cited facts are attributed? Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll agree to disagree on this one, and it is not nearly enough to hold up this FAC any further. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "another regional band that was less well-established but more willing to take risks": Maybe "a less well-established regional band more willing to take risks"?
  • That alternative wording is a little tighter but but it feels a little unnatural. I'll retain the original wording here. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band toured for the next four years to increasing success": Maybe with increasing success. Also, how is this success measured? Critical acclaim? Attendance at performances? Number of performances?
  • Unfortunately the source doesn't provide that detail. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but still not sure about "to increasing success". Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A chance encounter between Jaojoby and a Hilton hotel manager at a bus stop in Antananarivo the following year produced an invitation to audition that evening at the hotel's Papillon bar": Why did this encounter lead to the audition? Did they know each other, or did Jaojoby mention that he was a singer?
  • The source doesn't provide this detail either. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a slight problem as it is an obvious question for the reader to ask "why"? Assuming that the source can be trusted, maybe rephrase to "A manager of a Hilton hotel invited Jaojoby to audition that evening..." as this removes the ambiguous meeting and does not leave hanging the question of what actually happened in the bar. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rephrased it in a way that I hope is clearer, without going beyond the source information. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King of Salegy

  • "where he recruited former bandmates from Los Matadores and Les Players to form an eponymous band": Not quite clear to whom the eponymous band refers! Maybe just name the band.
  • "The excitement of this rise to international celebrity was offset in 1995 by the death of the band's original drummer, Jean-Claude Djaonarana, who had first performed with Jaojoby as a member of Los Matadores.": Excitement seems an odd word unless it is directly quoting Jaojoby. And maybe a little POV?
  • "In the wake of its success, Jaojoby performed to an audience of 50,000 partisans of candidate Marc Ravalomanana less than a month before the deeply divisive 2001 presidential elections." Was he supporting this candidate explicitly by performing to these people? Was he politically involved? And maybe explain in a brief sentence why the election was divisive; most readers will not know, and this leaves us hanging slightly.

Style and legacy

  • "The roots of Jaojoby's musical style begin with his childhood exposure to the Western-Malagasy syncretism of local church hymns…": Maybe "began with"
  • "As a singer with Los Matadores, Jaojoby would occasionally fill the instrumental breaks of rhythm and blues covers…" Better to say "…Jaojoby occasionally filled…"
  • "to the jubilation of the young Malagasy listeners gathered outside the club's doors": Not sure jubilation is the correct word here, unless it made them very excited. Appreciation or acclaim may work better.
  • The way the source describes it, jubilation is accurate - celebration, cheering, dancing. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still prefer something more neutral, but would not insist on it. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The adaptation of the salegy rhythm to the modern drum kit was invented by Jean Claude Djaonarana, drummer of Los Matadores, who would go on to rejoin Jaojoby's band from 1988 until his death in 1995." Maybe "The salegy rhythm was adapted to the modern drum kit by Jean Claude Djaonarana, drummer of Los Matadores, who later rejoined Jaojoby's band from 1988 until his death in 1995."
  • Good rephrasing - I've used your wording. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is widely referred to as the "King of Salegy" by his fans and the press.[1][5][10][11][14]": Five refs seems excessive. It may be better to find a source which explicitly says "he is widely known as the king of salegy", or this becomes (slightly) WP:SYNTHESIS. The other way around is to say "Many critics, refer to him as the "King of Salegy" and use
    WP:CITEBUNDLE
    to say who says what.
  • Not sure this solves the problem of possible synthesis: do the sources explicitly say that he is widely referred to, or are you quoting several sources which call him this? If the latter, using the citebundle may be a better way, and then say "many critics say..." Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources say he is widely referred to or widely known as the king of salegy. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to the creativity of his compositions and willingness to experiment, the quality of Jaojoby's voice, characterized as a "supple tenor" by Zomaré magazine, helped to distinguish the artist from his peers": Again, this needs in-text citation or it looks like editorialising by wikipedia.
  • The reference for the whole sentence is Zomare magazine, which is cited in-text; an author name is not provided. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this looks like the article is judging him. Maybe move things around to say "Zomare magazine suggests that, in addition to the creativity of his compositions and willingness to experiment, the quality of Jaojoby's voice, which the magazine characterizes as a "supple tenor", helped to distinguish the artist from his peers" Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jaojoby has been credited with popularizing the salegy genre both within Madagascar and on the international music scene.": Credited by who? I think we need a name here (i.e. "According to X, Jaojoby popularised the salegy genre…")
  • This was also raised above. I looked at other FA level musician articles and in any given article there are a variety of ways to attribute this kind of information. When it's a general fact and not one person's opinion, as is the case here, then citing one or two sources that make the same statement seems to be adequate, and would be more appropriate in my view than providing a name, which implies that the individual or source cited is the only one holding this view (i.e. that it's a personal view, not a universal perception or belief). Lemurbaby (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but see above about "critics say...". Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The popularity of two derivative versions of salegy – malessa and baoenjy – have likewise been attributed to him.": And again, needs attribution in text. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but see above about "critics say...". Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General: Otherwise looks good, but is there any other information on:

  • Critical opinion?
  • There really isn't any out there that I can find. He's too much of a national hero for the national press to critique him, evidently (also, critique is culturally inappropriate). The international press only reports on those albums deemed internationally appealing enough to be distributed overseas, so it's unsurprising that there are no negative critiques of albums selected for distribution on the basis of their anticipated popularity with foreign audiences. Lemurbaby (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sales?
  • This kind of data isn't tracked in Madagascar. The market for most international artists in Western countries is too small to track, unless it's the occasional rare artist that crosses over into the mainstream. Lemurbaby (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, no - none that I can find. Lemurbaby (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: With the qualification that I have not checked sources and that I am completely unfamiliar with this topic, I'm happy to support. There are one or two bits of prose which jar a little for me, but that may just be stylistic preferences, and nothing major. A little further polish may help, but I think this article meets the criteria. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - not sure either sound sample is adequately supported at present. The FUR claims the article "specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken" - it doesn't specifically do so. You could probably justify one sample as representative of his sound and style, but you'd need to update the FUR to reflect that, and two would be a stretch. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've updated the justifications. For the most popular artist across the Indian Ocean islands whose career has spanned 40 years, I would argue that two samples are justifiable. His sound has changed significantly with the maturation of the salegy genre from the time when he first helped develop it to the time when it became mainstream and professionally produced. The two samples I think serve as a useful contrast, as explained in the fair use rationales. Lemurbaby (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DavidCane

General
  • I think it might be useful to state somewhere in the article what his primary language for singing is - presumably it is Malagasy. It says that on Donnant-Donnant he sings in French, Malagasy, Creole and English, is that his usual approach?
  • I've now made it clear that his cover songs were in French and English, but the salegy is generally in Malagasy. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • What are "coastal musical styles"?
  • Earlier in the article I linked to the Music of Madagascar article, which describes some of these. They're too numerous and diverse to explain in depth in the article. That would be like explaining what American musical styles are. Lemurbaby (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "managed to win over the many other contestants". Presumably, you mean he beat the other contestants, "win over" usually means to persuade or gain support.
  • "young singer's", usual to just use the subject's surname.
  • "word of Jaojoby's activities to Jaojoby's parents" is repetitive, and since he's not an "artist" or established "singer" yet I don't think it's right to use those either. "Him" is too vague (could be Jaojoby or his uncle) - "young singer" was the best compromise. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is/was the Saigonais nightclub in Diego-Suarez?
  • "among a number of northwestern bands". His home town Sambava is in the north-east, Diego-Suarez is at the northern tip of the country, are these north-western bands in Diego-Suarez or somewhere else?
  • Diego is considered the northernmost end of the northwest coast - I reworded the paragraph afterward in a way that hopefully helps to clarify the region in question. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where were the Players based?
  • Is there a name for the band's manager?
  • The chronology needs a bit of clarification. He performed with the Players until 1979, then briefly with Kintara before moving to the capital. He then studied sociology for two years before becoming a journalist in 1980. It is just about possible to fit two years in between the move to the capital and the beginning of his journalism career, if one was at the very beginning of 1979 and the other at the very end of 1980, but this seems unlikely. Was there an overlap somewhere?
  • This is the chronology as it was described in the sources - it must have been that he left the Players early 1979, studied most of 1979 and 1980, then right at the end took the job. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling the country's primary university the "local university" seems a bit odd.
  • How did a chance meeting at a bus-stop lead to an audition?
  • Reworded - I hope it's clearer now. They just had a conversation at the bus stop, and during the conversation the manager asked him to audition. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Rabeson family, popular jazz performers in their own right". "in their own right" seems a bit disparaging, why not "a popular jazz band."
  • "necessitating his relocation back to the northwest coast and what appeared to be an end to his musical career". It appeared to whom that it would be the end?
  • Changed to reflect the facts (he stopped his cabaret performances). Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
King of Salegy
  • Was the eponymous band called simply "Eusèbe Jaojoby"? That rather seems to make the rest of the band just a backing group.
  • Clarified that the band was called "Jaojoby" - the rest of the band is indeed a backing group. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the meantime, he continued to work as a press attaché for the Ministry of Transport, Meteorology and Tourism". "continued" does not seem right here as it has not been mentioned as his job previously. I suggest that this is change to just "he worked as a press attaché"
  • "two years prior" should be "two years previously"
  • During which period did he perform at the various festivals you listed. Was it in a single year or over a number of them?
  • Until the present. I've changed "performed" to "has performed" to reflect this. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This rise to international celebrity was offset in 1995 by the death of the band's original drummer". "Offset" in this context would normally mean countered or neutralised the rise to international celebrity. Presumably Djaonarana's death did not do this.
  • Good catch - a previous edit resulted in this; I believe the rewording now more accurately reflects the source information. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it his performance at the rally or was it the presidential election that nearly lead to the secession of the coastal provinces? Presumably it was the latter, so I'm not sure why this needs to be mentioned.
  • Rephrased in a way I hope makes it clear that he tried using his music for political purposes but wound up regretting it and swore it off. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You gave a translation for the fairly obvious Les Grands Maîtres du Salegy, but haven't given ones for Velono, Mila Anao or E! Tiako. Are these translatable? Donnant-Donnant could presumably be translated as Give and Take or something similar.
  • You're right, it seems best to translate all or none consistently. If I translate all, should I limit translations to album titles only, or include song titles as well? Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Style and legacy
  • "Singing with Los Matadores provided the artist" In the context of the previous sentence which refers to Freddy Ranarison, this could be misconstrued to mean him rather than Jaojoby.
  • "Les Players" previously and later you call them "The Players".
  • Again, good eye - changed all to "The Players". Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mondomix and Zomaré should be italicised.
  • What are the characteristics of malessa and baoenjy music that make them distinct from salegy?
  • Malessa I know - it's slower, the "romantic" version; I'm not sure about Baoenjy. I haven't found references that would allow me to include that kind of information into the article for either one. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discography
  • You discussed the musical styles on Donnant-Donnant in the King of Salegy section, specifically mentioning the track listing, but don't seem to have any details for it here. It also has a sub-title here not given earlier.
  • Removed Le Grand Bal (this was the title it was released under in France). The sources I have don't provide specifics on the track listing beyond what's mentioned in the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Most of the references use MDY formatting, but reference 11 uses DMY formatting.

--DavidCane (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for pointing this out - there are actually quite a few dates in the notes section that use DMY. That seems to be caused by the formatting in the templates. I don't know how to override that - can you or others explain to me how to do it so I can make the corrections? Lemurbaby (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't spot any inconsistent DMY dates among the citations except for #11, which I've corrected (just by writing as MDY, not through any black magic with template parameters!) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 09:49, 3 November 2012 [43]
.

Abuwtiyuw

Nominator(s):
Malleus Fatuorum[reply
]

A dog named Abuwtiyuw. If you mean this is nothing special then you are mistaken. Greatly expanded by Malleus Fatuorum and Dr. Blofeld. Initially translated by me,

Tomcat (7) 10:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Unusual article, most interesting. A few issues:-

  • Understanding the second sentence of the second lead paragraph requires two departures from the article, via links. While the links are essential, could the sentence incorporate a modicum of explanation for the benefit of the casual reader?
Not quite sure what you are referring to?
I mean that the words "spolia" and "mastaba" will not be understood by general readers unless they use the links, which means two departures from the article when they've only just started it. I should be possible to reword the setence to avoid this. For example: "It was apparently part of the spoil material incorporated into the structure of a 6th-Dynasty mastaba (pharaonic tombs) after the demolition..." etc Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the hieroglyph as illustrated come from? It differs from the description in the lead ("ten vertical rows of hieroglyphs, separated by vertical lines"). Also, is the bottom line of the illustration a pronunciation guide? If so, this should be clarified.
The hieroglyph in the lead/infobox is the transcription of the name Abuwtiyuw, rather than the 10 line hieroglyphs explaining his burial on the stone. its fairly standard practice in Ancient Egyptian articles to have the name box and name transliterations in the lead. Thought this was clear, not sure how to say "this is not referring to the 10 line message".♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree it's clear enough, given the title on the infobox. Can you say where these hieroglyphs came from, and also confirmation that the last line in the box is a pronunciation guide? Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the person involved with adding it if he can comment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It can be found in the Reisner reference, see
Tomcat (7) 14:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes. Dr. Blofeld asked me to comment here—apparently he thinks I'm "the person involved with adding" the glyphs—but my grasp of hieroglyphs is very weak, and I haven't been involved in this article except to give one apparently erroneous reply in the discussion that Tomcat just linked. The PDF provided there seems to confirm that the hieroglyphs are correct, or at least that those glyphs appear in that order within the inscription. If there's still uncertainty about the hieroglyphs, I suggest asking User:GDK, who gave a more knowledgeable answer in that discussion. A. Parrot (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is not uncertainty about the hieroglyphs, it's just that I wanted them attributed to a reliable external source. I see they are now attributed to "Gardner's sign list", with a link to the WP article. But I think the Garner source, presumably
Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, sould be given, otherwise it looks as though the Wikipedia article is the source. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Second line of "Background: why "but"? What follows is additional rather than contrary information.
  • It might be worth saying where Ashkelon is, as he rest of the sentence implies it is in Egypt
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the owner with their dog": problematic. Perhaps "owners with their dogs"
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discovery": Some of the writing is a bit heavy-footed, e.g. successive sentences beginning: "It was discovered by" and "It was found on", and close repetition of similar dates. I suggest you combine the sentences: "It was discovered on 13 October 1935 by Egyptologist George A. Reisner during a joint Harvard University-Boston Museum of Fine Arts expedition, and removed from the site four days later".
Well spotted, reworded as suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discovered ... discovered" in second paragraph of "Discovery", and "Part of ... part of" later
What do you mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the close repetition of "discovered" in the sentence: "Neither the dog's grave nor mummy have been discovered, but the tomb in which the tablet was discovered..." reads poorly. One of these could be "found", for example. Likewise, "Part of a leash is visible on the upper-right corner, suggesting that the tablet is part of..." could be slightly reworded to avoid repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, well spotted, reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is believed that Abuwtiyuw, given the high-profile nature of his burial, would have been a royal guard dog of some kind..." Surely, the inscription translated above makes this explicit rather than a matter of specultion? Also "would have been" → "was"
Transcription makes it clear, agreed. Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard Lobban claims that Abuwtiyuw was "provided with his own coffin, linen, and incense for the trip to the afterlife" - again, the inscription gives this information, so why is Lobban "claiming" it?
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "common throughout of Ancient Egyptian history" - delete "of"
Oops, not sure how that slipped through, removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that "claim" is the right word in "Edward C. Martin Jr. claims that..." The word "claim" usually implies that a contradictory opinion exists. Perhaps "suggests"?
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Brian. Yes, it is a shortish article in comparison to most candidates but I scraped together everything I could find about it in google books and JSTOR and I believe its about as comprehensive as it can get on a dog which lived in 2300 BC! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there can be very little more that can be said, and you have done well to produce this much. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - very interesting read, only a few points (all points Done):

  • lead "Abuwtiyuw was [probably] a lightly built hunting dog ..." ==> the main text has "...the text characterizes him as Ṯsm (Tesem), a lightly built hunting dog" with no sign of doubt. If the characterization as Tesem is commonly accepted, "probably" in the lead is too cautious.
Affirmed♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discovery - Why is the lengthy footnote about Reisner needed? Were his observations disputed? (If it's just an interesting anecdote, it would be better moved to Reisner's article).
Removed, it was actually in the text originally, I thought it was good to give a little background into his work and esteem, but it was changed to a note and I can see how it appeared offbeat.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neither the dog's grave nor mummy have been discovered,[23] but the tomb in which the tablet was discovered is close to the western side of the Great Pyramid of Giza (Pyramid of Khufu/Kheops)." ==> "discovered" twice in close proximity (as noted above), but my bigger problem with this sentence is, i don't see the connection between its two parts. What does the second part try to add to the first with a "but"?
Changed in answer to Brian above, removed but, made two sentences.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tablet is now held by the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (inventory number JE 67573)." ==> that last bit of discovery information seems out of place at the end of this para, the article has already moved on to a physical description of the object with the 2 preceding sentences. Not sure about the optimal order, but i think, all discovery details and its current location should be together before the object description.
Moved it up to the end of the first paragraph.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be useful for anybody researching into the Egyptian museum who might have access to a catalogue. I think its relevant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Egyptian Museum info should have a citation (probably already covered by another source).
Sourced.
  • If the tablet translation is taken completely from Reisner's work, name him in-text as author for the quote (even if the translation is probably not disputed).
  • I added that the inscription may be found in the Reisner reference. Regards.--
    Tomcat (7) 14:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The Janssen & Janssen ref has lost its usage with the latest changes. Maybe you can still use the source or open a "Further reading" section.
Removed it, wasn't much.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images both images are OK (PD very old and museum cooperation with additional OTRS). GermanJoe (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input GJ.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim short and interesting, just my sort of article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • unlike most of the others, which were typically consumed as meat, it is highly unlikely
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text of the inscription describes the gifts offered by the pharaoh in tribute at Abuwtiyuw's funeral: — very nitpicky, but should we say somewhere that it is a translation?
Mentioned.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mummified, mummy — not sure that both need links, leave it with you
Reduced to one link.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Reisner, the name "Abuwtiyuw" is not fully translatable — that was a long time ago, is that still the case?
Reisner couldn't decipher it, but
Edward C. Martin Jr. believed it to mean "With Pointed Ears" at a later date, I thought this was clear?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the translation, we have "honor" Are we committed to Reisner's AE, or, since it is a translation, should we translate to BE "honour"?
Honour it is!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no cite to the Jansen book
Removed, citation was removed when addressed one of Brian's points.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Merton's opinion matter, he's redlinked, no idea why membership of a
    Rotary Club
    makes him an expert on Egyptology, Egyptologists or people's characters. Seems to have as much weight as a drunken "you're my best friend"
Removed as above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your input Jim, glad you all enjoyed reading it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, you are right about Martin, I didn't read carefully. I've changed to support above. If you are collecting scripts, here's one for checking duplicated links. 
importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // [[User:Ucucha/duplinks]]
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Remaining polishing not with-standing, the article appears well-written, comprehensive and well-sourced for such a topic. Some more minor points:

  • Notes subheader is empty, should be removed when not needed.
  • Leach 1961 is no longer used as ref.
  • And a short ad break: not sure if you know this already, but User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js is a great tool to check for harv template problems. Any inconsistencies in the citation structure are immediately shown in red, when this script is installed. GermanJoe (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting tool. Removed the notes header, readded the Leach book. Thanks for your support.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support. Just a few points. Most are minor, though one sentence raises some tangled issues. A. Parrot (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Explaining mastaba as "pharaonic tomb" is a little problematic; although mastabas date from the pharaonic era in Egypt's history, by the Sixth Dynasty actual pharaohs were buried in pyramids and not tombs. Perhaps call it "pharaonic-era tomb", "noble tomb", "nobleman's tomb", or "official's tomb"? (Anyone buried in a mastaba would have been a member or relative of the literate class of officials, who are often called "nobles" because they ran the country and were effectively a hereditary class.)
Changed to era.☠ Count de Blofeld 08:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was believed that by doing so, Anubis would reunite owners with their dogs in the afterlife" is my only point of serious concern. First, the source looks like a children's book and isn't ideal for supporting statements about Egyptian religious beliefs, which are extremely complicated and easily misunderstood. Second, the source doesn't say that it was Anubis who did the reuniting. Third, the wording is awkward: "by doing so" refers to the actions of humans (wrapping bones and putting them next to Anubis statues), but the structure of the sentence makes it seem that Anubis did the "doing".
A larger problem is that the Background section says little about developments in Egyptian tradition over time. For most of the section, that isn't a problem, as there were dog burials long before Abuwtiyuw's time, and the rest of the section talks about other animal species whose treatment in Egypt is only broadly related to Abuwtiyuw. But this last sentence, being about dogs and their afterlife, implies a direct connection with Abuwtiyuw (and any other dogs who lived in his time).
Beliefs about the afterlife in the Old Kingdom (which includes the Sixth Dynasty) are poorly understood even for non-royal humans, let alone animals. I've never seen an Egyptologist directly address how animals related to the afterlife in any period of Egyptian history. The closest thing I can find on the fly is in the OEAE entry on animal cults, where it says "The next step [after connecting individual animals and specific groups of animals with the gods] was to extend the concept of divinity to animals en masse, and there are signs even in the New Kingdom that this was beginning to happen." One of the examples it cites is Prince Thutmose's pet cat, a thousand years after Abuwtiyuw, who was called "Osiris the She-cat". Appending Osiris' name to that of a person was a standard way of indicating that he or she had entered the afterlife, and that tradition dated almost as far back as Abuwtiyuw's time. If the use of the Osiris-name convention for an animal was a recent development in the New Kingdom, would the afterlife have been open to a dog a thousand years earlier?
I don't know the answer, and this cursory source isn't enough to decide on one. The inscription for Abuwtiyuw strongly suggests that he was expected to go to the afterlife, but he was a dog with the direct favor of the king, which was apparently not a typical situation. One theory about the Old Kingdom afterlife for non-royal humans is that they needed the king's favor and his grant of a tomb in order to enter the afterlife, so Abuwtiyuw may have been granted a unique privilege that did not apply to other dogs in his time. Unless there's another source available, this final sentence of the Background section feels uncomfortably like synthesis and may need to be removed.


Done.☠ Count de Blofeld 09:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "ka" be italicized as a foreign word? That's how I style it. In any case, the word shouldn't be capitalized as it's not a proper noun.
Done.☠ Count de Blofeld 08:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entry for Lewis Spence's Myths & Legends of Ancient Egypt is given as August 2008. I dislike using the reprint date of a public-domain work as the publication date, as it can make an old work look more reliable than it is. The statement that Spence is used to support is uncontroversial, but I'd still like the original publication date, 1915, to be included. You could write it as "Spence, Lewis (August 2008) [1915]", the way I've done it when citing English translations of older foreign-language books.
Done.☠ Count de Blofeld 08:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Nice article: small and (nearly) perfectly formed.

  • You have three different date formats in the biblio:
  • "G 2188". Giza Diary, 1935. October 17, 1935. Retrieved 2012-10-14.
  • "G 2188 Y". Giza Diary, 1935. October 13, 1935. Retrieved 2012-10-14.
  • Hinkler (1 February 2006). Discover Ancient Egypt. Hinkler Books, Penton Overseas, Inc.
    ISBN 978-1-74157-524-8
    .

Could I suggest changing the publication dates for the two Giza Diary entries to the international format? Although I personally prefer the longer format for the retrieved date too, the shortened form you have used in the biblio is allowable; having said that, if you are going to stick with it, then you need to tweak fn22 to come in line (although I always prefer to see all the dates in the one format regardless of which field they are in). Aside from that all is good. -

^ • @) 06:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

All dates made consistent, like you I prefer the international format.☠ Count de Blofeld 08:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by

GrahamColm 00:01, 2 November 2012 [44]
.

Mitt Romney

Nominator(s): Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominee of the Republican Party in the 2012 U.S. presidential election currently taking place. In case you're wondering if it's a good idea to promote a BLP of a high-profile, active candidate like this, there is strong precedent for it. In 2008, the Barack Obama article was FA through the campaign, and the John McCain article became FA during August of election year (and both remain FA to this day). Indeed, on the night of the November 4, 2008, general election, they went up together as dual featured articles on the main page. It was seen as a testament to WP's ability to present current and potentially controversial subject matter at the highest level, and it's a worthy goal to be able to do that again. This article has been through one prior FAC and a peer review, and content-wise has reached an agreeable, stable point to a number of different editors with different perspectives. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - can you add a "note" for the name "Willard Mitt Romney" as a person who isn't from US or is not knowledgeable would get confused about his real name (I'm currently). Is his first name Mitt or Willard? A note would be great. TheSpecialUser TSU 03:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is already covered in the "Heritage and youth" section:
He was named after family friend, hotel magnate J. Willard Marriott, and his father's cousin, Milton "Mitt" Romney, a former quarterback for the Chicago Bears.[16] He was called "Billy" until kindergarten, when he indicated a preference for "Mitt".[17]
In other words, Mitt was his middle name at birth, but it's the one he has gone by ever since he was young. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queries.

  • Why no retrieval dates on (almost) all sources that are linked online? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article never uses retrieval dates unless it's a web-only reference with no publication date. I'm of the school that holds that retrieval dates give no value to the reader and indeed add visual confusion to the publication date and drive up load times.
WP:CITE says that retrieval dates are only required of web pages and only "if the publication date is unknown". Other articles have reached FA that use the same practice, for example the George W. Romney article. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair enough, I wondered if something like that was the answer, and if it's per WP:CITE, then fine, ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the big linkfarm at the end, when the article is so closely and extensively referenced? I don't think we need links to collections of material at the Post, C-SPAN etc in an article with nearly 400 specific cites and a 'further reading' list. I'd be inclined to reduce it to his own site, the finance / campaign sites, and the Open Directory, or something like that.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you edit the "External links" section, you'll see that all of those links come out of two standard templates that are used in the "External links" section of most American political BLPs. I'm just following that practice here. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by GabeMc

General
  • Stability. - Can an article that's currently on probation truly be considered stable enough for an FAC?
Yes. There are other featured articles under probation. See Category:Articles on probation. For example, Barack Obama is now undergoing featured article review while under probation. Probation really says nothing about the quality of an article, but rather is a way of ensuring non-disruption.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned somewhere below, the probation was fallout from edit warring at the Paul Ryan article, and not due to what was happening here. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, edit-warring at another page caused probation here, even though there was no recent edit-warring at Mitt Romney? If this is the case then the probation should be lifted here so this FAC can proceed unencumbered. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would think protection of high-visibility articles takes precedence over FAC attempts. But this is a question for the admins, not us mortals. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this article should be burdened by this restriction when edit-warring has not been an issue here lately. I think this restriction is unfair to the nominator and it should be lifted during the FAC. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction is no problem to me. Some articles are under these kinds of restrictions on a permanent basis. Doesn't mean article improvement can't take place. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if probation were lifted, there would still be semi-protection I presume, so either way it's less than a perfect world. Maybe it would be best to leave it be for now, though I wouldn't object to removing probation either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Length. The article is over 11,000 words and 68kb, are you sure there isn't more info that could be farmed out?
This is best responded to in terms of the whole article. Yes, it is long, but then long articles have been the trend in FA; there are a number of FA articles at this length or longer. Yes, most of the sections of this article do have associated subarticles with additional material, but readership of them is generally low, sometimes extremely low. Editors know this, and thus want material they consider important kept in the main article. And frankly, after much experience with articles like this, length is a good thing. Everybody gets to 'see' the subject they think they know, and they also get introduced to things and perspectives they didn't know. I have in fact trimmed parts of certain sections over the last few months, but at this point I'm content with the length as it stands now.
Fair enough, I tend to agree with you. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OVERCITE
    - The first graph has 14 cites for five sentences. This came up during the last failed FAC. Are you still of the opinion that the article is not suffering from cite clutter? Why does the first sentence of basic biographical detail need 5 cites?
Also a point that relates to the article as a whole. I did do a lot of duplicate cite weeding out the last time around. But it's very laborious and error-prone and I think I reached the point of diminishing returns. So anything that still has multiple cites is probably because there are multiple facts being collected in a sentence and/or because a statement is possibly contentious and needs extra sourcing. I also think this is only something us editors see as a problem; regular readers have long since learned to visually ignore the little blue superscripts as they are reading, and aren't bothered by it. So in sum, I plan to leave the citation density the way it is. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to disagree here a bit. An FA should look organised, right now, the article looks disorganised. Really, 5 cites for a basic biographical sentence? Why? Sometimes less is more, and there is no need for 2 or 3 cites where one will do. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider bundling the cites with notes for which cite sources which claim? Right now its like finding a needle in a haystack to find which source is citing which fact. An FA's sourcing should not be this confusing and disorganised. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not going to do cite bundling. That's a whole different citation architecture that I don't want to get into here. If anybody feels strongly about this, they can oppose the FAC and I will understand.
I respect your artistic license, however:
"If a page has extra citations ... they contribute nothing to its reliability while acting as a detriment to its readability." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Going back to your specific example of the first sentence, I realize two of the five cites were to support text that is no longer there. I have removed them. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being willing to reduce the clutter, but as you said, this applies to the entire article, not just the first section. Where one good cite will do, there is no need for 3,4 or 5. Please consider going through the article top-to-bottom, removing redundant or obsolete cites where you can. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WTR has now made sure that no sentence has more than three footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current note system uses hash marks. Try {{refn|group=nb|}} instead of {{#tag:ref||group="nb"}}
Why? Who cares? They come out looking the same. Hash marks are using in the wiki writeup already, for linking to sections within an article. What's so bad about them?
Right, and when linking to sections that's a perfectly good use of them. However, they should be avoided where possible in the mark-up, as with notes. Anyway, the system I suggested is more concise. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the WP guideline that says not to use what I'm using. In general, WP gives wide latitude towards different citation implementation styles - no cite templates, citation template, cite xxxx templates, different ways of citing books, "ref name=..." vs the "r" template, etc etc. If the guidelines mandated one precise set of citation usages that everyone is supposed to use, it would be a different story. But it's pretty much "main author chooses, other editors follow". Wasted Time R (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and education
Heritage and youth
  • Passive voice. - Please review this section for overuse of the passive voice: "was born", "was named", "was called", "was elected", "was re-elected", "was involved".
I don't see these as objectionable. Google Books has 89 million hits for "was born", 7 million hits for "was named", and so forth. I think this is a misreading of the 'avoid passive voice' guidance.
Sure, Google turns up the phrase, what does that prove? Its not that you can never use it, its that you use it 7 times in the section, which is textbook overuse of the passive voice. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See English passive voice - "its usefulness is recognized in cases where the theme (receiver of the action) is more important than the agent". That's the case here. It doesn't matter who was calling him "Billy", just that people were.
I think you are misunderstanding the point. All style guides advise against overuse with exceptions made for effect. Such as "the mouse was eaten by the cat" which speaks to the experience of the mouse, whereas "the cat ate the mouse" speaks to the cat. Exceptions are made based on the desired point of view. However, "Romney was involved" and "Romney became involved" does not change the point of view but it does avoid the passive voice. If you can avoid the pasive voice without changing the desired point of view, then you should. "Was born" is more difficult. "Born in 1947, Romney ..." "Was named" could be "His parents named him". Again, I'm not suggesting that you can never use the passive, but IMO, and I think others will agree, you are overusing it in this section. Try and break it up by avoiding 2 or 3 of the 7 uses. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other reviews, no one's shown concern about this. We'll see if anyone else does here.
I don't think "Romney was involved" and "Romney became involved" are interchangeable. The latter implies there was a change at some point, which is not the intent. I don't even think this use of 'was' should count as a passive voice - it's just standard narrative past tense. "From 1910 to 1914, Jones was president of the company." That's not passive to me. Hamiltonstone says a couple of the passives here do strike him as something that should be changed, maybe he can say what those are.
We seem to have a fundamental disagreement about what contitutes proper use of the passive voice. Grab a style guide or two and you will see that my above explanation is quite accurate. "Romney was involved" and "Romney became involved" are indeed interchangeable, as the point of view remains unchanged. Superior writing avoids the passive voice whenever possible, as with my suggestion. Inferior writing uses the passive voice without purpose, as with the example above. Since featured articles are supposed to represent the very best of Wikipedia, indeed the prose is expected to be "brilliant", this is most certainly a FAC issue, especially when you consider how easily this actionable objection could be resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you say "others will agree," I thought I'd jump in here, since I don't (at least not fully). In my opinion, all of the passives in this section sound natural. There is a difference between "avoid overuse" and "avoid when at all possible" (see the MWDEU for some history of the debate). True, there are 7 uses in this section, but I estimate there are at least 50 total verbs, so 14% or less, which is not that much. Changing "Romney was born in 1947, the youngest child of..." to "Born is 1947, Romney was the youngest child of..." hardly effects the brilliance of the prose. That said, the section's prose is a little boring, and changing (for instance) "was named" to "his parents named him" might provide some needed variation. Lesgles (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I should say others will agree, other will disagree. It seems we agree in principle. I've now edited out all but one instance of the passive voice from the section. Do you miss it in any places? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward. "the youngest child of George W. Romney, at the time an automobile executive, and Lenore Romney (née LaFount), at the time a homemaker." Try "the youngest child of automobile executive George W. Romney, and homemaker Lenore Romney (née LaFount)."
This is intentional, because I'm only giving their occupations at the time he was born. Later, both went on to do much more, but those developments are integrated into Mitt's narrative, because they affected him.
Even if its intentionally awkward, it needs to be fixed. When we write "he was born to a Catholic family" it means the family was Catholic when he was born, not that they were always Catholic. "He was born to an Evangelical preacher" means that when he was born, his parent was a preacher. They can stop preaching later and this is still a true statement. Its awkward and its contibuting to some clumsy prose not suitable for a FA. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look through the article history, you'll see several cases where other editors have stuck in "AMC CEO, Governor, Sec HUD" and "First Lady, Senate candidate" here and I had to revert it. The "at the time" keeps them from doing that. When your wording can be edited by anybody, sometimes it has to serve a defensive purpose.
Well, I'm sure you have a perfectly good reason for it, but its still an awful sentence IMO, and not FA quality writing. Every little bit helps, and every little poor construction makes the article read less polished overall. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've written it the better way, but I've added comments to say that the later positions should not be added there since they are described later. That probably won't do any good - drive-by editors tend to blow by comments, but we'll see.
  • Awkward. "and his father was born in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico, to American parents." Try, "and his father was born to American parents in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico."
Done.
  • Vague. "He is of primarily English descent, and also has more distant Scottish and German ancestry." Omit the word "more" as a vague and unneeded modifier.
  • Comma use. Ibid.
Done and done.
  • Awkard. "A great-great-grandfather, Miles Romney, converted to the faith in its first decade, and another great-great-grandfather, Parley P. Pratt ..." Try, "His great-great-grandfather, Miles Romney, converted to the faith in its first decade, and his great-great-grandfather, Parley P. Pratt ..."
This is intentional, to give prose variety by avoiding the pronoun and also because he had a number of other ggf's, these are just two of them.
I still say its awkward and could be improved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I merged two sentences so it reads: "A fifth-generation member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), his great-great-grandfather Miles Romney converted to the faith in its first decade, and another great-great-grandfather, Parley P. Pratt, was one of the top early leaders in the church during the same time.[9][10][11]"Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Word choice. - "Parley P. Pratt, was an important early leader" instead of "important" try "prominent".
You think he wasn't important?
Sure he was, but aren't all leaders important? Prominent implies his special standing without impling the other church leaders were not important. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kim Kardashian is prominent, doesn't mean she's important. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but Kim K is not a leader. Important and leader are redundant here. All leaders are relatively important but not all leaders are prominent. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked (without mentioning Kardashian).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "Romney followed his three siblings – Margo Lynn, Jane LaFount, and G. Scott – after a gap of nearly six years." Where did he follow them? This needs to be improved.
This came out of one of the recent reviews. Most people will know what it means, but I've simplified it by chopping out the six year gap part, which is no longer significant given other things that have been chopped out of this section.
I think the text string you are looking for is: "Preceeded in birth by his three siblings, Mitt followed after a gap of nearly six years". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've adopted this, except that I used "Romney" instead of "Mitt", because the "Billy"-to-"Mitt" change is explained a couple of sentences later.
  • Missing article. - "He was named after family friend" try "He was named after a family friend".
Done.
  • Clarify/improve. - "In 1954, his father became the chairman and CEO of American Motors, helping the company avoid bankruptcy and return to profitability." Did AM avoid bancruptcy and return to profitablity all in 1954, or is that when George was hired, the turn-around occuring a year or two later?
Added 'soon' to clarify.
  • Clarify. "where many students came from backgrounds even more privileged than his" The article has not yet established that Mitt was privileged, or to what degree he was privileged, so this seems a bit awkward and out-of-place.
By then his father was chief executive of a big company, so you assume that gave him a privileged upbringing.
  • Relevance. "when his moderate father battled conservative party nominee Barry Goldwater over issues of civil rights and ideological extremism" This article is about Mitt, not George, consider trimming this out as excess, as it seems little more than a plug for how moderate George was at the time.
Is relevant to what Mitt learned about going against the party and how he later chose a different path.
Perhaps, but that is not made clear here. Either remove this here and tie this point in later when you discuss Mitt's politics, or tie it in now explicating what is was that Mitt learned from this. The reader needs to know why this is notable to Mitt, since as it stands now it seems a random datum about George. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It gets tied in as part of Note 15.
Material in the article body should never rely on a note to make sense. Consider clarifing in-line. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this relevant, regardless of whether it gets referred back to later or not. Growing up with a father who's involved in the middle of a heated battle in presidential politics has got to make a difference. Other editors think the same; in fact, if you go back to the Cranbrook incident discussions, you'll see that one editor thought this was the only thing worth keeping in this section, and that the rest was trivia.
You are misunderstanding me here. I don't think it needs to be removed per se, I think its relevance needs explicating. Try, "this later influenced Mitt's political persuasion in this way, x,y and z", or something better but to that effect. Its just sitting there on its own without any frame of reference as to why this is relevant to Mitt, not just George. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is related to Mitt following his father's example of not publicly protesting civil rights within the church. We really ought to be careful not to portray the son as a racist for not publicly protesting his church.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this item is now taken care of. The article no longer says "when his moderate father battled conservative party nominee...." and the bit about protesting the church is now in a note.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy. - "during his final year" appears twice in three sentences, consider a re-phrase.
Changed one to 'senior year'.
  • Comma use. - "During his final year at Cranbook, he improved academically, but was still not a star pupil."
Fixed.
  • Clarity. - "He won an award for those "whose contributions to school life are often not fully recognized through already existing channels" What does this mean exactly, its too vague to be useful.
That's a close paraphrase of what the award was.
A close paraphrase? From who, its in quotes. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, yes, you're right, that's what the award description said. It meant he wasn't a star jock or a student council president or anything like that, but still made his presence felt.
Yeah, I know, but it doesn't change the fact that the whole bit is vague, illuminating little about Mitt's HS performance. On page 20 of KH are several quotes from teachers which would do a better job of explicating this point without confusion. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the award entirely. If it's this hard to understand, it doesn't belong.
  • Comma use. - "He belonged to eleven school organizations and school clubs, and started the Blue Key Club booster group."
Hmm. I know what you mean but I think this one actually reads better this way after the below change.
  • Clumsy. - "At Cranbrook, Romney was a manager for the ice hockey team and a member of the pep squad,[21] and during his final year joined the cross country running team.[17] He belonged to eleven school organizations and school clubs, and started the Blue Key Club booster group." Why mention three groups, then start a new sentence about 11 groups? Are the first three included in the 11? This should be reworked, perhaps into one sentence that covers his school participation.
Clarified to say the eleven is 'overall'.
  • Comma use. - "He belonged to eleven school organizations and school clubs overall, and started the Blue Key Club booster group." Try: "He belonged to eleven school organizations and school clubs overall, starting the Blue Key Club booster group."
Tweaked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preposition use, poor grammar. - "Romney was involved in many pranks, some of which he later said may have gone too far and apologized for." Please fix this. Also, did he apologise for a specific prank, or for several that may have gone too far? Clarify.
See Common English usage misconceptions - it's okay to end a sentence with a preposition. As for the rest of it, this is a compromise wording worked out after four or five Talk archives' worth of heavy discussion, the early parts of which you were involved in too. I'm not going to change a word of it! ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its a poor quality sentence, and I had no part of the formulation even if I was involved in the discussion. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's poor quality, and yes the compromise happened after you left the article. But this is one can of worms I'm not going to open back up. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about opening the can? "some of which he later said may have gone too far and apologized for" is quite bad. Try: "Romney became involved in several pranks while attending Cranbrook. He has since apologized, stating that some of the pranks may have gone too far." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've further tweaked this per my comments here. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward. - "informally agreed to marriage" try "became informally engaged".
Engagement is inherently a formal thing. I think it's better as it is.
So they informally agreed to marry, but how does that make the agreement to marry an informal one? If they agreed to get married, that's engaged, formal announcement or not. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think it was that. I've never seen the term 'engaged' use to describe them during this period, and I don't want to introduce something that's not in the sources.
When I google "Mitt Ann 'informally engaged'" a bunch of reliable sources pop up. So, I'll change to "informally engaged". This small tweak shouldn't cause anyone heartburn, because it's fairly trivial.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally think "informally engaged" is an oxymoron, but it turns out that Ann was wearing a ring on her engagement finger while Mitt was away, and when George asked her about it, she said it meant that. So the term I guess fits. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How/where did he and Ann meet?
Hah! In one of the crazier moments here, that got suppressed out of the article due to the couple's age difference. C'est la vie ...
You could certainly mention how and when Mitt met his wife without details about her age. Can a bio be comprehensive if it does not mention how the subject met his only spouse? Should the Jerry Lee Lewis article evade this point as well? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The implication in the text now is that they went to a joint school and thus were in the same circles, which is good enough. The backstory of how they had once known each other in elementary school, then got reintroduced at a mutual friend's birthday party, was earlier removed from the article due to brevity concerns, or would be too detailed to add. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I'm sure in an 11,000 word article we can make room to explain how the subject of the article met his wife, the mother of his children. This speaks more to comrehensivness than brevity. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to go with WTR on this one. If we say where and when they first met, that seems no more important than saying where and when they first met romantically, and of course then there's the matter of when and where they first....you know. The article is already pretty clear that she attended a sister school, which amply explains how they became close.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mitt's birthdate is found only in the lead, this should also be in the article body.
It used to be that BLP's didn't do that, but now I see that some do, so now done here.
  • Clarify. "He was not particularly athletic and at first did not excel academically", this implies that he eventually did excell academically, but according to Kranish-Helman, though much improved by his senior year, at no point in HS did Mitt excell academically.
Good point. I've removed the 'at first'.
  • Chronology inconsistency. The article says Mitt "began commuting to Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills ... in the seventh grade" before it says George was elected Governor. Why would Mitt commute to a school in the same city in which he was living at the time? According to Kranish-Helman, Mitt was a day student there for three years before his father was elected, then George started spending time in Detroit, and Mitt began boarding, but not until after three years at Cranbrook, while the Romney's were still living in Bloomfield, not in seventh grade as the article currently states. If Mitt was born in 1947, then he would have been around 15 when George was elected, or about 10th grade, not 7th grade. I think substituting "began commuting" with "began attending" should fix the error.
Since "commuting" seems to give the wrong impression, I've changed it to 'enrolled as a day student at ...'. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
University, France mission, marriage, and children
1965–1975
  • Passive voice. There are 8 instances of the passive voice in this section. Please consider breaking up a few of them to improve the overall quality of the prose.
  • Awkward, confusing. - "Romney attended Stanford University in 1965–1966 for a year." How can he attend for one year during two calender years? Try: "Romney attended Stanford University for one academic year, during 1965–1966."
Reworded to "... during the academic year of 1965–1966".
  • Word choice. - "Although the campus and environs were becoming radicalized", 1) environs is a bit archaic, try something more familiar to readers. 2) Campus is singular and environs is plural, which makes for an awkward construction here.
Removed environs. (Just for the record, Google News Archives shows 77,000 hits for that word in the last 20 years.)
Which only supports my assertion that the word is jargon or archaic. 77,000 hits for google means that it is barely used. Anyway, the issue with juxtaposing a plural noun with a singular one was even more pressing. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
News stories, not web page hits. For news stories, that's a lot.
The issue of juxtaposing a plural noun with a singular one was even more pressing. "Although the campus environ was becoming radicalized" would have solved the issue just as well, if you are intent on retaining the term. Please keep in mind, this was only a suggestion, and not at all an actionable objection that would hold up promotion. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing. - "Although the campus and environs were becoming radicalized with the beginnings of 1960s social and political movements, he kept a well-groomed appearance and participated in pre-"Big Game" customs involving the Stanford Axe", Why would the radicalization affect his campus participation in the named activities? This needs further clarification, many students were both hippies and active campus leaders, so it does not follow that school activites were catagorically dismayed by the radical movement of the time.
Activities like Big Game hijinks and radicalization were in fact pretty mutually exclusive.
Perhaps, but this article does not explain the point at all, so its an assumption that readers will make the connection however strong you think it is. Many hippes attended football games and took part in established campus activites. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any hippies took part on the Stanford Axe shenanigans. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
Those shenanigans do not exactly illustrate being well-groomed. Per cited source: "In faded Levi’s jeans, a heavy wool work jacket, and well-worn moccasins, Mitt infiltrated the rival campus." I've rewritten a bit: "Although the campus was becoming radicalized with the beginnings of 1960s social and political movements, he kept a well-groomed appearance, and he also participated in pranks involving the Stanford Axe.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're now characterizing the Stanford Axe actions as a prank (fair enough, that's what one of the sources does), I think we should treat this similarly to the Cranbrook pranks, and move the details of the pranks into a Note. I've done so, restoring a bit of the "Big Game" context. Even better, we can now move the Stanford 'dressing as police officer' implicit mention and cite out of the Cranbrook Note and into this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice, again. - "In May 1966, he was part of a counter-protest against a group staging a sit-in at the university administration building in opposition to draft status tests" Try: " ... he participated in a counter-protest".
Changed - this is one I agree with.
  • Clarify. - "In July 1966, he left for a thirty-month stay in France as a Mormon missionary" He left where? Try: "In July 1966, he left Stanford (or college) for a ...".
It used to say "left the country", then someone else removed it as redundant. I've put it back. So it goes.
  • Excess detail. - "a traditional rite of passage for which his father and many other relatives had volunteered", why is the material on his father and uncles needed? In a massive article like this that is already pushing the limits, this wold be a good place to trim. Try "a traditional rite of passage for Mormons", since we have already established that his family is Mormon, there is no need to tell us that his family did this.
Strongly disagree. Romney sometimes gets attacked on the Internet for going on a mission just to avoid the draft. This material shows that missionary stints were and are common practice in his family, and that he very likely would have gone on one even if there had been no war. This was discussed in a Talk archive a while back.
Like I said, the fact that he is a Mormon explicates the why. There is no need for background on his father and uncles. Consider trimming as excess detail not related to Mitt's bio. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Mormons go on missions. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "He arrived in Le Havre with ideas about how to change and promote the French Mission, while facing physical and economic deprivation in their cramped quarters" Did he have ideas about change due to the deprivation? Also, why mentin that he arrived with ideas but not mention the ideas themselves. Expand or trim.
To me it's significant that he came there with ideas for change, instead of just following along with whatever they were doing. But it's not worth expanding upon, given the desire to cut down the article, so in the spirit of cooperation, I've removed it.
  • Clarify. - "The nominally Catholic but secular, wine-loving French people were especially resistant to a religion that prohibits alcohol" Is nominally the right word here? Seems like OR. Also, are you implying that Catholics cannot abstain from drinking alcohol outside church services? This seems dubious and stereotypical, consider a rephrase or trim.
This to me shows how hard his task was. And it's not OR - it's directly paraphrased from the sources given. But regretfully, I'm removing it. (Some base cites will be lost, but a bot will come along and rebase them.)
I went overboard on removing missionary material from the article before. It's clear now that we've gone all the way throught that we aren't doing a major size reduction - nor do I think we should be, as I state up top. Also I was in a foul state of mind at the time. This is one of the most important periods of Mitt's life, and some things that were removed really belong. So I'm restoring the Note with Mitt's quote about difficulty, which you didn't object to, and adding to that Note a shorter and hopefully clearer mention that Mormonism in France is a tough sell. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "He became demoralized and later recalled it as the only time when "most of what I was trying to do was rejected." This is confusing here juxtaposed with the previous sentence about wine. Was Romney's main mission to stop French people from drinking alcohol? Because as its currently constructed that is what in being implied. Either state Romney's specific aversion to alcohol or clarify that he was demoralised by the process in general, and not just the drinking part.
The alcohol is gone, so this should no longer be confusing.
  • Excess. - "In Nantes, he suffered a bruised jaw while defending two female missionaries who were being bothered by a group of local rugby players" This seem slike trivial excess that is better suited for notes.
Previous reviewers have requested no expansion of Notes. So removed.
  • Contradiction. - "He gained recognition within the mission for the many homes he called on and the repeat visits he was granted" This seems to contradict the previous assertion that he was demoralised by his lack of success.
Disagree. This shows he was persevering and overcoming his initial demorialization. And another reviewer requested it, to indicate why he got promoted. But in the spirit of cooperation, removed.
Per the above, I'm also restoring this, because it's important to state why he got his promotions. I've changed the earlier "became demoralized" to "initially became demoralized". Wasted Time R (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seasonal reference. - "then in the spring of that year", avoid seasonal references per the MoS.
Changed to "soon thereafter".
  • Confusing. - "[Romney] became assistant to the mission president in Paris, the highest position for a missionary" Is it higher than president? Seems like its not really the highest, unless the president of the mission is not actually considered a missionary.
That's what the source says. But "Highest position" clause now removed.
  • Awkward. - "In the Mission Home in Paris he enjoyed far more comfortable accommodations" More comfortable than what? Its been a while since you've mentioned the depravation, so this needs soem clarification. Try: "more comfortable accommodations than he endured in Le Havre".
Added "than before", since it covers other stops besides Le Havre.
  • Fix. - "Romney's support for the U.S. role in the Vietnam War" U.S. should be US.
Can you point me to the guideline that says that, for a U.S.-centric article?
I stand corrected, both U.S. and US are acceptable per this guideline. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar. - "Romney's support for the U.S. role in the Vietnam War was only reinforced when the French greeted him with hostility over the matter and he debated them in return." An wkward, poor grammatical construction that needs rephrasing. Also, "greeted him with hostility" is a bit odd. Kinda like "lavished him with derision", the verb and the adjective are not a good pairing.
I thought this was engaging prose, just like the FAC criteria ask for.
Tweaked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now tweaked this sentence per my comments here. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "He witnessed the May 1968 general strike and student uprisings and was upset by the breakdown in social order." What about the breakdown upset him, this is too vague to be useful in its current construction. Expand or trim.
To those who lived in the era, France May 1968 is self-explanatory - it was one of the signal events of the entire decade, anywhere. But I guess most of our readers are a lot younger than I am, and have no clue. And we don't have space to expand, so very regretfully I'm removing this and the references back to it later.
  • Non sequitur. - "Romney, who was not at fault in the accident,[nb 6] became co-acting president of a mission demoralized and disorganized by the May civil disturbances and by the car accident." What does his not being at fault have to do with his becoming acting-president? This should be broken into two sentences.
Now split and reduced.
  • Run-on. - "He rallied and motivated the others and they met an ambitious goal of 200 baptisms for the year, the most for the mission in a decade."
Now cut down.
And in reference to the above three items, I'm restoring a mention of the general strike, not in terms of Mitt's reaction, but that of the whole mission's work, which is clearly stated by the source. I'm also restored a rephrased version of Mitt rallying the demoralized and disorganized others. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy. - "By the end of his stint in December 1968, he was overseeing the work of 175 fellow members." Is "fellow" needed, seems redundant at this point.
Changed to "others".
  • Comma usage, awkward construction. - "Romney developed a lifelong affection for France and its people, and speaks French"
This is at the level of character detail that we're removing now, so I'm removing this.
  • Pronoun useage. - "The experience in the country instilled in him a belief that life is fragile and that he needed seriousness of purpose." Try "His experience". Also, "life is fragile and that he needed seriousness of purpose" is not encyclopedia. This reads like an essay and would be better conveyed with a direct quote.
There is no good quote for this - it was the analysis of several high-quality sources. I disagree about it not being encyclopedic - I think it's things like this that give the article value and the reader a deeper understanding of the subject than just who-what-where. But I'm likely in the minority, so with regret I'm removing it.
Sounds like a
WP:SYNTH to me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Awkward. - "It also represented a crucible, after having been an indifferent Mormon growing up: "On a mission, your faith in Jesus Christ either evaporates or it becomes much deeper ... For me it became much deeper." What "represented a crucible"? The experience? Re-phrase as awkward. Also, "For me it became much deeper" made more sense whan the article explicated that Romney was a "like-warm" Mormon at the start of the Mission. Restore background or trim.
This could be a self-serving quote from Romney. We really need something he said at the time, not something he said years later when he was a politician. Removing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "While he was away, Ann Davies had converted to the Mormon faith" Why is this important to Mitt? Perhaps some explication that Mitt and Ann could not marry under Mormon standards until she coverted.
Moved to a parenthetical re the Temple wedding, which should get the idea across.
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "Romney was nervous that she had been wooed by others while he was away, and indeed she had sent him a "Dear John letter" of sorts, greatly upsetting him; he wrote to her in an attempt to win her back". Rephrase, "wooed", "'"Dear John letter"'" (scare quotes), "of sorts", "win her back". Also, "greatly upsetting him" would be better as just "upsetting him".
Removed the whole thing.
  • Clarify. - "but subsequently agreed to wait three months to appease their parents" Why did they need to appease their parents? They were both adults at this point so why exactly did they wait. What was the specific issue with their parents?
This is a level of detail another editor was insistent upon, but I think he or she has left the building. Removed.
  • Improper use of given name. - "At Ann's request" should read "at Davies' request".
No longer there.
  • Awkward. - "At Ann's request, Romney began attending BYU, in February 1969." Sounds like he bagan attending "BYU in February 1969" not just BYU. Try: "In February 1969, at Ann's request, Romney began attending BYU."
No longer there.
  • Clarify. - "The following day, the couple flew to Utah for a wedding ceremony at the Salt Lake Temple" Try, "The following day, the couple flew to Utah for a Mormon wedding ceremony at the Salt Lake Temple".
Done.
  • Wordy. "Romney had missed much of the tumultuous American anti-Vietnam War movement while away and was surprised to learn that his father had turned against the effort during his unsuccessful 1968 presidential campaign."
Seems okay to me.
Shortened a little.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now tweaked this, breaking it into two and rewording to avoid the passive voice. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name use confusion. - "Romney had missed ... George was now serving". Try "George Romney" or "Mitt had missed ... George was now".
Latter done.
  • Vague modifier. - "a sincere attempt to bring the war to a quicker conclusion." Omit "quicker" as vague.
Not so sure, but done.
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "Regarding the military draft". This needs reworking as it is putting Wikipedia's voice first.
So? Everything is in our voice. "Smith was born in 1963." Who is saying that?
Perhaps I misspoke. The "Regarding the military draft" is unencyclodedic because it is editorialising. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, it's just a transition phrase. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I don't understand why it could be editorializing. Please explain or strike out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the kind of writing one would expect in an encyclopedia, it reads like a letter. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "When those ran out, his high number in the December 1969 draft lottery (300) ensured that he would not be selected". This needs explicating, since the average reader will be aware of draft rules. Exaplain why his high number was unlikely to be drawn.
Changed to "(300 out of 365)".
You missed the point. You are assuming that readers will understand why a high number reduces your chances of being drafted, they won't. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If high numbers mean you don't get drafted, then low numbers mean you do. 300 out of 365 is high. Self-explanatory. The first reader who posts something on the talk page saying they don't understand it, then I'll add extra text. For now, not warranted.v
I think readers will understand, but on the other hand it seems unnecessary to clutter the minds of readers with the mechanics of how a draft lottery works. I will tweak accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AYW, your description was incorrect - nobody gets 'chosen' for the draft during the lottery itself, it just determines call-up order for those eligible for selection - and your 'fortunate' is true but editorializing. I've replaced it with "When those ran out, the result of the December 1969 draft lottery ensured he would not be selected." But there's a lot of interest in this subject on the Talk page and I predict someone will want the 300 put back in. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, your change is fine with me. If some insane talk-page draft fanatics want the numbers back in, then perhaps a note would do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The numbers have been removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "Romney remained isolated from much of the upheaval of the era." I assume you mean the 1960s, but this could be improved by clarifing that point.
Changed to "the late 1960s/early 1970s era", but I bet some other reviewer won't like that.
  • Vague. - "He did not join in some protests there against the LDS Church's policy at the time of denying the lay priesthood, and some sacraments, to blacks." If he did not join in "some protests", did he join in others? If Mitt never protested the Church's stance on race then just say that.
"Some" removed.
  • Language. - I'm not sure your use of "blacks" here is entirely respectful. Try "african Americans" for a more PC approach.
"Blacks" is still fully permissible in PC writing, especially in writing about this era. Show me the WP guideline that says we can't use it.
This is a strange place to take a stand, but okay. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try: "denying the lay priesthood, and some sacraments, to black people". Its less offensive. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example: "There are 3 million blacks in Detroit" or "There are three million black people in Detroit." One seems less offensive to me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It now says "black people". But I think this sentence is a serious problem in this article. We say that Romney did not publicly protest LDS racial discrimination, but Romney did not publicly protest lots and lots of things (RFK assassination, Manson murders, Roman Polanski's sex life, et cetera). We are giving great weight to public inaction. Romney's father was a strong civil rights proponent, but he too declined to publicly criticize his church. I think that this bit about Mitt ought to go into the note about similarities between father and son.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "black people" to "black members". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the general issue, this has been one of the most troublesome parts of the article. The Talk pages have gone around and around on this - whether to include, how to describe the policy, how much family or historical context to give, etc. I'm okay with what's there now, and I think moving the 1978/2007 reaction to a Note is a good change. But I'd also be okay with removing the whole matter entirely. It definitely belongs in the articles about George and Lenore, because they were political officeholders and officeseekers at the time. But Mitt was not - he was in his twenties and just a student. To me, that makes a difference. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's wildly prejudicial against Romney. There's no evidence whatsoever that he supported the policy, or that his father's emphasis on quiet diplomacy was unwise or ineffective. Yet here we are hanging it all around Mitt Romney's neck. I don't know which Wikipedia policies apply (Coatrack, BLP, etc) but I do know this is highly f---ed up. Complete removal of this into about what Mitt did not do would create article instability (i.e. bogus whitewashing charges) so I plan on moving it to the note about father-son similarities, if no one beats me to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully with you Anythingyouwant. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It's moved to a note (#13).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misuse of parenthesis. - "(In 1978, the church announced the reversal of its policy; in 2007, Romney said he had been so anxious for the policy to change that when he heard the news while driving at the time he had pulled over and wept.[33][54])" If this entire statement in parenthentical then pehaps this would be better suited for a note. Or work into prose.
Show me the WP guideline that says we can't use sentences in parentheses. It's one of the tools for indicating subordinate importance.
This should be moved to notes as excessive detail for the article body. Also, its not related in any way to Mitt Romney, its purely a datum about the Mormon Church. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've been away for a while. We had a long discussion in Talk about this fairly recently, and this is what was worked out. I do not believe it should be changed.
I've moved this to notes for two reasons: 1) The first clause is a datum about Mormon church policy, 2) the second clause is a self-serving anecdote from Romney. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this to notes would be okay if the accompanying stuff were also moved to notes. As I explained a few sentences up, the stuff about Mitt Romney's public inaction re. LDS discrimination needs to be handled carefully. Moving the 1978 and 2007 info may be appropriate, except that it exacerbates the problem of giving undue weight to inaction.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with moving all this contentious stuff to notes. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It's moved to a note (#13).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "Romney became president of, and an innovative fundraiser for, the all-male Cougar Club booster organization and showed a new-found discipline in his studies." What was innovative about his fundraising?
Not worth going into, I've removed the subclause.
  • Language. - "In his senior year, he took a leave to work as driver and advance man". Try "During his senior year".
There's another reviewer out there who wants instances of "During" changed to "In". Oh joy. But done.
  • Awkward. - "He earned a Bachelor of Arts in English with highest honors in 1971, and gave commencement addresses to both the College of Humanities and to the whole of BYU." Try: "In 1971, he earned a Bachelor of Arts in English".
Disagree. Lots of sentences start with "In <year>", it's good to vary them.
Tweaked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excess. - "The Romneys' first son, Taggart (known as "Tagg"), was born in 1970 ... Ann subsequently gave birth to Matthew ("Matt", 1971), Joshua ("Josh", 1975), Benjamin ("Ben", 1978), and Craig (1981)." Do we really need the nicknames of all their children? The article does not currently explain how the couple met, so this seems excessive.
I think you're fixated on the meeting, and I disagree with removing the nicknames (especially the first), but in the spirit of cooperation I have.
When a biography of someone does not even mention how he met his wife, there is an obvious error of ommision. I am not fixated on the point Wasted, and I will again ask you to please not use such accusatory and abusive language against reviewers. If how Mitt and Ann met is not notable enough for inclusion in the article then I don't see how his kids nicknames are. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add how they met, go ahead yourself and do it. The stripping out of the age difference left me feeling ill about this whole part of the article.
I know how they met, that's not the point. The point is a bio on Romney needs to include a brief description of how Mitt met Ann. This is actionable IMO, as the article cannot be said to be comprehensive while this important piece of info is missing. I'm sure you could avoid revealing their age difference, or that Mitt was over 18 and dating a minor. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For God's sake, there is nothing wrong in what they were doing!! This one drives me insane. A high school senior going out with a high school sophomore is not illegal improper or anything and happens all the time. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasted, I never said there was anything wrong with their relationship. I don't think there was. I assumed it was removed specifically because of their age difference (see whitewashing). I am suggesting now that this info should be restored, avoiding the issue of age if needed. E.g. "Mitt and Ann met at a ... They began dating shortly after." See, its easy, and you don't have to go into the age difference. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So put it in yourself, such that you're satisfied. No point in us trying to guess how you want it to read. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronolgy issue. In the section summarising events up to 1975 you have: "Benjamin ("Ben", 1978), and Craig (1981)". As these date fall outside 1975 this needs to be fixed.
Disagree; it's more convenient to put them here. Chronological organization does not have to be an absolute straightjacket.
  • Clarify. - "Her work as a homemaker would enable her husband to pursue his career." How so, and why is this notable? Did sho ay the bills while Mitt's wasn't earning? Staying home and taking care of children is not unique to Ann, so why is this needed? Again, this article is massive, and any trims of unneeded prose will improve the readability.
Call me foolish, but I think it's worth mentioning about all women who work in homemaking. What they do has value, even if it isn't "notable". Removed.
I never said it wasn't important, I asked why it was notable, e.g. Did she pay the bills while Mitt was up-and-coming? What's special about what she did compared to any other wife of a businessman? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not any more important than any other wife, but they're all important. Moot point anyway. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing "important" with "notable". E.g. "Mitt's automobile allowed him to drive to work." A statement of fact, and its certainly important to have a car when you need to drive to work, but why is this notable? E.g. "Mitt's flying car allowed him to get to work faster than most." Now that would be notable. I'm not in anyway trying to minimise Ann's important role. I was merely asking why this was particularly notable, and worthy of inclusion. Did she do anything above what any housewife would have done that explicitly enabled Mitt to work? One could argue that without their children, her contribution to his ability to work is next to nill, but she gave birth to said children, so she cannot really be said to have enabled him to work by caring for their (read her), children. What she did was not unique to their family. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "Romney still wanted to pursue a business path, but his father advised him that a law degree would be valuable to his career". "Still wanted" implies that the reader should know that he wanted to, but I don't see this explicated in the previous text. Also, did George want Mitt to become a lawyer, or to use a law degree to improve his business ability? How would this be valuable to his business career?
Good catch on "still", the antecedant to this got yanked in one of the previous cutdowns. Now removed. I've added "even if he did not become a lawyer". Why having training in both is left as an exercise to the reader.
  • Comma use. - "Thus he became one of only fifteen students to enroll". Use commas after intorductory phrase, in this case, "thus".
I'm not convinced everyone follows this anymore, but done.
  • Wordy. - "Thus he became one of only fifteen students to enroll at the recently created joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration four-year program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School". Consider a trim, or breaking the sentence into two.
Disagree.
Tweaked. See edit summary for explanation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject without a verb modifing it. - "Fellow students considered him guilelessly optimistic, noting his solid work ethic and buttoned-down demeanor and appearance".
See next.
  • Improve word choice. - "guilelessly optimistic" (peacock), "solid work ethic" (unencyclopedic), "buttoned-down demeanor", how can a demeanor be buttoned-down? an appearance sure, but not a deameanor, consider recasting this.
Character description, now nuked.
  • Improve wording. - "He ... participated in class well". Try: "He actively participated in class"
See below.
  • Vague. - "and led a study group whom he pushed to get all A's". Did they get all A's or did he just push them toward that goal. Also, "all A's" may not hold much meaning for non-American readers. Try: "top marks" or something to that effect.
Nuked everythig but the first clause.
  • Awkward construction. - "He had a different social experience from most of his classmates, since he lived in a Belmont, Massachusetts house with Ann and two children." Try: "Living in a Belmont, Massachusetts house with Ann and two children, he had a different social experience from most of his classmates." Or even better: ""Living in a Belmont, Massachusetts house with Ann and their two children, his social experience in college differed from most of his classmates."
Changed to the latter.
  • Spelling. - "He was non-ideological". Try "nonideological", there should not be a hyphen used here.
My guess is both are permitted, but changed.
  • Awkward. - "and did not involve himself in the political or social issues of the day". This seems awkward in light of the most recent topic sentence: "He had a different social experience". Were students at Harvard typically nonpolitical at the time?
Removed "or social". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing article. - "breakdown in social order". Try "breakdown in the social order".
  • Subject/verb agreement. - "The couple were married on March 21, 1969". Try: "The couple was married on March 21, 1969" or even better: "The couple married on March 21, 1969".
Unresolved. In American English its "was" not "were". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation. - "In the Mission Home in Paris he enjoyed far more comfortable accommodations". The apositive "in Paris", within an introductory phrase needs a comma.
Unresolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Tweaked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Run-on. - "Romney's support for the U.S. role in the Vietnam War was only reinforced when the French greeted him with hostility over the matter and he debated them in return".
  • Comma use. - "He earned a Bachelor of Arts in English with highest honors in 1971, and gave commencement addresses to both the College of Humanities and to the whole of BYU".
Unresolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commas splice. - "Ann subsequently gave birth to Matthew ("Matt", 1971), Joshua ("Josh", 1975), Benjamin ("Ben", 1978), and Craig (1981)."
  • Redundant prepostion. - "Romney, who was not at fault in the accident, became co-acting president of a mission demoralized and disorganized by the May civil disturbances and by the car accident." Omit the second "by".
  • Wordy. - "Romney had missed much of the tumultuous American anti-Vietnam War movement while away and was surprised to learn that his father had turned against the effort during his unsuccessful 1968 presidential campaign." Break into two sentences.
Unresolved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further tweaked. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma use. - "Romney developed a lifelong affection for France and its people, and speaks French."
  • Spelling. - "counter-protest" should be "counterprotest".
I think the hyphen is okay. See counter-protest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spelling. - "co-acting" shoud be "coacting".
Changed to "co-president" per cited WaPo source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Word choice. - "By the end of his stint in December." Consider a more encylcopedic word choice here.
When you get the Counter-protest article renamed, I'll take out the hyphen. Show me the WP guideline that says that "stint" isn't acceptable. I think there's more range of acceptable usage than you do. Anyway, a lot of the above items have already been nuked, so they are moot points. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some word pairs need hyphen and others don't. "Stint" is not encyclopedic. I've indicated which of the above items that are now resolved an which aren't. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of "stint". Definition 1b of the noun form says "a period of time spent at a particular activity", which is exactly the meaning it is used in here. There is nothing to indicate it is slang, vulgar, foreign, or anything else that would disqualify it for use. I've checked a print dictionary here, same story. I've used "stint" in a dozen articles and you're the first person to say it couldn't be used. I think you are wrong on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said above, not all of theses comments are actionable objections to the promotion. Some are just suggestions to be considered. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I !vote for "stint". It seems fine in this context.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I would personally like to see a more encyclopedic term used, I am fine with it and won't belabour the point further. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Business career
I've commented on the content and structural issues for this section below. I'll let Anythingyouwant deal with the prose issues, since he is the #2 editor on the article and seems to be on a closer wavelength with you than I am. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you now refusing to address comments by reviewers? After two days? If you are going to encourage Anythingyouwant to deal with this multitude of grammatical errors then I strongly suggest you ask them to add themselves as a co-nominator. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, under no circumstances will I accept any conomination. Second, I really don't want to get involved with further sections unless the bit about not protesting is resolved. And lastly, I kindly ask WTR to try his best to resolve the issues listed here. I only deal in lost and hopeless causes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK no problem, as I said on your talk page. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Management consulting
  • Confusing modifier. - "in Massachusetts" could define both clauses in the sentence and is therefore squinting.
Removed - 'Boston' makes it self-evident.
  • Passive voice. - "Romney was recruited by several firms ..." Try: "Recruited by several firms, Romney ... " Also, "He was viewed as having a bright future there". Try: "BCG execs viewed Romney as having a bright future there". And, "a management consulting firm in Boston that had been formed". Try: "a management consulting firm in Boston, formed ..." And, "Within a few years, he was considered one of their best". Try: "Within a few years, they considered him one of their best ". And, "Romney was recruited by several firms and chose", try: "Recruited by several firms, Romney chose". There are 6 examples of the passive voice in this short paragraph. Please break-up a couple of them to improve the quality of the prose.
All now reworked I think.
  • Word choice. - "rather than join a major company directly". Try "leading" instead of "major".
Changed to "large".
  • Word choice. - "a management consultant to a variety of companies". Try: "a management consultant for (or with) a variety of companies".
Changed to "for".
  • Awkward. - "Unlike other consulting firms, which issued recommendations and then left, Bain & Company had a practice, that Romney learned, of immersing itself in a client's business and working with them until changes were implemented." Try: "Consulting firms typically issue recommendations but do not follow-up. Bain & Company had a practice of immersing itself in a client's business and working with them until changes were implemented."
Shortened a different way.
  • Comma use. - "Romney became a vice-president of the firm in 1978[15] and worked with clients". We need a comma after the introductory phrase.
Done.
  • Awkward. - "Within a few years, he was considered one of their best consultants and at times sought by clients over more senior partners." Try: "Within a few years, they considered him of their best consultants and clients sometimes sought his advice over more senior partners."
Changed to this with a few tweaks. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excess. - "Two family incidents during this time later came to light during Romney's political career: a confrontation with a park ranger in 1981,[nb 8] and persistent interest in a 1983 episode in which Romney kept his family dog on the roof of his car during a long road trip." The park ranger incident should be removed to notes and the dog incident removed entirely as not notable except as political fodder. Since many more notable political stories have surfaced that would justify inclusion over this trivial datum.
The park ranger incident is in a Note, this is just the lead-in so that people realize there is a Note to read. The dog on the roof story has become, for better or worse, one of the most well-known stories about Romney. It has spanned two presidential campaigns and is the constant fodder for late-night jokes, political cartoons, negative ads, psychological analyses, and so forth. Mention of it here, with a link to the separate article dedicated to it, needs to be here and I strongly disagree with any effort to take it out. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened the dog text to read: "and persistent interest in a 1983 road trip with a dog on the roof."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Private equity
  • Passive voice. - There are 8 instances of the passive voice in theis sub-section. Please consider reducing this by 2 or 3.
  • Word choice. - "Romney initially had the titles of president and managing general partner". Try: "Romney initially held the titles".
Done.
  • Editorialising. - "In any case, maximizing the value of". "In any case" is unencyclopedic.
It's a transition phrase, not editorializing, but removed anyway.
  • Adjective, adverb use, passive voice. - "Romney was generally data-driven, and often played the role of a devil's advocate during exhaustive analysis of whether a deal should be done." Try: "Generally data-driven, Romney often played the role of a devil's advocate during exhaustive analysis of whether a deal should be done."
Done.
  • Awkward. - "a deal should be done" is unencyclopedic and poor writing.
Disagree, but changed to "whether to go forward with a deal".
  • Confusing modifier. - "Bain Capital lawyers asked him not to get involved, although he did meet with the workers to tell them he had no position of active authority in the matter." Its not clear which clause is being defined by "with the workers".
Changed to "with the strikers".
The modifier is still defining more than one clause and is therefore squinting. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the word "with" so it says he "did meet the strikers". Does that address the issue?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good now. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pronoun use. - "he did meet with the workers to tell them he" "them he" is too many pronouns, recast. Try: "Romney met with the workers, explaining that he had no authority to act on the matter."
Rephrased.
  • Clumsy. - "He later became referred to as managing director or CEO as well." Try: "They also referred to him as managing director or CEO."
I want to move some of this to a Note, will get back to it later.
I've tweaked this. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the mysterious "they"? No clear referent. There really are times when the passive voice is better. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "they" to "employees". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's dubious to me. It could have been an outside PR firm hired to do press releases, for instance, that came up with the wrong variant of a title. I've changed it to 'publications', which is about all we can say for sure. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma splice. - "Romney was on the board of directors of Damon Corporation, a medical testing company later found guilty of defrauding the government".
  • Excess parenthesis. - "(He had initially refrained from accepting Bill Bain's offer to head the new venture, until Bain re-arranged the terms in a complicated partnership structure so that there was no financial or professional risk to Romney.) Why is this even in parentheses?
Because it happened in 1983, a bit out of chrono with the narrative. Came out like this from the peer review, or the GAR, I forget which.
Well, a peer review and/or GAR does not trump FAC. Issues missed in the PR and/or GAR are not therefore "pre-approved" for FA compliance. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the parens. As explained in edit summary, a full sentence in parens is ordinarily deeper into a section, whereas this is only the second sentence of the section. It reads fine without them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessarry modifier. - "Romney was generally data-driven"
Removed.
  • Spelling. - "re-arranged". There should be no hyphen here.
Fixed.
  • Vague. - "during the first two years, very few were done". Omit "very".
Removed.
  • Prose. "during the first two years, few were done". "few were done" is not encyclopedic, try: "few were finalized" or something to that effect.
Changed to "few were approved."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Word choice. - "The firm's first big success". Try "significant" instead of "big".
Done.
  • Awkward topic sentence. "At first, Bain Capital focused on venture capital opportunities. Romney set up a system in which any partner could veto a potential investment, and he personally saw weak spots in so many potential deals that during the first two years, very few were done." The topic sentence does not seem to relate to the following sentence.
Disagree. Venture capital means you go out and look for companies you might think will succeed and invest in them. If you find weak spots in all the companies you look at, you won't be investing in many companies.
I suggest that we say this: "At first, Bain Capital focused on venture capital investments. Romney set up a system in which any partner could veto one of these potential opportunities, and he personally saw so many weaknesses that few venture capital investments were approved in the initial two years."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think AYW's construction is superior to the current text. I would suggest swapping "At first" with "initially", and if the sources support it, I would add "only venture capital opportunities". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've put in "initially", but I don't see that the source supports "only".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor quality prose. - "he personally saw weak spots in so many potential deals". "weak spots" and "so many potential deals" are unencyclopedia and need recasting.
Changed the first to "weaknesses", disagree on the second. Dictionary definitons 3:1a, 3:1c, and 3:4 all apply here re "Deal". "Potential" is clearly an acceptable modifier of "Deal". More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have been resolved as described in the previous item above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor quality prose. - "and selling them off in a few years." 1) "selling them off" is unencyclopedia, 2) "in a few years" is vague.
"Off" removed. Disagree on second. The source says "in just a few years". The dictionary definition 2:2 says "at least some but indeterminately small in number". I think that's the case here.
"few years" is vague, and needs clarifing. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source says in a few years. You want me to make up something, like "one to three years"? You want me to do some general research on LBO firms and find a figure, that may or may not apply to this time and context, and synth it in? A Google Books search has literally millions of hits for "in a few years". Why is it good enough for all those publishing house editors but not for you? You'll say it's not encyclopedic. Okay, let's add that to this new Google Books search and we still have half a million hits. I respectfully believe you are wrong on this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The cited NY Times article says: "He made his money mainly through leveraged buyouts — essentially, mortgaging companies to take them over in the hope of reselling them at big profits in just a few years." We could change "few" to "several" but either way seems okay to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, its not encyclopedic, its vague and we should strive for better prose than the NYT, no offense intended to fans, thats a newspaper, we are an encyclopedia. How about "and selling them in the short-term", or "and selling them quickly" or "with hopes of selling them as soon as a they realize a profit"? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Short-term" and "quickly" both imply weeks or months or quarters, not years. "Soon as they realize a profit" is not what the source says and probably not what they did. Show me the WP guideline that says "in a few years" is not encyclopedic. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten as follows: "Romney soon switched Bain Capital's focus from startups to the relatively new business of leveraged buyouts: buying existing companies with money mostly borrowed from banking institutions using the newly bought companies' assets as collateral, then taking steps to improve the companies' value, and finally selling those companies once their value is maximized, usually within a few years." This is much less vague.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, this is no longer vague and it reads much more smoothly. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "Bain Capital lost most of its money in many of its early leveraged buyouts, but then started finding deals that made large returns". Try: "Bain Capital lost money in many of its early leveraged buyouts, but eventually found deals that earned large returns".
Done, but with "then" instead of "eventually", because the latter implies a longer time gap than occurred.
  • Clarify. - "as well as lesser-known companies in the industrial and medical sectors". Did Bain specifically seek out lesser-known firms in theses field? Try: "as well as several lesser-known companies in the industrial and medical sectors".
Added "some" not "several".
  • Clarify. - "He wanted to drop a Bain Capital hedge fund that initially lost money, but other partners prevailed and it eventually gained billions." Did other partners prevail over Romney's disagreement or in the investment in general, or both?
Changed "prevailed" to "disagreed with him".
  • Excess verbiage. - "He also personally opted out of the Artisan Entertainment deal". Try: "He opted out of the Artisan Entertainment deal".
Done.
  • Excess. - "In some cases, Romney had little involvement with a company once acquired". This is excess that could be trimmed. Of course not every member of the firm was active with every client. This goes without saying and is a fine place to trimm an especially long article.
Normally I would agree. But Romney gets hung out to dry for every bad thing that ever happened to any company that Bain Capital did a deal with. Due to that, this might be warranted. We'll see what Anythingyouwant thinks. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I agree that the section is too long, but removing this short sentence would have a de minimis effect on section length. The source says: "Romney’s role with companies varied. With Staples, he sat on the company board for more than a decade. With many others, he left oversight and daily management to his associates appointed to company boards and executives running the businesses, said Wolpow. Executives of several companies bought by Bain said they had little or no interaction with Romney." In addition to the rationale given by WTR, I think this sentence indicates that Romney is not a micromanager, which is useful to know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a detail better suited for the Bain article, or the article on Romney's business career. As it stands, it appears to be a type of disclaimer that leads the reader to think that not all of the shady deals Bain involved itself in can be tied to Romney. However, as the CEO and sole shareholder, the buck certainly stopped at Romney. The captain is to blame for anything that his crew does, even things he didn't personally manage. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking at this through a different filter. I wrote it two or three years ago, looking through a business filter - what kind of executive was he? It's more about Romney than Bain Capital per se so it belongs here, not there. The Business career of Mitt Romney article is a non-factor: it got 3,552 views in September, while Mitt Romney got 1,440,651 views, meaning out of every 400 people who look at the main article, only 1 looks at the subarticle. In other words, moving something to there is tantamount to deletion. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the source was saying Romney is not responsible for decisions of his underlings. If the source was saying that, then the source would have been (1) editorializing, and (2) wrong. The question of Romney's responsibility is mainly directed at the time when he was running the Olympics while technically still CEO of Bain Capital. There is no substantial question that he was responsible for everything Bain did before the Olympics.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing it would also have a de minimis effect on the reader's comprehension of Romney's role at Bain, therefore it is excess. A note perhaps. It is safe to assume that readers will understand that Romney didn't work at Bain alone, and he did not handle every deal himself. We would not need to clarify that a lawyer didn't handle every single case at their law firm. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At a typical law firm, no single person is in charge. It's just a bunch of partners. At Bain Capital, however, Romney was CEO. Many CEO's have their hands into everything. Some presidents too (see Jimmy Carter).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked for some CEO's who were micromanagers and were involved in every deal, every new hire, etc. It makes a big difference (usually for the worse). Wasted Time R (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "Bain Capital's leveraged buyouts sometimes led to layoffs, either soon after acquisition or later after the firm had left." Clarify/Wikify "after the firm had left". "Left" imples the firm had relocated somewhere.
Changed "left" to "departed".
Is "departed" the best way to cast that Bain no longer provided its service? Does a lawyer "depart" a client after a trial? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "concluded its role". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, even better! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward/verbose. - "How jobs added compared to those lost due to these investments and buyouts is unknown, due to a lack of records and Bain Capital's penchant for privacy on behalf of itself and its investors." Try: "Exactly how many jobs Bain Capital added compared to those lost due to these investments and buyouts is unknown due to a lack of records and Bain Capital's penchant for privacy."
Did the first part, but kept "on behalf of itself and its investors" at the end because that's an important additional consideration they face when dealing with inquiries.
  • Editorialising. - "In any case, maximizing the value" Try: "Maximizing the value ... "
Looks like this has already been addressed, both above and in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excess. - "as it was for most private equity operations". This should be trimmed as excess detail about private equity firms in general and not related to Bain per se.
Normally I would agree. But so much political focus has been put on what happened at Bain Capital, from the 1994 election to the present, that I think some mention of typical private equity practices is warranted. Again, see what AYW thinks. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its still a datum about other PEFs, so why is this relevant here? Also, make sure this isn't
WP:OR. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
One of the cited sources says:


I don't see anything here about how "most" private equity firms operate. Maybe I'm missing something.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm convinced now, I've removed this clause. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - There are several uses of "but" in this sub-secion. Consider recasting a few of them as "however".
I try to avoid or minimize uses of "however" because some editors consider it on the words-to-avoid list. I'll try to remove "but" completely in a few places.
  • Clumsy. - "Bain was among the private equity firms that took the most fees in such cases". Try: "Bain received higher than average fees in such cases".
That would eliminate the comparison to other firms of this type. Let me do some more research on this one - there's another source on the subject that I meant to incorporate but didn't get around to.
"higher than average" applies to other firms so the comparison is retained. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole question of Bain Capital fees is a valid one, but is hard to summarize in a little space here (see this NYT story that I alluded to). I think it should be tackled at the Bain Capital article, not here, so I've removed the existing text in question. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overuse of the passive voice. - "In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse." Try: "In 1990, facing financial collapse, Bain & Company asked Romney to return."
So changed.
  • Comma use. The introductory phrase: "He was announced as its new CEO in January 1991" needs a comma after it.
Done.
  • Clarify. - "while rallying the firm's thousand employees". Try: "while rallying the firm's one thousand employees".
I think the two usages are equivalent, but done.
  • Clarify. - "Within about a year, he had led Bain & Company through a turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without further layoffs or partner defections." While the graph previously mentions Bain & Company's pending financial collapse, it does not mention any layoffs or partner defections.
Disagree. This is a concise way of indicating what had been going on during the near collapse, and that it no more of those things happened.
The prose should avoid the text string: "without further layoffs" since no initial Bain layoffs are discussed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "without further layoffs or partner defections". There's a revisionist article in Rolling Stone recently published that challenges aspects of the standard account of Romney saving Bain & Co, and while its value as a RS is borderline, maybe the less heroism here the better. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite clutter. - "Romney took a leave of absence from Bain Capital from November 1993[89] to November 1994[45] in order to run for the U.S. Senate." This is a prime example of where cites [89] and [45] should be bundled and placed at the end of the sentence, or at least placed at the end if not bundled as well. Readability is certainly suffering from all these citations. Please clean some of them up.
Continue to disagree about bundling. That's an architectural change and a lot of work that isn't warranted here. Anyone who reads WP articles about active U.S. presidential candidates is going to see tons of little blue superscripts. They'll just have to ignore them, whether there are 400 instances in the article or 500. Moving to end of the sentence is okay with me. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing is to move cites to the end of sentences. If that means more than three cites at the end of a sentence, then maybe the sentence needs to be broken up, or some cites are redundant. Normally, the cites at the end of a sentence should be in an order that corresponds to what they're citing in the sentence. In this instance, I've moved the two cites to the end of sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ordering thing doesn't work because, alas, there is a bot that reorders the cites such that consecutive footnotes are always in ascending numerical order. (I argued against that once, to no avail.) My general approach is to put cites after a clause if it's something especially important/counterintuitive/contentious, but to collect them at the end of the sentence otherwise. I probably haven't followed that practice rigorously, though. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's a nobots tag. Maybe that tag can be specialized to ward off a particular bot. We can contact Lawrence Fishburne and Keanu Reeves for details (a Matrix reference). Seriously, I think the syntax is {{bots|deny=[name of bothersome bot]}}.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "By 1999, Bain Capital was on its way to being one of the top private equity firms in the nation". Try: "By 1999, Bain Capital was on its way to becoming one of the top private equity firms in the nation".
Changed to "towards becoming".
  • Word choice. - "Bain Capital was on its way to being one of the top private equity firms". Try "leading" instead of "top".
Disagree. "Leading" has possible additional connotations (Bain Capital keeps a low profile and isn't really a leader in that sense); and the source uses "top". Dictionary definition 3:2 applies here.
The lead says they are one of the largest such firms in the US. Are you saying that they are one of the largest but not a leading firm? Leading does not imply leadership per se. Hasbro is a leading toy manufacturer but are they leaders in the field of toy production? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have a problem with "foremost"? I'll give that a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "Bain Capital's approach of applying consulting expertise to the companies it invested in became widely copied within the private equity industry." Do other private equity firms not apply consulting expertise to the companies they invest in? What's is so special about the "Bain way"?
Correct. Some just buy companies that they think will improve on their own, then sell them when and if they do. The different approach Bain Capital took was to couple the "Bain way" methodology (which is their approach to doing management consulting) of Bain & Company with the VC or LBO action. That is the connection between the two Bain firms. The Boston Globe series Part 3 story makes this clear. This section used to make this clear too, until successive editors removed the term "Bain way" (POV allegedly) and removed the supposedly 'obvious' description that Bain techniques would be used (that editor didn't really understand the difference between the two Bains). I didn't have numbers on the Talk page, so out went the clarity. So it goes. This text you are calling out is left over from what used to be here, and now doesn't have an antecedent. So I'm removing it. All of this does remain at the Bain Capital article, fortunately.
  • Clarify. - "Economist Steven Kaplan would later say, "[Romney] came up with a model that was very successful and very innovative and that now everybody uses." What "model" exactly? The article does not explicate why his approach was novel, so why are we mentioning it here in a vague and ambiguous way?
Same story. I'm removing this too.
  • Overuse of the passive voice. - "He was not involved in day-to-day operations of the firm, nor was he involved in investment decisions for Bain Capital's new private equity funds". Try: "He did not involve himself with the firm's day-to-day operations or any investment decisions for Bain Capital's new private equity funds."
Here and below, I want to see if I can get most of this separation period material into a Note. It's really undue weight where it is, but it was a compromise during the period of time a couple of months ago when this was in the news. Now that 47% and other stuff dominates the news, maybe I can handle this appropriately without catching flak. More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it some, I've decided not to move this to a Note. I'd rather stick with the compromises that have been worked out for now, and then possibly revisit this sometime after the election. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The one above has now been reworded.
  • Passive voice. - "He was announced as its new CEO in January 1991". Try "Bain announced Romney (him) as its new CEO in January 1991".
Rephrased differently.
  • Vague. "Within about a year", Is it 11 months or 13 months? Be as specific as the sourcing allows.
I removed it. But I was about to change the "fewer than ten" to "seven" later in the same sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still there. "Within about a year, he had led Bain & Company through a turnaround "
  • Tie-in with previous sentence. - "He retained his position on several boards of directors during this time and regularly returned to Massachusetts to attend meetings". Try: "However, he did retain his position on several boards of directors during this time, regularly returning to Massachusetts to attend meetings."
Disagree. The board memberships were separate from his Bain Capital position, so they aren't connected as much as a 'however' would indicate.
The cited source says that his acknowledgment that he served on boards of directors "does not directly contradict Romney’s claims that he was not involved in Bain Capital as a manager following his departure to lead the Olympic committee." So WTR is probably correct that we don't want to give the impression of a contradiction.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword for clarity, flow, avoid passive voice. - "In August 2001, Romney announced that he would not return to Bain Capital.[98] His separation from the firm was finalized in early 2002;[93] he transferred his ownership to other partners and negotiated an agreement that allowed him to receive a passive profit share as a retired partner in some Bain Capital entities, including buyout and investment funds." Try: "In August 2001, Romney announced that he would not return to Bain Capital; his separation from the firm finalized in early 2002.[98][93] He then transferred his ownership to other partners and negotiated an agreement that allowed him to receive a passive profit share as a retired partner in some Bain Capital entities, including buyout and investment funds."
I changed the "was finalized" to "finalized", but left the sentence and semicolon splits where they were. It makes more sense to me for 2001 to be in one sentence and 2002 to be in one sentence.
  • Prose. - "Because the private equity business continued to thrive, this deal brings him millions of dollars in annual income." Try: "The private equity business continued to thrive, earning him millions of dollars in annual income."
Don't see an improvement in anything, but done. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think "earning him millions" is better than "this deal brings him millions"? Also, generally avoid using "because" to start a sentence. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal wealth
  • Confusing modifier, prose. - "The trust, created in 1995, allows the Romneys to transfer money to their heirs outside their estate, taking advantage of sophisticated tax planning techniques used by high-net-worth families to defer or reduce taxes." Try: "The trust, created in 1995, allows the Romneys to transfer money to heirs outside their estate, taking advantage of sophisticated tax planning techniques often used by high-net-worth families in an effort to defer or reduce their tax burden."
Done, except for the "often", which isn't in the source that I can see.
  • Comma use. - "The couple's net worth remained in the same range as of 2011, and is still held in blind trusts."
Moot.
  • Comma use. - "In 2010, Romney and his wife received $21.7 million in income, almost all of it from investments such as such as dividends, capital gains, and carried interest."
Disagree. All these commas look correct to me.
The comma after "capital gains" is excess.
See
MOS:Serial. This comma is called a "serial comma". The general rule (see MOS) is to be consistent within an article, and only make exceptions when necessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
FWIW, the standard preference in American English is to omit the serial comma. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Run-on. - "For the years 1990–2009, his lowest effective rate was 13.7 percent and the average of his effective rates was 20.2 percent."
Disagree. We need to indicate that what Romney released was an average of averages, not an average over sums.
It was a run-on because you need a comma before the co-ordinating conjunction "and" in "percent and the average". AYW's reconstruction (see below) eliminated the issue. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased to "For the years 1990–2009, his effective rates were at least 13.7 percent with an average effective rate of 20.2 percent."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unneeded modifier. - "with some of it going to organizations that fight specific diseases such as cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis." Omit "specific".
Done.
  • Passive voice. - "The couple's net worth remained in the same range as of 2011, and is still held in blind trusts." Try: "The couple's net worth, held in blind trusts, remained in the same range as of 2011."
Done, but kept the "still".
"Still" is an excess modifier here and adds nothing to the readers comprehension. The end of the sentence makes clear how recent this was the case. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Your wording makes it sound like this sentence wasn't aware of the previous sentence. It would be like writing "Jones was in the train station. An hour later, Jones was in the train station." We could rework the pair of sentences to avoid this, but as it stands the "still" is a necessary bit of contextual connection. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gabe's version is fine, except the commas should be removed to fix the problem identified by WTR. I've changed it to this: "As a result of his business career, by 2007, Romney and his wife had a net worth of between $190 and $250 million, most of it held in blind trusts since 2003.[98] Their net worth held in blind trusts remained in that same range as of 2011."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this further and it looks good now. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your last tweak gave a misimpression about the 2011 figures. I've reworded the whole thing to make it simpler, see what you think. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, well done! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice. - "An additional blind trust exists in the name of the Romneys' sons that was valued at $100 million in 2012." Try: "An additional blind trust, valued at $100 million in 2012, exists in the name of the Romneys' children."
Done.
While I realise that the Romney's have only male children, I think it would be better writing to use "children" instead of "sons", which may confuse some readers that there are females heirs not covered in the trust plan. Children covers "sons", but "sons" does not cover children if you are not that aware that they have only boys.
I changed "sons" to "children".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice. - "A portion of Romney's financial assets are held in offshore accounts and investments." Try: "Romney holds a portion of his financial assets in offshore accounts and investments."
Disagree - that makes it sound actively in Romney's control. If you read the source, some of these offshore investments were created by Romney and transferred to the blind trust, while others were the idea of the trustee in the first place. Do we want to explain all this? No, because the space needed to do so would give it undue weight - as it is, there are several editors who don't think mention of this belongs at all. I think here the passive voice is the best solution. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Wasted. I agree, and fantastic work BTW. I predict this article will one of, if not the best FA of 2012! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Local LDS Church leadership

There are only three misuses of the passive voice in this section, and like most, they are easily fixed, as I demonstrate below.

  • Missing article. "a more flexible application of doctrine". The noun needs an article, or try: "a more flexible application of Church doctrine".
Changed from "doctrine" to "religious doctrine".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, your reconstruction also avoids the redundancy of "church". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessarry modifier. - "Romney held several specific positions". Omit "specific".
Done.
  • Unnecessarry modifier. - "He generally refrained from overnight business". Avoid "generally".
Disagree. That would imply he never once stayed away overnight, which is a pretty absolute statement that the source does not explicitly make.
The source says: "He was so dedicated to his church responsibilities that he wouldn't travel anywhere that kept him from getting back to Boston for the night, Clark said." Kim Clark, president of Brigham Young University-Idaho, was a member of the congregation at the time. How about: "He had a reputation for avoiding any overnight travel that might interfere with his church responsibilities." I'll give this a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your wording seems weaker to me. "Reputation" might have a connotation that it might not be true. And "avoiding any overnight travel that might interfere with his church responsibilities" suggests that he did do overnight travel as long as it didn't conflict with something he was planning to do for the church, while the source quote indicates he did not do overnight travel at all. In other words, I think he wanted to be close by in case anything unexpected came up. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say it's true.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This most recent construction is superior to the former, and without grammatical concerns. I've changed "had a reputation" to "earned a reputation" to improve the active voice. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overuse of the passive voice, prose. - "He forged links with other religious institutions in the area when the Belmont meetinghouse was destroyed by a fire of suspicious origins in 1984; the congregation rotated its meetings to other houses of worship while the structure was rebuilt." Try: "After the destruction of the Belmont meetinghouse by a fire of suspicious origins in 1984, he forged links with other religious institutions, allowing the congregation to rotate its meetings to other houses of worship during the reconstruction of their building."
Done.
  • Passive voice. - "Some others were rankled by his leadership style and desired a more consensus-based approach." Try: "Others, rankled by his leadership style, desired a more consensus-based approach."
Done.
  • Prose. - "During his years in business". Try: "During his years career".
Huh? You must have typo'd your suggestion. The point here is to indicate to the reader that this section overlaps the "Business career" section in terms of chronology, which this wording does.
Changed to "During his business career...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I typoed. Thanks AYW for your accurate translation. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify language. - "which consists of worthy males over the age of 12." What's a "worthy male"?
This was someone else's idea. I'd rather let the link explain how the LDS Church lay clergy works. I've removed it.
Agree. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "Around 1977, he became a counselor to the president of the Boston Stake." If the exact year in unknown, use "In the late 1970s".
Disagree. "Around 1977" is the phrase the Kranish-Helman book uses. That would indicate 1976-1978, while "in the late 1970s" would indicate 1977-1979. Let's stick with what the source says.
It was in 1977, per WaPo: "In 1977, Romney’s mentor and former bishop, Gordon Williams, had risen to stake president. Concerned primarily with safeguarding the flock’s youth in the face of Boston’s escalating drug and alcohol problems, Williams called on his youth-oriented protégé to sit beside him as one of his two counselors."[45] Will fix.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasted, please be sure to double-check your sourcing before you disagree out-of-hand. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did double-check K-H, which was the source, before making my comment. If that had been the only source available, my formulation would have been better than yours. As it happens, AYW found a better source, one that I had never seen (I've read Jason Horowitz's other WaPo bio profiles, including of course the one that broke the Cranbrook incident, but I had missed this one.) Wasted Time R (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague. "with about 4,000 church members". If the number is less than 4,000, use: "with almost 4,000". If the number is greater than 4,000, use: "with more than 4,000".
Source says almost 4,000, so I've changed it to use that. Should have written that in the first place, don't know why I didn't.
  • Peacock. - "he became known for his tireless energy in the role". "Tireless" is peacockery exaggeration, try "considerable", "significant", even "impressive".
Changed to "considerable".
  • Typo? - "efforts in- and outside homes"
Intentional but not graceful. Rephrased.
  • Redundancy. - "counseling troubled or burdened church members". "troubled" and "burdened" mean almost the same thing.
Removed "troubled".
  • POV. - "Romney tried to balance the conservative dogma insisted upon by the church leadership in Utah with the desire of some Massachusetts members to have a more flexible application of doctrine." 1) To call the Church doctrine "dogma" is not wise. 2) This implies Romney was less conservative then the Mormon Church, but this has no frame of reference and the reader will not understand what this means.
Disagree re "dogma". Dictionary definition 2 applies here: "a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church". It's not pejorative. Also disagree re implication: All this is saying is that the Massachusetts congregation tended to be more liberal than the Utah leadership, and Romney was trying to balance between two sets of responsibilities. This sentence doesn't say anything about Romney himself.
It has connotations. "Dogmatic" often means "asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated." Will rephrase.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AYW! You and WTR are proving to be an excellent team. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "In particular, he counseled women not to have abortions". Try: "In particular, he advised women to not have abortions".
Disagree. Dictionary definition of 'counsel' shows it perfectly suitable here.
I am forbidden to comment on this item.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clumsy and verbose. - "encouraged single women facing unplanned pregnancies to give up the baby for adoption." Try: "he also encouraged single women facing unplanned pregnancies to give up the baby for adoption."
Done.
  • Excess. - "in accordance with church policy also encouraged single women". Why the unneeded qualifier, "in accordance with church policy"? The reader will understand that since he was acting in a Church leadership role, his actions were in accordance with the Church. Trim this out as an excess disclaimer.
Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward and verbose. - "people struggling in economically difficult circumstances". Try: "people struggling economically".
Changed to "people struggling financially", which is closest to the source.
  • Awkward and clumsy. - "those going through problematic family situations". Try: "those with family problems".
Done.
1994 U.S. senatorial campaign
  • Comma use. - "For much of his business career, Romney did not take public political stances." The co-ordinate adjectives "public" and "political" requires a comma between them.
Done.
  • Comma use. - "During the long and controversial approval and construction process for the $30 million Mormon temple in Belmont, he feared that as a political figure who had opposed Kennedy, he would become a focal point for opposition to the structure." The interrupter: "as a political figure who had opposed Kennedy" needs to be set aside by commas. Try "for the $30 million Mormon temple in Belmont, he feared that, as a political figure who had opposed Kennedy,".
Done.
  • Wordy. - "Kennedy responded with a series of ads that focused on Romney's seemingly shifting political views on issues such as abortion and on layoffs of workers at the Ampad plant owned by Romney's Bain Capital." Consider breaking this into two sentences.
Done.
  • Redundant prepostion. - "Romney's seemingly shifting political views on issues such as abortion and on layoffs of workers at the Ampad plant". Omit the second "on".
Moot.
  • Passive voice. - "He was registered as an Independent".
Changed.
  • Passive voice, awkward construction. - "Kennedy was potentially vulnerable that year". Potentially vulnerable needs a recast.
Removed "potentially".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice. - "businessman John Lakian finished a distant second and Jeghelian was eliminated."
Disagree. This is standard writing in sports and politics, nothing wrong with it: "Jane Topspin was eliminated in the second round of Wimbledon this year, but made it to the quarterfinals in the U.S. Open."
Try "Eliminated in the second round of Wimbledon this year, Jane Topspin made it to the quarterfinals in the U.S. Open." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this. See what you think. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "would irk him for decades".
Disagree. Supported by the sources and engaging. More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WTR is right to some extent; the source does say that what happened to his father grated on him for decades. And I also agree with WTR that the word "irked" is engaging. The problem I see (and to which Gabe may be referring) is that we're at the year 1994 in the chronology and yet we're saying that the father's experience "would" irk him. But at that point it already had been irking him for a quarter century. There are other problems with that same paragraph (e.g. repetition of "Democratic"), and so I've edited to read like this: "For much of his business career, Romney did not take public, political stances.[115][116] He had kept abreast of national politics since college,[33] though, and the circumstances of his father's presidential campaign loss had irked him for decades.[24] He registered as an Independent[45] and voted in the 1992 presidential primaries for the Democratic former senator from Massachusetts, Paul Tsongas.[115][117]"Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice. - "Kennedy was potentially vulnerable".
I don't think this is passive voice - there's no action here - this is like "The sea was green."
It is, and you use it in two consequetive sentences. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded as: "Political pundits viewed Kennedy as vulnerable that year". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "with over 80 percent of the vote". Try "with more than 80 percent of the vote".
Done.
  • Prose. - "Romney ran as a fresh face". Fine for political articles, but not for an encyclodepdia.
Removed.
  • Prose. - "but had trouble establishing its own positions in a consistent manner." Try "but had trouble consistently establishing its own positions."
Not equivalent. The first says he could establish positions, but they weren't consistent with each other. The second says he could not always establish positions.
I've changed it: "but had trouble establishing its own consistent positions". I don't think readers would necessarily infer this from the sentence as previously written.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward. - "Kennedy and Romney held a widely watched late October debate without a clear winner, but by then, Kennedy had pulled ahead in polls and stayed ahead afterward". Maybe break in to two, but please fix the juxtaposition of the modifer "without a clear winner", since it sounds like its part of the name of the dabate, not the outcome.
Changed to "that had no clear winner".
  • Confusing. - "Ted Kennedy, who was seeking re-election for the sixth time." then "the smallest margin in Kennedy's eight re-election campaigns for the Senate". I realize Ted ran once more after defeating Romney, but this will come across as a potential mistake to some readers.
Changed to "the smallest margin in any of Kennedy's re-election campaigns for the Senate".
  • Awkward. - "Romney returned to Bain Capital the day after the election". Try "The day after the election, Romney returned to Bain Capital".
I think it reads better the other way, but changed anyway.
  • Relevence. - "When his father died in 1995, Mitt donated his inheritance to BYU's George W. Romney Institute of Public Management." How does this pretain to the Senate race, other than the chronology. This shoud be moved to Personal Wealth.
Discussed near the beginning above. The article is organized chronologically, and the section headers reflect the main subject of that section, but sometimes other things are fit in too. This happens in several places, and this is such a case. It doesn't belong in "Personal wealth" because, in fact, all of Romney's personal wealth comes from his own efforts and none was inherited. (Of course the environment he grew up in was very beneficial.)
I have modified the heading to read, "1994 U.S. senatorial campaign and remainder of decade". Also moved some material from next section into this section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your section title doesn't work because this does not contain all of the "remainder of decade" material - most of that is in the Business career section, and then he starts the Olympics at the beginning of 1999. There is some inevitable overlap of chronology right in this part of the article. Well, it could be dealt with by splitting the business career section into pre-1994 and post-1994 sections, but that is very difficult to do because most of the sources describing his Bain Capital career don't distinguish between those two periods, but rather sum up what happened over all of it. And doing it that way would get very choppy. So the idea has been that the 1994 campaign section contains some of the non-Bain Capital aftermath to the loss - George had reemerged to the public during the campaign, then he died; the Belmont temple issue was flavored by Mitt now being a politician. So I've changed the section title to say "and aftermath". Ann's MS, on the other hand, is the lead-in to the Olympics position, because one of the reasons he took the post was to be in Utah, where her therapies were working better. So I've restored that text back there. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath seems fine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward. - "His mother died in 1998." This is sitting all alone and is akward and jarring. Flesh out what effect this had and tie-in to another sentence.
It's part of the sense of an era passing and Romney wanted to make his mark in something other than business.
Right, but that's not my point. Which is the sentence is sitting alone with no tie-in. Its clumsy and awkward. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved this down, so it now reads: "Lenore Romney died in 1998, and later that year Ann Romney learned that she had multiple sclerosis."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's even worse down there, where it gets in the way of the Ann MS introduction. I've removed it completely; if inspiration strikes me later as to how to weave it in, I'll restore it. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say that he was still in mourning for his mother when his wife got the MS diagnosis. They belong together, IMO, and it seems odd to mention father's passing without mentioning mother's. Her stroke was not caused by his Senate loss, so it's not really part of the "aftermath". Incidentally, she died on 67th anniversary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not trying to ignore Lenore ... I'm the one that wrote her whole article and brought it to GA. (One of my ultimate research goals is to find a full list of the Hollywood movies she was a bit player in.) We just need to work the transition in so it makes sense to be somewhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) We must mention Lenore's passing. 2) I agree it should be tied-in with Ann's MS diagnoses per AYW and sources. How about "Still mourning the 1998 death of Mitt's mother, the Romney's learned that Ann had multiple sclerosis"? Or similar. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "the goal of simply making more money was losing its appeal to him" 1) "simply making more money" should be recast, perhaps omit the modifier "simply" as a start, 2) "was losing its appeal to him". This is confusing, did he not continue to earn over $10 million per year? If he was truly not interested in making more money than he would not accept $10-15 million each year, but would rather give it away. Clarify this point, it sounds like the benevolent millionare who really doesn't even try to earn millions each year. Also, the fact that he hides money in overseas accounts (with the goal of paying less US taxes)would seem to blow this point out of the water.
It's all relative. He'd have a lot more money now if he'd remained in business, because (if he stayed at Bain Capital) he'd own many more investment funds. By leaving the business world 13 years ago he blew his chance at becoming a billioniare, for example, which he might well be by now. True, he hasn't gone on poor street, but there are lots of wealthy people whose main goal in life is to get even more wealthy. He wasn't one of them. As for overseas accounts, it's not clear how much money is in them or whether he's paying less taxes from them. He's mostly paying less taxes than us normal folks because in our wisdom, us normal folks, through our elected legislators, decided to tax investment income at a much lower rate than salaried income. So the problem isn't him, it's us.
The word "simply" seems important here. He wanted to continue to make money, but not to simply make money. In other words, he wanted to do more. I have clarified the sentence: "Romney felt restless as the decade neared a close; the goal of simply making more money was becoming insufficient for him."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with revised wording - this makes it sound like he figured out a way to keep making the same amount of money as before, and additionally do something else on the side. In fact, Romney has sacrificed money - he's been basically living on a sort of rich peoples' "fixed income" since 1999/2002, with no new salary or investment source to augment it. Obviously, sacrificing being a billionaire isn't one of the great sacrifices in the world, but to the Texas oilmen's club, where wealth is counted in "units" of $100M apiece, Romney is probably considered a chump. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will change "insufficient" to "inadequate", which makes it sound less like you say it sounds.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re the offshore accounts that Gabe mentioned, this NYT story from today adds to the picture. Need to re-read it tonight to draw any conclusions. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant, needs ce. - "He no longer had a church leadership position, although he still taught Sunday School" comes after "he stepped down from his church leadership role in 1994". Combine.
Changed to "Without another church leadership position ..." The point is the stepping down in 1994 was due to the campaign. With the campaign over, he could have resumed a leadership role, but he didn't. Two different things.
The revised sentence is not a complete sentence. I have revised: "Although no longer leading his congregation, he still taught Sunday School."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That refers back to his being bishop of the ward, but we need something that also refers back to his having also been stake president, so I further changed this to "Although no longer in a leadership position in his church, ..." Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "he stepped down from his church leadership role in 1994". This is a good place to swap "but" with "however", or any other way "but" could be avoided here.
But...there's no "but" there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scare quotes. - "'Mitt's Temple'". I know locals used the term, but this quote needs in-line attribution to the source. Ala, "writes WashPo", or whoever.
Disagree. It's not a quote, it's an informal name, and it's not the Washington Post calling it "Mitt's Temple", it's the Washington Post reporting that locals call it "Mitt's Temple". That doesn't need inline attribution any more than anything else the Washington Post reports. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Italics might be better, but why include this quote anyway? Here's what the source says: "'Mitt’s Temple,' some local residents called it derisively." This is a very vague attribution. Some residents? More than three? Less than a hundred thousand? The source gives no clue, and I think we'd be better off limiting derisive quotes to known sources. So, I've removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, there was a second source for that too, the WBUR story: "It’s sometimes called “Mitt’s Temple” by people in Belmont." So I wasn't single-sourcing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are fine if they include an in-line attribution per
WP:QUOTE: "Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
2002 Winter Olympics
  • Passive voice. - There are 8 misuses in this section.
  • Misuse of a subordinating conjunction. - "the chair of the organizing committee, later said that 'It". Do not use a sub-ordinating conjunction before a quote, omit "that".
Done.
  • Confusing modifer. - "When the offer came for her husband to take over the troubled organization for the 2002 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, to be held in Salt Lake City in Utah, she urged him to take it; eager for a new challenge, as well as another chance to prove himself in public life, he accepted." "for her husband" could be defining more then one clause and is therefore squinting. Try "When Mitt received the offer ... "
Changed along these lines.
  • Run-on, pronoun use. "Romney and his wife contributed $1 million to the Olympics, and he donated to charity the $1.4 million in salary and severance payments he received for his three years as president and CEO." You need a comma before the co-ordinating conjunction "in salary and severance payments". Also, the pronoun "he" is awkward, since Ann in the last person referred to in the sentence. Clarify.
Chopped and reordered.
  • Run-on, wordy. "Utah Senator Bob Bennett said that much of the needed federal money was already in place and an analysis by The Boston Globe stated that the committee already had nearly $1 billion in committed revenues."
Chopped and reworded in part.
  • Redundant preposition. - "Romney was chosen by Utah figures looking for someone with expertise in business and law and with connections to the state and the LDS Church."
Removed.
  • Passive voice. - "Ann Romney was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998". Try "Doctors diagnosed Ann Romney with multiple sclerosis in 1998".
How do we know it was plural? Maybe only one doctor did the diagnosis.
How about "Ann Romney's doctor diagnosed her with multiple sclerosis in 1998".
Changed to "Ann Romney learned that she had multiple sclerosis".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voie. - "On February 11, 1999, Romney was hired as the president and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games of 2002." Try "On February 11, 1999, the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games of 2002 hired Romney as president and CEO."
Done along these lines.
  • Passive voice. - "Plans were being made to scale back the Games". Try "Officials had made plans to scale back the Games."
Done.
  • Passive voice, vague. - "Joklik and committee vice president Dave Johnson were forced to resign." Try "Officials forced Joklik and committee vice president Dave Johnson to resign."
What officials? I'm not sure who forced them out. It could have been politicians, the press, public pressure, or some combination of these. The point is, it doesn't matter. The important point is that Romney was taking over for people who had exited in disgrace. This is a case where passive is better.
Surely a source says who forced them to resign. Clarify. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Salt Lake Organizing Committee fired Joklik. Edited article accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice, word choice. - "Romney was chosen by Utah figures looking for someone with expertise in business and law and with connections to the state and the LDS Church." Try "Utah leaders chose Romney based on his expertise in business and law and his connections to the state and the LDS Church". Try "leaders" instead of "figures".
The source says "Utah power brokers", which is not really equivalent to "leaders" - it could be behind-the-scenes types. I agree that "figures" isn't great either, but saying "power brokers" would run too close to a copyvio.
Well, I'm not sure that "power brokers" is creatively unique enough for us to be concerned with a copyvio. How about "Influential Utah business people"?
Changed to "Utahns chose Romney based on his business and legal expertise as well as his connections to both the state and the LDS Church."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This makes it sound like he was picked by the electorate - the same 'Utahns' term is later used for the poll result. I'm changing it to 'Utah power brokers'. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing. - "Utah power brokers chose Romney based on his business and legal expertise as well as his connections to both the state and the LDS Church". Is there a "state" church that Romney had ties to? Clarify.
Changed to "both the LDS Church and the state".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice. - "Romney was praised for his efforts by President George W. Bush and his performance as Olympics head was rated positively by 87 percent of Utahns." Try "President George W. Bush praised Romney for his efforts and 87 percent of Utahns approved of his performance as Olympics head."
Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice. - "He was mentioned as a possible candidate for statewide office in both Massachusetts and Utah, and also as possibly joining the Bush administration." Try "Mentioned as a possible candidate for statewide office in both Massachusetts and Utah, the press speculated that he would join the Bush administration".
Changed to: "The press speculated that he might run for U.S. Senate from Utah, or perhaps Governor of Massachusetts."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague speculation. - Ibid. Which "statewide" elections and for which office? Did he ever serve in the Bush administration? This could likely be trimmed out as vague excess that adds little. Maybe state that in a more general way that people began to consider him for political office, avoiding specifc rumours that never materialised.
See immediately preceding comment by Gabe.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reversing myself on this - I added the original text, but re-reading the sources now, Utah senator was never a realistic prospect since there were two incumbents who were pretty solid at the time. And in general for the sake of brevity I've followed a practice in this article of not including career choices that Romney didn't take (a job during the Bain years, a Mass. run after 1994, the Tiger thing after 2008, etc). So that should be followed here, and I've removed this. (That he was recruited for the Mass. gov run in 2002 is already described in the section that follows this.) Wasted Time R (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clumsy prose, excess detail. - "After two years of severe difficulties with the disease, she found – while living in Park City, Utah, where the couple had built a vacation home – a mixture of mainstream, alternative, and equestrian therapies that gave her a lifestyle mostly without limitations." Try "After suffering for two years with the disease, she began using a combination of mainstream, alternative, and equestrian therapies that enabled her lead a life with minimal limitations".
Did some of this - kept "severe difficulties" because it's not an exaggeration and "suffering" could mean anything.
Why is there a need for the excess detail: "while living in Park City, Utah, where the couple had built a vacation home"? Shouldnt't this be at Lenore Romney? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're mixing up Lenore (his mother) with Ann (his wife). Since Mitt lived in Park City, it seems okay to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I said Lenore, I meant Ann. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mitt sometimes gets criticized for owning a lot of homes, but a lot of that has to do locations where Ann gets good therapy results and/or locations where they can be near their children and grandchildren. So the article covers these aspects. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that seems reasonable enough to me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargon. - "Before Romney took the position, the event was running $379 million short of its revenue benchmarks" Will most readers understand what "revenue benchmarks" are? Try "budget goals" or similar.
Changed to "revenue goals".
  • Awkward. - "The Games had also been damaged by allegations of bribery". How can "The Games" be damaged by words? Do you mean the reputation of the committee? Clarify.
Changed to "The image of the Games ...".
Looks better, but do we need "also"? What else was damaged? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Additionally, the image of the Games had been damaged...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clumsy. - "or gave the Games too Mormon an image." Improve.
Changed to "made the Games seem too Mormon-dominated".
  • Verbose. - "Romney and his wife contributed $1 million to the Olympics". Try "The Romneys ..."
It says "He and his wife ...", to avoid too many "Romney" occurrences nearby.
Merged two sentences: "Romney donated to charity the $1.4 million in salary and severance payments he received for his three years as president and CEO, and also contributed $1 million to the Olympics."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague prose. - "Romney revamped the organization's leadership" Did he clean house? Restructure? Motivate?
Someone else has changed it as requested. It now says: "Romney restructured the organization's leadership and policies."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward. - "Romney revamped the organization's leadership and policies, reduced budgets, and boosted fundraising, alleviated the concerns of corporate sponsors and recruited many new ones." Try "Romney restructured the organization's leadership, improved policies, reduced its budget, and increased fundraising, alleviating the concerns of corporate sponsors while recruiting new ones."
That double 'while' is awkward too. I tried a different way.
Even better, well done. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency. - "the Games". Shouldn't this be "The Games"?
Very funny :-)
I thought you might like that. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you two are talking about. Who's on the same wavelength now, WTR?  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't want to know, trust me! :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy. - "Overall, he oversaw a $1.32 billion budget". Recast to avoid "over" at least once there. In fact, you could likely just drop "overall" as unneeded.
Changed to "He oversaw a $1.32 billion total budget".
  • Prose. - "The federal government provided between approximately $400 million and $600 million". The juxtaposition "between approximately" is jarring, smooth this out.
Changed to: "The federal government provided approximately $400 million[143][149][150] to $600 million[151][152] of that budget".Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "An additional $1.1 billion of indirect federal funding came in the form of highway and transit projects." Came in to whom? The Games? Utah? It says above that Romney's budget was $1.32 billion, but with $1.1 billion in addition this could be confusing to some readers. Did the $1.1B come to Utah or Romney's budget for roads and transit?
It came to the state. I've written: "federal funding came to the state...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "Romney emerged as the public face of the Olympic effort". Where? In Utah or nationwide?
Added "local".
  • Redundancy. - "the needed federal money was already in place and an analysis by The Boston Globe stated that the committee already had nearly $1 billion" Drop an "already".
Dropped second one.
  • Unencyclopedic and verbose. - "the Games themselves ended up clearing a profit" Try "the Games earned a profit".
Reworded using "surplus", which seems more apt here.
Good point on "surplus" versus "profit". "themselves" should be dropped as excess. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Themselves" has been cast into the void.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite clutter, attribution. - A prime example: "It solidified his reputation as a "turnaround artist"[141][156][157]" Why would we need three cites for an eight word sentence? Also, you must attribute "turnaround artist" in-line.
Because an editor objected to this being there and wanted to see additional sources. This kind of characterization usually does require multiple citing, to demonstrate it isn't just a one-off opinion.
Fair enough, but really, one good cite for "turnaround artist" would do.
You must not edit political articles much :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't, but still, one reliable sources is enough. Does anyone really debate this aspect of Romney's career? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "Harvard Business School taught a case study based around his actions" Try "Professors at Harvard Business School taught a case study based on Romney's performance."
I don't know if it was one professor or multiple. From a curriculum perspective, you can say that a school teaches something. Will get back to some of the above items that I skipped later. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't know how many professors taught it, then I agree it's acceptable to say that the school taught it. WTR, I'm sorry if I deprived you of the opportunity to go back to some of the above items that you skipped.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for the help. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Governor of Massachusetts
2002 gubernatorial campaign
  • I've taken the liberty of editing out the passive voice, and correcting a few minor errors. I would make more effort if the page wasn't so ridiculously slow and labourious to edit. Overall, this section looks good; a few minor points below:
  • Vague. "One poll taken at that time". Why not tell us which poll?
It was a Boston Herald poll, but why does it matter which one? That seems like introduction of excessive detail to me.
I suggest mentioning the poll by name so the readers can judge how reliable it was. Afterall, it could have been a poll conducted by Romney's exploratory committee. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in "Boston Herald". Romney was doing internal polling so this is a valid distinction.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this item is resolved, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clumsy. - "contributed to his being behind his Democratic opponent"
I've restructed the sentence a bit, see what you think.
I tweaked this a bit further, looks good now. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. "Romney contributed over $6 million" Try "Romney contributed more than $6 million".
Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What goes slowly is the reload after "Save". That's because all the caches have been invalidated at that point due to the change. Sometimes it's faster to load the page again from another window, and use that for the next edit, than to wait for the saved page to reload. The good news is that normal readers don't get hit with this, because loading is faster for non-registered users and because they typically won't be loading right after a change whereas we often are. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tenure, 2003–2007
  • I've taken the liberty of editing out the passive voice and correcting some minor errors. Overall, its an excellent section; a few minor points below:
  • Length. This section is over 1,400 words long. This might be a good place to trim for brevity.
See my comments up top about article length. If Romney loses the election next month, this will be the only political office he ever held, so it seems reasonable to give it some room. But any particular suggestions on what should be trimmed down?
You make a good point above for detail. I just thought I would throw it out there. If you do find anything that seems excessive maybe you could demote it to notes, if not, its a fine section even if a bit long. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there is a lot that was left out - the Governorship of Mitt Romney daughter article is almost as long as this one, at 10,454 words! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right on. That looks like a fine article also BTW, would make a great FA, especially if Romney prevails next month. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wordy sentence. "Faced with the dilemma of choosing between same-sex marriage and civil unions after the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decision legalizing same-sex marriages (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), Romney reluctantly backed a state constitutional amendment in February 2004 that would have banned same-sex marriage but still allowed civil unions, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts." Break into two.
Restructured into two.
  • Vague modifier. - "Romney generally used the bully pulpit approach". Generally avoid "generally".
Removed.
  • Clarify. - "He declined a governor's salary during his term". How much?
Added ($135K).
  • Clarify/jargon. - "Upon entering office in the middle of a fiscal year" Not all readers will know what a fiscal year is.
I've linked it. The existing Note gives the start/end dates of it. To explain this in the main text would be too unwieldy, I think.
I agree. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "the state ran surpluses". Try "the state achieved surpluses".
Done.
  • Vague. - "surpluses of around $600–700 million". The range is already $100M, do we really need to say "around"?
The actual figures in the Note are $594 and $721 million, so 'around' is appropriate.
  • Clarify. - "$500 million in unanticipated federal grants" What's an unanticipated federal grant?
Unexpected, but that word was used right before, so I chose this one here.
I can't help but feel this is a confusing point. Not many readers will be familiar with an unexpected grant of Federal money. Can you explicate this point? Perhaps in a note? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed "unanticipated" to "new" because I cannot find any elaboration about what "unanticipated" or "unexpected" means. Were the grants unexpected by the press, or by Romney, or by someone else? Was it unexpected that Romney would be able to obtain these grants, or did the grants instead take him by surprise? Without this change, this sentence seems potentially misleading because it's so vague. Also, this 500 million is not mentioned in the sub-article which seems problematic, and yet it is mentioned in the lead of this main article. I think changing to the word "new" mostly takes care of the problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward. - "during Romney's last two full fiscal years in office". Can we just say "last two years in office" for brevity?
No, I think it's better this way. The state's fiscal year is six months off from the calendar year, so it's a significant difference.
  • Confusing. - "The state legislature, with the governor's support" Shouldn't we call him Romney here, it's clear that he is also the governor.
I was looking for a way to not be saying "Romney" or "he" all the time, and this is a technique that other articles use, including FA John McCain.
Seems awkward to me, but its not a major point. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undue weight. - "Romney sought to bring near-universal health insurance coverage to the state. This came after Staples founder Stemberg told him". Was Stemberg really that instrumental to "Romney Care"? Seems dubious.
Multiple accounts mention him as an inspiration. It also shows a biographical thread between Romney's Bain Capital days and his governorship. More later. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "he had not campaigned on the idea of universal health insurance" Try "his campaign had not focused on universal health insurance".
That might suggest he had proposed it but not emphasized it, which is not the case. What's wrong with the existing text?
Well, for me its the text string: "had not campaigned on the idea of", which is vague and clumsy. How about "his campaign avoided the issue of universal health insurance"? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source says, "During the 2002 campaign, the issue was background noise. By Romney’s count, he made 93 campaign promises, and expanding health coverage was not one of them." So, I have modified the article to say, "Although the idea of universal health insurance had not come to the fore during the campaign...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OR, SYTH, or close paraphrase? - "Romney decided that because people without insurance still received expensive health care, the money spent by the state for such care could be better used to subsidize insurance for the poor".
Quotes from the BG story source: "More than $1 billion was being spent annually to provide “free’’ care to the state’s uninsured, and the number was growing. Recalling his “aha moment,’’ Romney said: “If we could get our hands on that resource to help people buy insurance instead, it would be less expensive.’’ ... By the end of 2004, Romney’s team had built the framework for its health care bill, proposing to convert the Medicaid waiver money and much of the funding for “free’’ hospital care into an insurance program to subsidize the working poor."
  • Awkward. - "After positing that any measure adopted not raise taxes and not resemble the previous decade's failed "Hillarycare" proposal, Romney formed a team of consultants from diverse political backgrounds." Try "Determined that the health insurance measure not raise taxes or resemble the previous decade's failed "Hillarycare" proposal, Romney formed a team of consultants from diverse political backgrounds."
Not equivalent. The first clause is a directive that he gave to the team formed in the second clause. You wording doesn't get that across.
Changed to: "Determined that a new Massachusetts health insurance measure not raise taxes or resemble the previous decade's failed "Hillarycare" proposal at the federal level, Romney formed a team of consultants from diverse political backgrounds to apply those principles."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "they came up with a set of proposals".
Changed to "devised".
  • Jargon. "logjam"
Disagree. Dictionary definition doesn't indicate slang, informal, technical, or anything that would prevent its use. And it's more engaging.
Agree with WTR on this. Cluster**** would be unacceptable, but logjam is okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "by wresting control of the project from". reword to avoid "wresting".
Disagree. Dictionary definition gives as example "He tried to wrest control of the company from his uncle", which is exactly the same meaning as used here.
  • Awkward. - "Romney pulled Massachusetts out of it shortly before its signing". Reword, "out of the deal" or similar.
Changed to "out of the initiative". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2008 presidential campaign
  • I've taken the liberty of editing out the passive voice.
  • Cite clutter. This section is quite bad in that regard.
This is the section that covers the great ideological shift he undertook and the consequences thereof, so yes it requires heavier citation.
  • Monotony. - There are 9 paragraphs in the section and 6 of them begin with "Romney". Break up a few.
Changed three of them.
  • Misuse of a subordinating conjunction. - "Instead of discussing the specific tenets of his faith, he said that he would be informed by it and that, "Freedom requires religion". Avoid a subordinating conjunction (that) before a direct quote.
Removed.
No, it wasn't. Its the second (that) which needed to be removed, as the subordinating conjunction immediately preceeding a direct quote. I snagged it. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faulty parallelism. - "But he took second in both, losing Iowa to a vastly outspent Huckabee, who gained much more of the evangelical Christian vote" Change either "losing" or "gained" so that the verb tenses are compatible.
Reworded to omit the verb.
  • Run-on. - "Romney's staff suffered from internal strife and the candidate himself was indecisive at times, constantly asking for more data before making a decision."
Rephrased using semicolon.
  • Jargon. - "constantly asking for more data before making a decision". Try "constantly asking for more information before making a decision".
Changed "data" to "information" though I wouldn't call "data" jargon, exactly. The change is harmless, and I do agree that "data" usually relates to raw numbers rather than more general information.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source says data: "He would wait and wait ... ordering up more and more data." That might well be raw numbers of private polls, demographic breakdowns in key states, fundraising reports, etc. Earlier in the "Business career" section we say he's data-driven. Here's a chance to show he's still data-driven in his presidential campaign, and instead we change it to something else that isn't in the source - why?? Wasted Time R (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I changed it back to "data".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conjunction abuse. - "But persistent questions about the role of religion in Romney's life". Avoid beginning a sentence with a conjunction.
I'm of the school that allows this. See this piece on it, among many others.
I don't think we need to be ultra-conservative about this. But let's not overdo it either. In other words, I'm okay with this "but", but not the next "but".Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conjunction abuse. "But he took second in both" Ibid.
Ditto.
Changed to "However, he took second place...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unneeded modifers. - "Romney has generally avoided speaking publicly about specific Mormon doctrines".
Don't quite agree - what's left is an absolutist statement that someone will find a counterexample for - but done.
They don't understand proper grammar. To say he avoided the topic is not the same as saying he never spoke of it in public. You could add back the "generally" if you think its important. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward. - "Romney assembled for his campaign a veteran group of Republican staffers, consultants, and pollsters." Try "For his campaign, Romney assembled a group of veteran Republican staffers, consultants, and pollsters."
Done.
  • Clarify. - "He was little-known nationally, though, and stayed around the 10 percent range in Republican preference polls". Ten percent of what?
Changed to "support range".
  • Unnecessary modifer. - "Instead of discussing the specific tenets of his faith". Omit "specific".
Here he did allude to some general tenets, I think, so the 'specific' should stay.
In that case, I would tend to agree. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "Academics would later study the role religion had played in the campaign". Who and where?
Explained in the attached Note; this is just to text lead-in to that.
  • Unnecessary vague modifer. "who gained much more of the evangelical Christian vote". Omit "much".
Disagree. The article used to break this down - "Of the 60 percent of caucus-goers who were evangelical Christians, Huckabee was supported by about half of them while Romney by only a fifth.[193]" - but during a big size reduction I did of this section about a month ago, I summarized this. A 50%-20% advantage is "much more". Something like a 30%-20% advantage would be "more".
Changed to: "losing Iowa to a vastly outspent Huckabee who received more than twice the evangelical Christian votes...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unencyclopedic. - "set up a climactic battle"
Engaging.
Yes, it's engaging, and not inherently unencyclopedic, but I changed it to "pivotal" anyway, which seems like an engaging word too. Anyway, the November election was the real climax. Moreover, Romney did not pull out when Florida voted, so it couldn't have been entirely climactic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify. - "but McCain won more and larger states". Clarify "larger states", did McCain win Alaska?
I don't think anyone would read this to mean area, but changed to "in more and in larger-population ones". Wasted Time R (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Activity between presidential campaigns
  • Comma use. "A January 2010 National Journal survey of political insiders found that a majority of Republican insiders, and a plurality of Democratic insiders, predicted Romney would be the party's 2012 nominee."
Don't see it.
Its the one after "insiders". Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unnecessary infinite phrases. "Following the election, Romney paved the way for a possible 2012 presidential campaign by using his Free and Strong America political action committee (PAC) to raise money for other Republican candidates and to pay his existing political staff's salaries and consulting fees." "to raise" "to pay".
Removed to the second "to", but first seems necessary.
  • Wordy. - "The San Diego home was beneficial in location and climate for Ann Romney's multiple sclerosis therapies and for recovering from her late 2008 diagnosis and lumpectomy for mammary ductal carcinoma in situ."
Rephrased.
Nice. Much better. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wordy, unnecessary modifer. "While acknowledging that his plan was an imperfect work in progress, Romney did not back away from it, consistently defending the state-level health insurance mandate that underpinned it and saying it was the right answer to Massachusetts' specific problems at the time." Break into two and omit "specific".
Done.
  • Clarify. - "Following the election". While the section follows the 2008 race, it's still best to not assume thereader has read the above section, as thay may have skipped to the section. Try "Following the 2008 election".
Done.
  • Unencyclopedic. - "Romney paved the way". Try "Romney layed the groundwork" or "Romney set the stage".
These are all idiomatic metaphors, why is mine worse?
Yours conjures images of a road crew fixing a highway. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "Romney kept his options open...." This seems most appropriate given that running again was far from a sure thing.[46]Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Romney was always going to run again. Everything he did from the moment he pulled out in 2008 was directed towards running again. Any of Gabe's alternatives is better than "kept his options open". Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should say that he was keeping his options open. That's what Romney himself said:


Tom Beaumont, “Romney: 2012 Always a Possibility”, Des Moines Register (January 25, 2012). Also see here. NPR has reported as follows:

Tovia Smith. Ann Romney Adds Fire, Faith To Husband's Campaign, NPR (August 20, 2012). I know that some sources say he had made his decision as early as Christmas 2008. But there are also nontrivial sources that say his mind was not 100% made up until later (such as the sources I've just referred to). Given that Romney is data-driven and wants to postpone decisions until he has more data, it seems plausible to me that Romney and his wife were truthful about the decision to run in 2012. In order to address your concern and expedite things, WTR, it now reads: "Following the 2008 election, Romney laid the groundwork for a likely

2012 presidential campaign...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Vague. - "An informal network of former staff and supporters around the nation were eager for him to run again." Informal?
Removed "informal".
  • Awkward. - "He continued to give speeches and raise funds for Republicans,[265] but turned down many potential media appearances, fearing overexposure." Try, "He continued to give speeches and raise funds for Republicans, but fearing overexposure, turned down many potential media appearances".
Done.
  • Parenthesis. - "(He had earlier served on it from 1993 to 2002,[267] during most of which time he was a member of, and for six years chair of, the board's audit committee.[268] During his time on that committee, Marriott implemented the Son of BOSS tax shelter scheme, which resulted in the company claiming $71 million in losses that federal courts later ruled never existed.[268][269])" Either move to notes, or move from brackets into text.
This is to indicate that the material is out of chronological sequence. You still haven't shown me any WP guideline that prohibits sentences inside parentheses.
To me, this seems like a note that you are forcing into the article body using parenthesis. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened it and removed it from parentheses. According to the cited sources, "Experts disagree on whether the corporate board would have known about the deal and had the chance to question it. The company neither confirmed nor denied that the board approved the transaction. At some point, the board would have approved filings that included the fraudulent losses, but it’s unclear whether Romney specifically favored the tax move." So, what I wrote is this: "He had served on the Marriott Board before, including in 1994 when Marriott implemented the Son of BOSS tax shelter scheme, but it is not clear whether Romney specifically approved that tax move which federal courts eventually ruled illegal in 2008 and 2009."Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You took out too much when you did this - the years of the first stint, that he was chair of the audit committee, etc. I've restored all that, retained what you added, and moved the whole thing to a Note, which I had been tempted to do back when it was first added. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But now see Talk:Mitt_Romney#.22Half_true.22. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "which they had bought the year before" Try "which they had purchased the year before".
Done.
  • Awkward. - "Beginning in early 2011, Romney presented a more relaxed visual image, including rarely wearing a necktie." Does the article establish that Mitt used to always wear a tie? This is a bit confusing, please clarify.
No, but you can presume it from this statement. Saying earlier that he wore a suit just to set this up later would give this more weight than it deserves. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He also took to wearing blue jeans a lot, and wearing a casual jacket. So, instead of focusing on the necktie, I rephrased: "Beginning in early 2011, Romney presented a more relaxed visual image, including more casual attire." People will infer that the necktie bit the dust.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 presidential campaign
  • I would be happy to make an effort to resolve some of these myself, but it appears that WTR has followed behind my recent edits correcting preceived mistakes, so perhaps its better to just let WTR deal with the issues themselves.
  • Length. This section is more than 1,200 words long.
I'll give it a reworking after the election is over, and then another reworking next year when books detailing the campaign come out. For now, by definition, it's a work in progress.
Fair enough, I agree. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice. There are eight uses of the passive voice in this section. Please break-up a few of them.
  • Misuse of a subordinating conjunction. - "Romney declared in November 2011 that "I've been as consistent as human beings can be." Avoid "that" before a direct quote.
Something seems needed, so I replaced with a colon.
  • Faulty parallelism. - "The campaign has been dominated by negative ads from both sides, with Obama ads proclaiming that Romney shipped jobs overseas while at Bain Capital and has kept his own money in offshore tax havens and Swiss bank accounts." "Shipped" and "has" do not make chronological sense.
'Shipped' is past tense because it happened while Romney was at Bain Capital, while 'has kept' is past-through-to-present tense because the funds are still there.
Someone (not me) changed this to "Negative ads from both sides dominated the campaign, with Obama's proclaiming that Romney shipped jobs overseas while at Bain Capital and keeps money in offshore tax havens and Swiss bank accounts." I further changed "keeps" to "kept" because the beginning of the sentence indicates past tense ("dominated"). Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing verb. "Romney has faced demands from Democrats to release additional years of his tax returns, an action a number of Republicans also think would be wise; after being adamant that he would not, he released summaries of them in late September." The conditional verb "would" needs a main verb after it.
Added "do so".
  • Comma use. - "Perry faded after poor performances in those debates, while Herman Cain's 'long-shot' bid gained popularity until allegations of sexual misconduct derailed it."
Intentional - two separate clauses, essentially unrelated.
  • Run-on. - "Romney's double-digit lead in state polls evaporated and he lost to Gingrich by 13 points in the January 21 primary."
Changed to use semicolon.
  • Redundant preposition. "In the final month before voting began, Newt Gingrich had a major surge, taking a solid lead in national polls and in most of the early caucus and primary states".
Removed.
  • Prose. - "the Massachusetts health care reform law that he had shepherded five years earlier" Is "shepherded" the best encyclopedic word we can use here? Sounds biblical.
Dictionary definition 2:2 gives example "shepherded the bill through Congress", exactly the same meaning as used here.
Dictionary says, "to guide or guard in the manner of a shepherd <shepherded the bill through Congress>". So, it could be appropriate, but was Romney's role with respect to this particular legislation really to guide or guard it? Yes, I think he at least guided it. So, I have no problem with using the word "shepherd" here (note that there were a few biblical shepherds but there have been way more real-life non-biblical ones).Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague modifier. - "Polls have shown a generally tight race for the November general election." Omit "generally".
There have been times when Obama's opened up a bit of a non-tight lead, but removed.
  • Passive voice. - "The field was finally settled by the October 2011 decisions of Chris Christie and Sarah Palin not to run."
This one should stay. To reverse it is to imply that Christie and Palin were trying to settle the field, which is not the case.
Changed to "The October 2011 decisions of Chris Christie and Sarah Palin not to run effectively settled the field of candidates". The word "effectively" removes the implication mentioned by WTR.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice. - "Romney was announced as having won on the election night with 25 percent of the vote".
Done.
  • Passive voice. - "Santorum was certified as the winner by a 34-vote margin".
Done.
  • Passive voice. - "Romney could prove his claim that 100,000 jobs were created during that time."
Does no harm - the active action in this sentence is Palin questioning, not this historical claim.
Your text: "Sarah Palin questioned whether Romney could prove his claim that 100,000 jobs were created during that time."
My text: "Sarah Palin pressed Romney to prove his claim that he (or Bain) created 100,000 jobs." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice. - "The campaign has been dominated by negative ads from both sides".
Done.
  • Passive voice. - "A related issue has been whether Romney was responsible for actions at Bain Capital after taking the Olympics post". Try "A related issue deals with Romney's responsibility for actions at Bain Capital after taking the Olympics post"
Changed "has been" to "dealt with". But your wording tends to imply Romney has some responsibility, which is what is at issue.
"was responsible" is the offending passive voice. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "A related issue dealt with Romney's purported responsibility for actions at Bain Capital after taking the Olympics post."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice. - "In Israel, Romney was embraced by Israeli Prime Minister (and former BCG colleague) Benjamin Netanyahu". Try "Israeli Prime Minister (and former BCG colleague) Benjamin Netanyahu embraced Romney during his vist to Israel".
Doing so messes up the 'he' in the next clause (depassivizing often makes ambiguous subsequent pronouns).
Tweaked with no pronoun confusion. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice. - "though he was criticized by some Palestinians for suggesting that Israel's greater economic success was due to "culture"."
Done.
Tweaked to avoid second passive voice in text string. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scare quotes. - "Israel's greater economic success was due to "culture"." If "culture" needs quotes then it alos needs in-line attribution.
It's a the specific word that Romney used, which is clear from the text.
Tweaked. There is no need for quotes around the word. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague term. - "Newt Gingrich had a major surge". Try "Newt Gingrich experienced a significant surge"
Done.
  • Weak prose. - "Romney's admitted bad week represented".
Changed to "poor".
  • Weak prose. - "Romney had a big spending advantage".
Changed to "large".
  • Word choice. - "including a narrow victory in Ohio over a greatly outspent Santorum". Try "including a narrow victory in Ohio over a vastly outspent Santorum".
Done.
  • Clumsy. - "Romney announced in a video taped outdoors" They videotaped his announcement but he did not announce in a video.
Reworked.
  • Attribution. - "A Quinnipiac University political science professor stated" We should mention the professor by name.
Done.
  • Scare quotes. - "thus appeared to be "next in line" to be chosen." This quote must be attributed in-line.
Quotes removed.
  • Excess. - "As many potential Republican candidates decided not to run (including Mike Pence, John Thune, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, and Mitch Daniels)" Why are we mentioning all these candidate who didn't run? Bono didn't run either, should we mention him? Try "As many potential Republican candidates decided not to run, Republican party figures searched for plausible alternatives to Romney."
Because one of the salient features of this campaign was that Romney beat a very weak field, and it was weak because some of the more substantial candidates decided not to run.
I don't think that listing those names necessarily gets across the point that WTR would like to make. I changed it to: "As many potential Republican candidates with star power and fundraising ability decided not to run, Republican party figures searched for plausible alternatives to Romney."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with this change. Specific names are better in this case. You can combine the names with what you added, if you want (although 'star power' is a stretch for some of them), but it's vacuous without saying who they were. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I put the names back in, together with what I added. But if the length of this article needs to be substantially reduced, I would get rid of the names rather than getting rid of what I added.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward. "Speaking on a farm in Stratham, New Hampshire, he focused on the economy and criticized President Obama's handling of it." Try "Speaking on a farm in Stratham, New Hampshire, he focused President Obama's mishandling of the economy."
Your version implies that Obama has in fact mishandled the economy, which is of course at issue.
You were correct to omit "mis". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague modifier. - "Romney raised $56 million during 2011, far more than any of his Republican opponents". Omit "far".
Disagree. This is indicating, without going into unnecessary detail by listing out who came second and with how much, that he raised much more than anyone else, rather than just modestly more. See above for my previous response to similar item.
I will change this to "more than double". According to one source: "He brought in $56.5 million in 2011, compared to Paul's $26 million, Gingrich's $12.6 million and Santorum's $2.2 million."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verbose. - "and refrained from spending any of his own money on his campaign". Try "and refrained from spending his own money on his campaign".
Done.
  • Jarring. - "Michele Bachmann staged a brief surge in polls". This comes out of nowhere. Will readers know who she is?
That's what links are for. It't not out of nowhere, it's part of showing that this weak field took turns jumping to the front as the next possible Not-Romney.
  • Verbose, passive, recentism. - "then by September 2011, Romney's chief rival in polls was a recent entrant, Texas Governor Rick Perry". Try "then by September 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry became Romney's chief rival in the polls".
"Recent entrant" is part of the chronology - Perry was actually the biggest threat to Romney the whole time.
And "recent" can be used in historical narrative - it refers to something happening just before the time being described. "In 1840, Governor Smoog hired a recent graduate of Yale to become his chief of staff." You're think of when IP editors use "recent" to mean relative to the time of their edit. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The word "recent" may or may not be okay, but I've rephrased in a way that happens to avoid that issue. Changed to: "Michele Bachmann staged a brief surge in polls, which preceded a poll surge in September 2011 by Rick Perry who had entered the race the month before." I think it goes without saying that whoever is surging is the chief rival. At the end, it was Santorum.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles. - Why is only Perry afforded a title, i.e. "governor"?
Good point, removed.
  • Cite clutter. - "'I've been as consistent as human beings can be.'[309][310][311]" Is the quote really found in all three cites and why do we need three cites here?
The multiple cites are for the first clause, about accumulating charges of flip-flopping, not the quote.
How will readers know this? There aren't any notes deliniating which cites source what. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion remains to put all footnotes at the end of sentences, and to order the footnotes so they correspond to the order of stuff in the sentence. If there is a nasty bot that wants to disrupt this procedure, then we can ward off the bot with a tag like {{bots|deny=[name of bothersome bot]}}. I think WTR might want to choose between this proposal of mine on the one hand, and cite bundling on the other hand, or (on the third hand) if there are three or less footnotes then it might not kill the reader to search through each of them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost anything would be an improvement over the current "system". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "Newt Gingrich had a major surge" Try "Newt Gingrich made a major surge".
See above.
  • Wordy. - "In the final month before voting began, Newt Gingrich had a major surge, taking a solid lead in national polls and in most of the early caucus and primary states, before settling back into parity or worse with Romney following a barrage of negative ads from Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney Super PAC".
Used dashes to help separate.
  • Confusing. - "In the initial 2012 Iowa caucuses of January 3" Was there more than one Iowa caucus?
Clarified.
  • Passive voice, wordy. - "In the initial 2012 Iowa caucuses of January 3, Romney was announced as having won on the election night with 25 percent of the vote, edging out a late-gaining Rick Santorum by eight votes (with an also-strong Ron Paul finishing third), but sixteen days later, Santorum was certified as the winner by a 34-vote margin." Try "The press declared Romney the winner of the 2012 Iowa caucuses of January 3, with 25 percent of the vote, edging out a late-gaining Rick Santorum by eight votes (with an also-strong Ron Paul finishing third). However, sixteen days later, the election committee (or whoever it was) certified Santorum as the winner by a 34-vote margin."
Reworked a different way.
  • Clarify. - "Romney decidedly won the New Hampshire primary the following week earning 39 percent of the vote".
Reworded.
  • Dubious. - "Many conservatives rallied in defense of Romney, rejecting what they inferred as criticism of free-market capitalism." Did Gingrich, Perry and Palin really criticise free-market capitalism?
Perry did for sure, and Gingrich somewhat. Santorum did not. Palin was just (correctly) questioning whether Romney could back up his jobs claim (he can't).
  • Clarify. - "During two debates, Romney fumbled questions about releasing his income tax returns". Which two debates?
Added "in the state".
  • Prose. - "and he decided to release two years of his tax returns quickly" Try "and he quickly decided to release two years of his tax returns".
Done.
  • Prose. - "Romney unleashed a concerted, unrelenting attack on Gingrich's past record". "Unleashed" and "attack" should be recast to something more encyclopedic.
Disagree. It was concerted, and it was an attack (the colloquialism the media used was "carpetbombed"). Please point me to the WP Official List of Unencyclopedic Words, I'm still having trouble finding it.
WTR, I know exactly where that list is located but, unfortunately, it would be unencyclopedic for me to explicitly say where that is. Seriously, I have rephrased to "Romney launched a sustained barrage against...." because you already use "attack" many other times in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "Romney had a big spending advantage from both his campaign and his aligned Super PAC". Try "Romney enjoyed a significant spending advantage from both his campaign and his aligned Super PAC".
Hah! I originally wrote "enjoyed", then another reviewer changed it to "had". So it goes.
  • Confusing. - "and after a record-breaking rate of negative ads from both sides". Clarify "a record-breaking rate of negative ads".
Percentage of all ads that were negative.
Will the reader understand that? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice. - "There were several caucuses and primaries during February". Try "Several caucuses and primaries took place during February".
Done.
  • Prose. - "Romney's main rival". Try "Romney's chief rival".
Done.
  • Awkward. - "and although he failed to win decisively enough to end the race".
Reads okay to me.
Try "and although he failed to achieve a victory decisive enough to end the race".
Changed to "although his victories were not enough to end the race they were enough to establish a two-to-one delegate lead over Santorum".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clumsy. - "still held a more than two-to-one edge over Santorum in delegates". Try "still held a more than two-to-one delegate lead over Santorum".
See immediately preceding comment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikify, improve prose. - "the Republican National Committee put its resources behind Romney". Recast to avoid "put its resources behind".
Already linked. Don't see what's wrong with this.
"put its resources behind" is not encyclopedic. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "put its resources to work for Romney...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward, vague modififer. - "Polls have shown a generally tight race for the November general election". Try "Polls predict a tight race for the November general election".
Polls don't predict per se, they just indicate what the vote would be if held today. And "have shown" incorporates both past and present, which is what is needed here.
Try "Polls indicate a tight race for the November general election". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Polls have consistently indicated a tight race for the November election". It seems worthwhile to thusly describe not just polls now, but also polls earlier in the race.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work again, it looks great. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant preposition. - "and Poland to meet leaders to raise his credibility as a world statesman". Try "and Poland, meeting leaders in an effort to raise his credibility as a world statesman".
Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Political positions
  • Confusing modifier. - "Romney has identified himself as "pro-life" since 2005: having previously favored access to abortion during his Massachusetts runs for the U.S. Senate and governorship, he now opposes access to abortion "except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother." The modifier, "previously", is defining more than one clause and is therefore squinting.
Removed.
  • Split infinitive. - "He has promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would help overturn Roe v. Wade, allowing states to individually decide on the legality of abortion." The infinitive verb "to" has been split by the modifier "individually".
Changed to "... allowing each state to decide on ...".
  • Prose. - "nominate Supreme Court justices" or "appoint Supreme Court justices"?
They are equivalent. I did a Google News Archive search and both come up about the same number of times. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split infinitive. - "He has signed a pledge promising to seek passage of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to legally define marriage as "the union of one man and one woman." The infinitive verb "to" has been split by the modifier "legally". Try "amendment to the U.S. Constitution that legally defines marriage" or "amendment to the U.S. Constitution legally defining marriage".
Removed "legally" as redundant.
  • Split infinitive. - "He wants to see a repeal of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, with plans to eventually replace them with a "streamlined, modern regulatory framework". "to" is splitting "eventually".
Removed "eventually" as redundant.
  • Unnecessary infinite phrase. - "He favors substantial increases in military spending and has promised to invest more heavily in military weapons programs and to increase the number of active-duty military personnel." Reword to avoid "to increase the number", instead using a finite verb. Try "He ... promised to invest more heavily in military weapons programs while increasing the number of active-duty military personnel."
Done.
  • Awkward. - "Romney has said he would seek income tax law reforms that he says would help lower federal deficits and would stimulate economic growth."
Changed to "Romney desires income tax law reforms ...".
  • Unnecessary modifer. "but has said that that aspect of the plan cannot be evaluated yet due to lack of specific details." Omit specific.
Removed.
  • Vague word. - "which he has said prevented the U.S. financial system from completely collapsing." Omit "completely".
Removed.
  • Attribution. - "he now opposes access to abortion 'except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother.'" Who is being directly quoted here? Add an in-line attribution.
Quotes removed, rephrased as "except in cases of incest, rape, and where the life of the mother is at stake."
  • Redundancy. - "During the automotive industry crisis of 2008–2010, he opposed a bailout of the American automotive industry in the form of direct government intervention".
Reworded.
  • Attribution. - "to legally define marriage as 'the union of one man and one woman.'" Where does the quote come from exactly? Attibute direct quotes in-line.
Quotes removed.
  • WP:CRYSTALBALL
    . - "If elected president, Romney says he will lead an effort to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")". Wasn't the 4th richest president bit removed for this very reason? That RfC was not concluded properly BTW.
Reordered - I think this was mostly just an attempt to avoid having every paragraph start with "Romney".
Good point, as of now, 5 of 7 start with Romney. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mononony. - 5 of 7 paragraphs in this section begin with "Romney". Please consider breaking a few of these up.
I changed one in the middle, that should be enough. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence fragments. - "Among the series of tax changes he has proposed are: reducing individual income tax rates across the board by 20 percent, maintaining the Bush administration-era tax rate of 15 percent on investment income from dividends and capital gains (and eliminating this tax entirely for those with annual incomes less than $200,000), cutting the top tax rate on corporations from 35 to 25 percent, and eliminating the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax."
Not sure what your objection here is.
The sentence is quite wordy. Consider breaking into two. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a single train of explication. Every now and then, a very long sentence is justified. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wordy. - "He has promised that the loss of government revenue from these tax cuts would be offset by closing loopholes and placing limits on tax deductions and credits available to taxpayers with the highest incomes, but has said that that aspect of the plan cannot be evaluated yet due to lack of specific details."
It's a wordy position he has (see below re 'dubious'). I can't think of a way to condense this, maybe AYW can. His most recent proposal involves a deductions cap, actual number yet to be determined; this would be even harder to explain succinctly.
  • Vague. "makes health insurance premiums tax-advantaged for individuals in the same way they are for businesses". This will not make any sense to some readers. Clarify.
I can't think of any concise way to explain the financial and tax underpinnings of the U.S. employer-based health insurance system, maybe AYW can. Unfortunately I couldn't find any article or section in WP that really focuses on this, otherwise I would link to it.
  • Extremely dubious. - "reducing individual income tax rates across the board by 20 percent" Highly unlikely if not downright impossible. I am sure he has claimed this, but should Wikipedia repeat blatant falsehoods?
This was the subject of much of the debate the other night. True, Romney's numbers don't add up. But the purpose of this section, especially in summary form, is to state positions, not argue them. We have to trust that any sentient reader will understand that just because a politician says X should be done, that does not mean that X is either attainable or desirable.
  • Unencyclopedic prose. "He wants to see a repeal of"
Changed to "favors repeal".
  • Attribution needed. "with plans to eventually replace them with a 'streamlined, modern regulatory framework'."
To me it's implicit that these are Romney's words, but changed to make explicit.
  • Confusing. "He plans to label China a currency manipulator and take associated counteractions unless that country changes its trade practices". Hasn't he already labeled them as such?
Changed to "He plans to formally label China ..." Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Verbose. This could be better. Try "He plans to pressure China to stop manipulating its currency and to reform its trade practices."
Not the same. Labeling a country a currency manipulator is a formal act that the U.S. Treasury Department does, that leads to specific consequences regarding tariffs, currency, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awards and honors
  • This section looks good. I can detect no outstanding issues.
Are you feeling okay?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never better. You? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your review is pretty amazing. I've never seen such a one. But you missed a nasty little case of passive voice in this section (I fixed it). As for how I'm feeling, I did one of the stupidest things ever today; I got to the airport and realized that I left my wallet at home. I blame this squarely on losing sleep due to, well, using the computer too much. Fortunately, I will be able to get to my destination in time on another flight. Cheers.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much! In the past, I have overly relied on the reviews of others and thought I had better give back. Nice catch and fix on the passive voice, my eyes must have been tired, probably for the same reason you lost sleep! Glad to hear another flight will deliver you safely. Nice work on the article BTW. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End review by GabeMc. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support from contributor - An excellent contribution to Wikipedia, the article is well-written, well-researched, comprehensive and refreshingly neutral. The prose is engaging and the level of detail is in balance with the concerns of summary style. Nicely done Wasted Time R! You should be quite proud. Thanks and cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your epic review and support. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GabeMc, let's cut to the chase. You and I have disagreed from the first time you came here, during the previous FAC and then after it, about what this article should look like. Some of the smaller things you point out now are good catches, but most of the things you bring up I'm going to disagree with this time around again. We just see things very differently. I'm not willing to change the citation structure or writing style or other aspects of this article to match what you want - especially when other reviewers have not been concerned about those things - but by the same token there's no reason you should agree to support something that you don't think is FA quality. I've known from the get-go that you would oppose this second FAC too. So I suggest you just go ahead and formally do that, and save both of us lots of effort and typing. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) You should know me better than that by now, or at least AGF. 2) I didn't oppose the first FAC, it was shut down in the wake of the Cranbrook scandal, no fault of yours or the reviewers. 3) I would not oppose any article based on my personal citation preference, or any personal preference, but I do reserve the right to attempt to persuade you a bit, don't I? 4) I have no pre-intention of opposing the nom, I am strongly leaning toward support and barring anything unforeseen, I predict that I will eventually support, assuming you do your job as the nominator and you don't ignore my comments. 6) I am a bit saddened that you would think that of me. 7) I never said I thought the article wasn't FA quality, I said certain awkward constructions and overuse of the passive voice is not ideal in terms of FA. I havn't been through it all yet, as I've only reviewed the first section, but it sure looks to be on the road to FA to me. Of course some little things need tweaking, its not like its perfect right now. Having said that, I certainly know how you feel, FAC can be a dysfunctional process whereby reviewers are sometimes passive-aggresive or borderline abusive. But this works both ways. That you would accuse me of that is quite disappointing, and tantamount to a
personal attack, and one with absolutely no evidence. Please consider retracting your last point, you are absolutely wrong, and its not right for you to smear my name without cause. Wasted, if want this FAC nom to pass, you had better reconsider your general tone, since after less than 24 hours in you are already lashing out at a good-faith reviewer unprovoked. It does not bode well long-term. Again, please redact your accusation that I intended to oppose from the start. Many people will see this nom, and to leave an unsubstantiated smear there is poor form. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You're imagining criticisms of you that I'm not making, but I should have expanded my comment a bit fuller, to give you a better idea of where I'm coming from, and I apologize for not doing that. I'm not saying your comments are in poor faith or invalid, I'm simply saying we're not going to be able to agree, and lengthy disagreements are going to be counterproductive. For the record, the first FAC did not fail because of the Cranbrook incident - that wasn't published in WaPo until May 10, and has only one passing mention in the FAC, which was closed on May 12. The first one failed because so many comments were coming in on other aspects that the FAC delegate decided the article wasn't ready and should go back to the drawing board. Well, at the current rate of your comments - 25 for one section, with nine more sections to go - the same thing will happen again. And there isn't much latitude for changes this time around - along with the other prez and veep candidate articles, this article is on community sanctions probation, which effectively means that we can't revert each other, which is what happened the last time we got into stylistic disagreements and the like. It also means that this article can't have substantial content changes either, or anything else that might lead to an edit battle. And I readily acknowledge that for the article to have gotten this far, compromises have had to be made. Some things that may look peculiar are in there to keep the peace. So this isn't fully like a normal FAC. Basically, my thought was to give the community a chance to say, yes this is worthy (possibly with some small-scale changes) of FA before the election (which to me makes WP look good, although others may be legitimately indifferent to that as a goal), or no it isn't. If the consensus is 'no', I can live with that. In other words, this isn't going to be the kind of FAC like you had with the McCartney article where what came out at the end with the gold star looked very different from what went in at the beginning. So all I was trying to do is ring you up as a 'no' on this proposition, but I should have explained that better. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? Sounds like you want an free pass from the delegates and expect all comments to be kept at a minimum. Why? Are you suggesting that no material can be added or substantively changed? Huh? Are you saying political articles are immune from extensive vetting? Says who? If anything, an article about a man who may lead the free world next year, and who has millions of lives in his hand, and who will perhaps influence the course of world politics, should be vetted at least as heavily as an article about a musician, right? I seriously doubt you are gonna get that kind of FAC here with this article. Again, please redact the personal attack you made against me above, its the right thing to do, you know that. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any personal attack on you, so I have nothing to redact. I do apologize if my first go at the wording made you think that. If there's one thing I don't want, it's any drama! I've been doing WP for almost eight years, and I've come to some conclusions. In particular, I think sometimes there are good editors who just can't agree, and I try to find solutions for that. For example, I left the entire U2 project, where I had been an active editor with several GA's to my name, a couple of years ago because there were two other equally credentialed editors there and I just wasn't seeing eye to eye with them. The simplest solution there was for me to depart. In this case, I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this article, so I thought the simplest solution was for me to accept your opposition, and then move on to see what other reviewers had to say. If this action has caused drama, which it seems to have, then I've blundered. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a personal attack: "I've known from the get-go that you would oppose this second FAC too." 1) It implies that I am a vindictive person who would sabotage an FAC for spite, though I still don't know where the spite is supposedly coming from, we have no issues that I am aware of. 2) You are impling that I opposed an earlier FAC, which is false, misleading and needs to be redacted for the sake of civility. At this point, you may even get a few arbitrary opposes due to your accusatory attitude. Really, I will lose much respect for you if you refuse to redact, leaving an unfounded insinuation about motives and an utter untruth. Fact: I have never opposed any FAC for any article you have ever nomed. I hope you aren't interested in giving false impressions to other people when you could so easily avoid it with a simple redaction. If you need it spelled out for you: Per
WP:NPA, Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are personal attacks. Yours also includes an undeniable error of fact. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
(ec) Yes, the "too" in my remark was technically inaccurate, since you never cast an 'Oppose' on the first FAC, but I thought in the spirit accurate, since you put out a long list of comments and things you didn't like, which in the end helped doom it. Which is fine! Years ago I once opposed an FAC on fundamental grounds, and the nom would have been quite fair to say that I would have opposed it again on a second try, since there was nothing they could realistically do to get me to support it. Again, all I was trying to do is save us from going around and around and around in circles, like we were starting to do in the comment exchanges above. No vindictiveness or sabotage or anything else was meant. I honestly thought that we were so far apart on this that your support was not a possibility. And I accepted that as one of those things that happens, and move on. I don't know what else I can say on this. Had I known you would have this interpretation of it, I wouldn't have done it. This is drama, and I hate drama. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never intended to oppose the first nom. I thought reviewers were supposed to review the article, otherwise we wouldn't call them "reviewers", we would just call them "!voters". All I was doing was reviewing the article, in both cases. I am surprised that you would oppose based on something arbitrary, that's not in the proper spirit of FAC IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out all my remarks from last night. In the human condition, sometimes things go off kilter. I ended up doing exactly what I didn't want to do, and I became the person I least wanted to be. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As for vetting, I would claim that this article has vetted in terms of content. By rough count about 20 different editors, of all different perspectives, have been active on its content during the last two months, with maybe a third of those being heavily active. Delicate compromises and wordings have been worked out that all are in agreement with (or at least can live with). Given the sanctions that have recently been imposed (not due to any fault of this article, they came about due to massive edit warring at the Paul Ryan article and then were extended to all of them), I don't think it's realistic or wise to expect that significant content changes can be made during this FAC. If that blows the FAC out of the water, I can accept that, but I thought it was worth a try. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm confused then. Because I havn't asked for any significant content changes whatsoever. Below are four examples where you told me I was wrong, using this arbitrary "political" excuse to not have to work with my suggestions. Its really quite dismissive, and you seem to be hiding behind this line of bull about an easy FAC for the maybe next president. See below:
  • Your text: "Romney followed his three siblings – Margo Lynn, Jane LaFount, and G. Scott – after a gap of nearly six years."
  • My text: "Preceeded in birth by his three siblings – Margo Lynn, Jane LaFount, and G. Scott – Mitt followed after a gap of nearly six years".
  • Your text: "Romney was involved in many pranks, some of which he later said may have gone too far and apologized for."
  • My text: "Romney became involved in several pranks while attending Cranbrook. He has since apologized, stating that some of the pranks may have gone too far."
  • Your text: "the youngest child of George W. Romney, at the time an automobile executive, and Lenore Romney (née LaFount), at the time a homemaker."
  • My text: "the youngest child of automobile executive George W. Romney, and homemaker Lenore Romney (née LaFount)."
  • Your text: "Romney was involved" - The inferior passive voice.
  • My text: "Romney became involved" - The superior active voice.

Where are the substantive changes that cannot be implemented due to the high importance of your nom and the "goes without saying" vetting of others? So yeah, several editors have vetted the article in composition, now several more are going to vett it in FAC. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is not quite equivalent. Not all the pranks took place at Cranbrook, and one kind extended to Stanford (the wording we have deliberately lets this in, without explicitly saying so). He hasn't apologized for all of them, and "admitted" sounds like too much like a legal term and misrepresents Romney's reaction. Again, the talk on this literally dominated a span of four Talk archives, which lots of people getting upset and so forth. We finally found a wording that everyone could live with, using some of the same techniques that diplomatic communiques are written in. I don't want to revisit all that misery by opening it back up. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might say that. However, the pranks to which we are referring, the ones he apologised for, were the Cranbrook ones not the college ones. Switch "admitted" with "suggested", and your problem is solved. Now you have a grammatically correct and pleasing construction with no substantive changes. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasted, nobody's gonna tell you your "pranks" prose is better than mine, or the "sibling" prose, just admit it and redact your accusations please. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Suggested" has connotations too that should be avoided here. Look, we aren't going to agree on this. There was a long process and at the end of it there was a !vote which solidly approved the current wording. I don't think that wording is bad, and in any case, I want to keep the wording that was approved by the !vote. It's that simple. Regarding the other items immediately above, the first and the third have now largely been changed to what you wanted. The fourth is another change to the Cranbrook incident text that I don't want to make, and also per a comment up above I think you are casting the net too wide against 'was'. But out of time this morning, back tonight. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence structure of the pranks prose is horrible, horrifying, and horrific. The problem is not really a dangling preposition, but rather that Romney was the one doing the apologizing, rather than the pranks doing the apologizing. I was involved in trying to improve this sentence structure (as an IP), so you can weigh in my lingering bitterness about it.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasted, switch "suggesting" with "stating" and this new issue is completely resolved. How is this in anyway a substantive change that introduces bias or leading prose? This seems more like an arbitrary power struggle at this point then a genuine attempt to compose neutral languge. Your current construction is quite poor, awful actually, and not at all writing worthy of a FA. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia article already says: "In May 1966, he was part of a counter-protest against a group staging a sit-in...." If I correctly recall a photo of a sign he was carrying, his position was that the group should feel free to speak, but should not physically block other people. So Romney seems to have been protesting mainly against the disruption, as opposed to protesting in favor of the war, regardless of his personal views about the war. I'm sure WTR can provide more perspective on this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The request is "The particular area I was interested in was about his protest in favor of the Vietnam War and the context of all of the national considerations for and against that war." The latter is out of scope of this article - see
Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and a bunch of other related articles. Regarding this particular protest, Anythingyouwant is correct, this was mainly a protest against sit-ins as a political tactic and in support of Stanford's president. So I don't think any change to the article is warranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Nice work Anythingyouwant! I've stricken the comments you resolved, please let me know if I missed any. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hope it's okay with WTR. The goal here was to alleviate a little bit of his burden. Also, for reasons I explained at your talk page, Gabe, I hope that some consideration might be given to moving the stuff about not publicly protesting into the note about similarities between father and son. And special thanks for the subheadings. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • I see three sentences with more than three footnotes each:

1) "Bain and Romney spent a year raising the $37 million in funds needed to start the new operation, which had fewer than ten employees.[54][57][63][69]"

2) "He touted his private sector experience as qualifying him for addressing the state's fiscal problems[164] and stressed his ability to obtain federal funds for the state, giving his Olympics record as evidence.[148][151][169]"

3) "Moreover, a number of commentators noted that with his square jaw and ample hair graying at the temples, the 6-foot-2-inch (1.88 m)[231] Romney – referred to as handsome in scores of media stories[232] – physically matched one of the common images of what some believed a president should look like.[67][233][234][235]"

Can we scale back to three footnotes per sentence? This could be done by splitting sentences, or by scrapping footnotes, or by merging footnotes (e.g. appending the info in one footnote as a "see also" in another footnote).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On #1, dropped two of them (they may have been there as fallout from some prior rearrangement). On #2, dropped the final one (less useful due to no link). On #3, rephrased and split into two sentences; cites are now two and three. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thx.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to make a list of the sentences where it would not be okay to move all footnotes to the end of the sentence?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gabe and WTR, you two seem to be cruising along nicely now, so I'm going to take a break for awhile.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the help AYW. Hope to see you back here soon. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baaaack. I took care of a bunch of stuff up to (but not including) the Governorship section. I'll wait until WTR takes a first crack at the rest, before working my wikimagic. I'm traveling the next few days, but will probably be able to get to a computer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTR, would you please scrap one of the four footnotes at the end of the sentence that says Romney "matched one of the common images"? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I removed the one that had no link.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've commented up to (but not including) the 2012 campaign section. Before looking at that section, I will wait to see which of his comments Gabe doesn't strike through.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can the stubby "He embraced the Paul Ryan Budget" sentence be expanded? When did he embrace it or when was the budget created? What did the budget contain?—indopug (talk)

This is a compromise text after a lot of discussion; see Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 18#Ryan Plan and Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 20#"a supporter of the directions of the federal Paul Ryan Budget"?. It's difficult to summarize succinctly either the Ryan budget or Romney's reactions to it. At times Romney indicated he was enthusiastic about it, but at other times he put some distance between himself and it. Furthermore there have been multiple Ryan budgets, which further complicates the picture. In reality, everything in this section is kind of stubby; the idea is that the Political positions of Mitt Romney daughter article will deal with his positions in much greater length. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: will try to review this within the next week. Kick me on my talk page if I forget. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here's the first few comments, most of the things I saw were copyediting issues and I just made the fixes myself. I've read his pre-political stuff and the lead thus far:
  • You probably want to double check for compliance with
    MOS:YEAR
    .
If you mean writing 1963–69 instead of 1963–1969, I've never liked the former, and I thought the choice was up to authorial discretion, although the MoS makes it sound a little more mandatory than that. Or do you mean something else?
That is what I meant, but I won't insist on it if you find it distasteful. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the scheme of things it's not so bad, so I've gone ahead and done it. If the other main editors don't like the way it looks, they can revert it. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the French expressed opposition to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War, Romney debated them in return, and if the French said to get out of Vietnam and slammed their doors shut then that reinforced Romney's support for it" The end of this sentence "and if..." reads a little awkwardly to me, I'd suggest rephrasing.
I've shortened this to "... and their hostility on the subject reinforced Romney's support for the U.S. effort."
  • Check for consistency with the serial comma.
My intent is to use it. I've just fixed three places where I didn't. If you happen to see any others, let me know.
  • "As a result of his stay, Romney developed a lifelong affection for France and its people, and speaks French." There's a change in tense in this sentence, best to avoid that.
Rephrased to "... and continued to speak French."
Might be better to say that he continued to be fluent in French, or something like that. Saying that he continued to speak French makes it sound like he forgot how to speak English, or at least preferred French. Not that there's anything wrong with that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bien sûr que non. I've added a cite for currently being fluent, since the existing one didn't quite say that. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plus ça change. Ici nous sommes encore. C'est la même chose. I guess I'll hang around until the election to help make sure the article doesn't get screwed over.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of "Heritage and youth" you start a few sentences pretty similarly, I suggest trying for some more variation "In 1953... In 1954... By 1959..." Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased the middle one. Thanks for your comments as always. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies for taking so long with this review... I must be real pain in the ass to wait for :)
Thanks for the comments. Looks like WTR went away for a few days. So, I'll try to address your comments later today, Mark.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stepping in, AYW. Sometimes real life intervenes ... Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was very supportive of the directions taken by the budget proposals of Paul Ryan, although he later proposed his own budget plan." How similar was his to Ryan's? I don't think you need to say much here, but a word or two of comparison would probably be good.
Expanded so it now says: "He was very supportive of the directions taken by
the budget proposals of Paul Ryan, although he later proposed his own budget plan which, for example, lowers tax rates by 20 percent instead of adopting Ryan's idea of collapsing the current six income tax brackets into two."Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "Romney attributed his conversion to an interaction with Harvard University biologist Douglas Melton, an expert on embryonic stem cell biology, although Melton vehemently disputes Romney's recollection of their conversation.[210] Romney subsequently vetoed" There's a tense switch here that should probably be avoided if you can.
This particular item is not one that I am going to edit, because of past controversies. Either you ought to edit it, or you can wait for WTR to return. Besides the tense switch, one might also want to check how it matches up with the cited source, Anyway, it's not my department.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph that begins "At the beginning of his governorship..." there's a lot of repetition of "same-sex", some of it is unavoidable, but try to cut some out if you can.
Four instances of "same-sex" removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph that begins "Romney supported raising various fees..." and the subsequent one there's some repetition of "also".
Edited so there's now only one "also" in each of those paragraphs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious about how Romney was selected to lead the Olympics. Was he connected with organizers? Or was it a more random offer?
The Wikipedia article said: "Utah power brokers chose Romney based on his business and legal expertise as well as his connections to both the LDS Church and the state." Here's a quote from a book that touches on the subject: “The boy wonder image enjoyed by [Utah Governor Mike] Leavitt, in line to become chairman of the National Governors Association, was tarnished by the Olympics bribery scandal…. Leavitt and his colleagues scoured the ranks of Mormon business celebrities to find a Mr. Clean to be the new president of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. They ended up recruiting Mitt Romney….” This is from Ostling, Richard and Ostling, Joan. Mormon America: The Power and the Promise, page 134 (HarperCollins 2000). So, I'll edit the Wikipedia article to mention Leavitt: "Utah power brokers including Governor Mike Leavitt searched for a Mr. Clean to take charge of the Olympics, and chose Romney based on his business and legal expertise as well as his connections to both the LDS Church and the state."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"a Mr. Clean" seems too informal and/or a reference to an American consumer product that will mystify foreign readers, so I changed this to "someone with a scandal-free reputation". Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should there be endashes or hyphens here? "Bain Capital's overall success–to–failure ratio was about even."
Changed to hyphens.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Political positions" subsection suffers from short paragraphs and similar sentence openings/structures... some of that is unavoidable of course.
I've just improved the section in this regard.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, should "Political positions" be a subsection of the 2012 campaign section? It deals with political positions well before that, as well.
Yes, it should be a subsection of the 2012 campaign section. This was recently discussed at the article talk page. Basically, the article is written chronologically, so a notable position from, say, 1999, is covered in the section that covers 1999. The same rationale explains why there is no "Personal life" section in this article. If any political positions before 2012 are redundantly included in this 2012 subsection, then they should be removed, IMHO. I think all of it has been removed as of right now, thanks to a recent edit by another editor (i.e. Dezastru).Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands right now, there's one sentence in the abortion material that refers to old views, but as a practical matter it's going to be impossible to keep that out, at least until after the election. But everything else is forward-looking positions now, I believe. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continued use of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, and use of enhanced interrogation techniques" repetition of "use" here.
Fixed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in behind-doors sessions with the state legislature" Not a big deal, but I would have put "closed-door sessions" here.
Fixed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead, he endorsed a ballot initiative led by the Coalition for Marriage and Family that would have banned same-sex marriage and made no provisions for civil unions." Might want to note what the Coalition for Marriage and Family is (a conservative lobbying group, I presume?)
I inserted a parenthetical: "(an alliance of socially conservative organizations)".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't read the notes sections, but otherwise, this is the rest of my comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your comments. WTR says he will be back in a few days, at which time he may have further replies. Feel free to cross out any comments that you feel have been adequately addressed. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the governor instructed town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, citing a 1913 law that barred out-of-state residents from getting married in Massachusetts if their union would be illegal in their home state, he said no marriage licenses were to be issued to out-of-state same-sex couples not planning to move to Massachusetts" I dimly recall that some town clerks may not have followed this order, if this was the case it might be good to note.
This comment is a bit unclear. Town clerks may not have followed the order to issue the licenses, or town clerks may not have followed the order to deny the licenses to out-of-staters? In either case, I'm not aware of substantial refusal by town clerks. The 1913 law was repealed in 2008, but that seems outside the scope of this article, though it is properly wikilinked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm just going by my recollections of WBZ segments from years ago here, I may be mistaken. I thought what happened was the Romney told the clerks not to give licenses to out of state couples, but a lot of clerks went and did it anyway. The article seems to state that he prevented out of staters from getting licenses. (Which may actually be true). Mark Arsten (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Massachusetts 1913 law, 13 town and city clerks challenged the constitutionality of the 1913 statute, but the Massachusetts superior court said the statute was legit. WTR may know more about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll withdraw this concern then. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to an AP story used in the Governorship of Mitt Romney article, most of the town clerks halted doing it on their own once the state attorney general gave them a warning. I think this is a detail best handled in that daughter article or in the law's article. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, we already say: "Romney won the
2002 gubernatorial election in Massachusetts, and as Governor helped develop and enact into law the Massachusetts health care reform legislation, the first of its kind in the nation, which provided near-universal health insurance access through state-level subsidies and individual mandates to purchase insurance." That seems like enough to me. The present-day popularity of the program, the changes to it since Romney was Governor, and a comparison of costs between Massachusetts citizens versus citizens of other states seems important and interesting, but maybe beyond the scope of the present article. We provide the wikilink though. Also, please keep in mind that this is already a very long Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I understand your point, but I think it would be nice to have a note that "The law increased/decreased costs by X% and resulted in a Y% increase/decrease in ER visits" or something like that. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There already was a Note that got into the effects of the law, so I've added to that Note statistics on these two items that you suggested (I had been on the fence about doing this before). Wasted Time R (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sounds good. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it got reverted by another editor, and AYW's attempt to rephrase it to satisfy that editor got reverted too. So it goes. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, I'm very impressed with this article, it's both well written and very neutral. It's impossible to make everyone happy, and there are a few consensus-based decisions on the page that I would do differently. I believe that it is as good as we could ask though, and firmly meets the FA criteria. I have a couple suggestions for improvement just above, but they don't affect my support for this article. Thanks to everyone who worked on making such a high-profile article high quality! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments, your accurate perception of the editing environment, and your support. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: having stumbled back into the role of "major contributor" to this article, I decided to go through it top to bottom and check that it's "unimprovable". That top-to-bottom check is done now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from contributor. This article is in pretty good shape now, mainly due to very diligent work by Wasted Time R over the course of many months and years. It seems to meet most (if not all) of the featured article criteria, though one might quibble about length. During the past five years, a lot of crapola has made its way into this article. I remember especially the extensive material about polygamy, and the gratuitous photo linking the subject to Richard Nixon via the subject's father. Anyway, that stuff is now gone. The article is pretty much neutral, though I am not commenting about the abortion material, which is necessarily outside the scope of my "support" (due to inanity that I need not elaborate about here). So, a hearty congratulations to WTR, and I hope this article gets the star, in the tradition of Wikipedia's quadrennial presidential election BLPs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support and your continuing work on the article and in this review. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments about the lead
  • "In 1971, he earned a Bachelor of Arts from Brigham Young University and, in 1975, a joint Juris Doctor and Master of Business Administration from Harvard University." → "In 1971, he earned a BA from Brigham Young University and, in 1975, a joint Juris Doctor and MBA from Harvard." BA and MBA are well-known enough to exist without the expansions, and that Harvard is a univ is clear enough. This way you can save space for more important stuff later.
Looking around other FA article leads, I don't see many that use abbreviations for degrees - they either spell it out or don't mention the degree at all. 'Harvard University' I think should be presented in full. In any case, I don't think the space saved here would make much of a difference for your later points.
  • The third paragraph is extremely abrupt, jumping from Mormon work to senator elections to Salt Lake CEO. This can be fixed by preceding the latter two sentences with a little flavour: "Eager to follow in his father's footsteps, Romney ran as the Republican candidate..." and "Followed this setback, Romney continued to head Bain, until he was hired..." (I'm not saying that you use exactly these sentences, but that you should try to create a narrative)
I actually like creating a narrative, but most other WP editors don't. And they especially don't in leads. So the "Eager to follow in his father's footsteps" transition has no hope of staying in. I have however added that he resumed his position at Bain Capital after the Kennedy loss, since that wasn't otherwise clear.
  • Governorship: I'd make the whole thing more chronological to avoid that abrupt first sentence. Start with "Following his election as GoM in 2006, he presided..." and finally "Romney didn't seek re-election in 2006, and instead ran for the Republican nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, which he lost to John McCain." (Don't think his winning primaries is that important)
Good idea on moving the decision not to seek a second term down to the end of the governorship material and flowing it into the 2008 presidential campaign, since that's what happened. I've made that change. However, saying he won several primaries and caucuses is important because most presidential candidates never even accomplish that (only 8 out of 27 in the last two cycles).
  • Why does the lead then devote so much space to say that he won the nomination (announcement+date, presumptive+date, official+detailed-date)? By shortening this to just saying that he ran for the R-nomination and won, you create space to name his running mate and the person he's running against, as well as the key platform he's running on—the incumbent's alleged economic mismanagement.
When someone becomes the presumptive nominee is sort of a metric of how easily they dominated their opponents in the primaries, so I think it merits a mention, but you're right that all this can be shorter. I've rewritten this part to match what the FA John McCain article had at this time four years ago, which means Ryan is now added. I've also added that he faces Obama in the general election, which may seem obvious to some but deserves inclusion for foreign readers and the like.

TL;DR: enhance the lead's narrative quality to cut down on abruptness and increase readability.—indopug (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, you brought up some good points ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. After the thorough reviews above, there's not too much left to say. I think these comments are original, but if one's already been covered, please disregard. Likewise, I understand that many sentences are the product of endless negotiation and compromise, so I'm not trying to unpick that, just tweak a few things. So:

  • In "Heritage and youth", I think "newly-elected" shouldn't have a hyphen.
You're right, per
MOS:HYPHEN
; I've removed it.
  • Under "University, France mission..." this sentence seems less formal than the rest of the article: "When the French expressed opposition to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War, Romney debated them in return, and if the French said to get out of Vietnam and slammed their doors shut then that reinforced Romney's support for it." Perhaps something like "When the French expressed opposition to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War, Romney debated them in return, with their opposition reinforcing Romney's support for the war." would be better, if the sources support it.
See change just made above in response to Mark Arsten's comment on the same item.
  • Same section: where you say "He became president of the all-male Cougar Club": is "all-male" necessary?
One of the sources used makes a point of saying that, but the other source, with the more detailed description, doesn't, so I've removed it.
  • Under "Tenure, 2003–2007", I'd make this one sentence, but that's just a personal preference: "Romney sought to bring near-universal health insurance coverage to the state. This came after Staples founder Stemberg told him at the start of his term that doing so would be the best way he could help people." Perhaps --->"Romney sought to bring near-universal health insurance coverage to the state after Staples founder Stemberg told him that doing so would be the best way he could help people."
If this was the only factor, maybe, but the third sentence introduces the other factor that led to this (Medicaid funding). That's too long to all combine as one sentence, and I'd rather not give extra weight to the Stemberg cause (which another reviewer thought might be a bit overplayed) but moving it into the first sentence.

That's all I have. Very nicely done, overall. The 2012 section, in particular, is a finely wrought synopsis that couldn't have been easy to agree on. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review and kind words. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article has undergone some substantive changes since I reviewed it last week.
My main substantive concern is that stuff has been added to the "Political positions" subsection that is redundant to stuff covered earlier in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AYW, I think I like the idea of moving "Political positions" under the 2012 campaign. The past positions on a certain subject can be moved to the extent needed into earlier sections. The positions on TARP and the auto bailout can be moved to the "Activity between campaigns" section. Everything else I think is current to the 2012 campaign. Unless you see something else. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. I hope you don't mind doing it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now done, we'll see what people think. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non sequitur. - "Romney did not seek re-election in 2006, instead running for the Republican nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential election." This implies he could not have done both, which is not true at all. He could have ran for Mass. Gov. in 2006, and also ran for the Republican nomination in the 2008. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've changed it to "Romney ... instead focusing on his campaign for the Republican nomination...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice fix. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gabe, the problem with your lead change is that your usual trick to avoid the passive voice in cases like this is to combine the clause with the next clause or sentence. That was okay in the previous lead, where the next clause was his not running for a second term in 2006. The second clause naturally matched the first. But one of the more recent reviewers objected to that, correctly I think, and the 'not running' was moved down to the end of the gubernatorial material. Given that, I wrote "Romney was elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002." I think this is the natural topic sentence and should not be combined with anything else. If you really can't stand the "was", I suggest a change to "Voters elected Romney Governor of Massachusetts in 2002." or perhaps "The voters of Massachusetts elected Romney their governor in 2002." or something like that. But I feel strongly that "Elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he presided over <describe one thing, chosen over all others>" is not the way to go. And if we had to pick one thing to go into that preferred slot, it should be the healthcare plan, which is more significant in the long run than the budget deficit closure. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns and I've made an edit to address them, please tell me what you think. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've just made it less bad. What's wrong with a simple topic sentence? The sentence structure should not be sacrificed just because of your passion against the passive voice. Elimination of the passive voice is not an FA requirement! For example, the leads for Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and Barack Obama all use the passive voice, and all are FA. For that matter, you used the passive voice in your lead for FA Pink Floyd ("They were inducted into ...") But I'm even willing to concede this just to get a decent topic sentence here. How about "Massachusetts voters elected Romney their governor in 2002." What's wrong with that? Then we can proceed with what he did (I would put deficit closure first in this case, because it happened first. As long as they aren't part of the topic sentence, the order doesn't promote one of them above the other). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002," is a topic clause, there is no need for a full topic sentence here. I think it reads quite well as it is now. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it promotes something else into the topic sentence. There is nothing wrong with occasional use of the passive voice! I've counted three instances in your Pink Floyd article and they haven't even gotten a record contract yet. Why does this article have to live up to a non-existent absolute standard that even you don't follow? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the two versions side-by-side. Which seems like better prose to you? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence in your version is much worse. The elimination of the Massachusetts budget detail in your version I'm personally fine with, but it was in there as part of a compromise with Dezastru and Cwobeel. I try to honor past compromises with other editors, but I guess if they don't jump in here, it's gone gone gone. Your second passive voice rephrase introduces a pointless redundancy - "The Republican Party formally nominated Romney and his chosen running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, at the 2012 Republican National Convention ..." - what other party would have nominated him at the Republican National Convention? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edit you just made to the Pink Floyd article exemplifies this folly. You've taken two perfectly fine sentences about two completely separate things (induction into Halls of Fame, number of records sold) and combined them into one. Now readers will get the idea that the two are linked, which is not the case - there are plenty of acts in the R&R HoF that never sold much and some acts (especially in prog rock) that have sold zillions that are not in. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep talking about other articles I've edited? Passive is inferior, active is superior, its just the way it is. I think one of these versions is superior. UniHC was Romney's most notable accomplishment as Gov. of Mass., it should be mentioned first. Its good that the $3B figure is now a lower estimate, and more realisticaly accreditable to Romney's direct actions. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are many authorities on English grammar and writing who do not agree with your absolutist position. Not to mention all the other editors and all the other reviewers on these other, similar FA articles that I referred to. You just happen to be a better writer than all of them, eh? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is 99% moot. It's been addressed in the body of the article. Let's not get hung up on the 1%.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but one of these things is superior to the other. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Just a few points on prose from the lede:

  • "In 1969, he married Ann Davies, and the couple had five children together." The wording of this statement feels awkward for reasons I can't quite explain (implying perhaps that they no longer have five children?); could it be better as "[...] with whom he has had five children." ?
Both "had" and "has" have been tried in the past here. I've put in your variation, we'll see what others think. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He ran as the Republican candidate in the 1994 U.S. Senate election, in Massachusetts;", should not have a comma I'm almost certain.
  • "Cofounded" > "Co-founded"? For consistency with "re-election" if nothing else? The MoS on this seems less than decisive though.
Otherwise, great article on an important subject. All the best with the nomination! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the comma. Regarding "cofounded" and "re-election", notice that the letter after the second hyphen is a vowel, which means that there is no inconsistency. Regarding the "In 1969...." sentence, I will remove the word "together". Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancy, chronological issue. - The first paragraph of the lead states: "From 2003 to 2007, he served as the 70th Governor of Massachusetts", then in the fourth paragraph: "Romney won the 2002 gubernatorial election in Massachusetts". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that it's a problem, because certain particular types of redundancy are okay in a Wikipedia article. For example, stuff in the lead is inevitably repeated in the body of an article. Likewise, stuff in the opening paragraph is often repeated later in a lead. Per
WP:Lead, "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." So, subsequent paragraphs of the lead often are more specific than the opening paragraph, while covering the same ground.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I've ventured beyond the lede and a few points struck me:

  • "homemaker Lenore Romney (née LaFount)". It strikes me as strange that we would list non-formal employment. Does the source specifically refer to her as this, and is it vital that we know?
I don't think the source uses that term per se, but that's what she was at that time. Since she played a major part in forming Mitt's personality (he's reserved like her, not a force of personality like George), I feel it's important to say what she was when he was growing up, especially since later we allude to her entering politics. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Preceded in birth by his three siblings – Margo Lynn, Jane LaFount, and G. Scott – Mitt followed after a gap of nearly six years." The term "preceded in birth" is one that I can't find in any another Biography article. "The youngest of four children"?
This is another construct that's been through several rewordings here. There are some usages of it found by this Google Books search, so it's not a complete invention. I'm not sure how your suggestion would work into a full sentence that mentions the other three names and the age gap. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
How about simply replacing "preceded in birth by" with "Younger than"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People called Mitt "Billy" until kindergarten". People seems redundant unless specified, perhaps: "Mitt was referred to as "Billy" until kindergarten".
I totally agree with you, but see disputes above re use of the passive voice. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this in the interests of compromise and consensus. I wasn't saying there should be no uses of the passive voice in the article, I was saying that the uses should be justified in terms of grammar, comprehension and intended perspective. This seems like a perfectly good use of it, as the POV is actually more focused on Mitt with the passive voice. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite increasing radicalization on campus with the beginnings of 1960s social and political movements, he kept a well-groomed appearance." Complete non sequitur, unless well-groomed has some other meaning.
This is trying to get across succinctly what the Boston Globe series part 1 piece is saying. Read the two paragraphs here, beginning with the "Sheltered from a storm" subheading. But I had to take out the word "environs" due to an earlier review comment, and what's there now isn't really accurate regarding just the campus. Hmm. I've now changed this sentence to "He was not part of the counterculture of the 1960s then taking form in the San Francisco Bay Area.[17]" I think this should get the idea across without bogging down in details about why exactly he was viewed as a square. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: the earlier discussion of "co-founded" and "re-election"; your rationale is fine, but I noticed "co-found" used under Business Career > Private Equity. Inconsistency?
This dictionary listing clearly says it should be without a hyphen, so I've removed it from the other uses. "Re-elect" is a tough one; style guides split on it, but at least we're consistent here in this article. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your continuing comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – After reading through the article twice, and going over the extensive reviews above, I am convinced that this article satisfies the criteria. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose.
    andley 03:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks very much for your support. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I ran all the tools when I submitted the FAC. The one deadlink must have happened since then, and I have now fixed it. The dablinks tool flags the two disambig pages linked to by the hatnote at the top, but I don't know how that can be avoided. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A FA needs to be comprehensive, and considering his close ties to his church I find it severely unbalanced the fact that
    Nergaal (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The article says: "Romney has donated to the LDS Church regularly, and to LDS Church-owned BYU. In 2010, for example, he and his wife gave $1.5 million to the church."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen that before opposing, yet I believe it is definitely POVing. Tithe is a compulsory requirement to be a member of the church and the text in the current form only makes him look like he is an incredible benefactor, without portraying the requirements that the church imploses in exchange for membership.
Nergaal (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The thing is that he has given money to the church in the form of tithing plus further contributions on top of that. So I used the word "donate" which links to our tithing article. No POVing was intended at all. If you think it's really important that we spell this out then we can, but keep in mind that church membership itself is voluntary, so it's kind of a fine distinction between tithing and donating further funds. Another advantage of the present approach is that it avoids jargon, but we can put the jargon back in if you think it advisable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tithing is not jargon, it's a Biblical concept understood across multiple religions. This article has long said, "Romney has regularly tithed to the LDS Church." You messed that up earlier today as part of your unilateral "undue weight" edits, and now you managed to earn the article an 'oppose'. Good work. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I've reinserted the word "tithe" explicitly. I don't recall, WTR, that that was among the changes you requested today in that subsection. Anyway, perhaps Nergaal will reconsider his oppose, and perhaps did not realize that tithing has always been wikilinked in the article. I was merely seeking a verb that would apply both to his tithing and to his donations to BYU. Frankly, I've never heard of an editor insisting on opposing a FAC after his objection about a single word has been fully addressed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The new "donated (for example tithed)" construct makes no sense to me. I would suggest changing this to something like "Romney has tithed to the LDS Church regularly, and has donated to LDS Church-owned BYU." Wasted Time R (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Incidentally, I know well that "tithing" is not a term limited to Mormonism. Still, it is religious jargon, according to people like Reverend William Rich, Trinity Church, Copley Square, Boston.[47]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Continued Oppose I find the discussion on his relationship with his church unsatisfactory. For example there are 5 very-long paragraphs on his successful winter olympics achievements (which took about 4 years), while his relationship with the church (which he has been heavily involved his all life) is only 3 paragraphs long. I bet that there will be multiple readers wondering about his church relationship (more than for example the 2002 games), and this article, in the current state, does not satisfy that curiosity even partially. Just look at
Nergaal (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You have counted the paragraphs about Romney's local church leadership (which happened in his spare time during his business career from 1977 to 1994). But you have not counted the paragraphs about his full-time work as a missionary in France. The info about Romney's relationship with his church is distributed chronologically throughout the article, whereas the Obama article is not written chronologically, which makes a comparison a bit more difficult. Perhaps there is some important fact about Romney's reliogiosity that you think is missing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I count about nine religion-related paragraphs overall: one in "Heritage and youth" that gives his background, much of which is Mormon-related; two in "University, France mission, marriage, and children: 1965–75" about his missionary stint, and one right after that about his marriage and wife's conversion; most of one in "Personal wealth" about his tithing; three in "Local LDS Church leadership"; one in "2008 presidential campaign" about his religion in politics speech. And I would echo what Anythingyouwant said - what about his church do you think is missing? And while I don't think comparisons with the Obama article are especially useful (one is a sitting president, one is not, which makes a big different in article structure), there are only three paragraphs in Barack Obama#Religious views. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like the article editors, I would want some suggestion as to what information about his church role etc might be missing? It seemed fine when I read through it (admittedly several weeks ago now). hamiltonstone (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought this article handled his faith pretty solidly too. Comparing paragraph counts between this and Obama's article is clearly a case of
other candidates exist :) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Question where are his religious beliefs/views covered?
Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I did a word search for "Mormon" and got 45 hits in this article, plus five hits for "Jesus Christ". I don't think it's necessary for the article to elaborate about what Mormons generally believe, because wikilinks are provided for that; also, as the Wikipedia article says, "During all of his political campaigns, Romney has avoided speaking publicly about Mormon doctrines...."
As WTR mentioned above, nine paragraphs of the article detail the role of religion in his life. They are as complete and comprehensive as possible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point, why would the Obama article contain a separate section on his religious beliefs and the Romney one not?
Nergaal (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm assuming that Wasted Time R is stuck in Hurricane Sandy right now, so I guess it's okay for me to take the lead in responding. The "religious views" subsection of the Obama article is part of the section titled "Family and personal life" which is entirely segregated from the chronological material of preceding sections. In contrast, the Mitt Romney article has a different structure, integrating information about family and personal life throughout the article chronologically. This is not an uncommon way to organize a featured BLP. See, for example, John McCain.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I've read both and I think the way this article handles religion flows much better than Obama's article. Having a separate section breaks the flow to some extent, it's better to work it into the narrative. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear on what Nergaal thinks is missing from the article. It doesn't matter that the two articles handle the subject differently - that isn't an issue for the FAC criteria. What would matter is if there is important information in reliable sources that has been omitted. Nergaal, do you think there's some information missing? His religious beliefs and activities appear covered. Is there something in the sources you are aware of that isn't here? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article I am still not convinced this is really FA-worthy. For how controversial this public person is, it is hard to understand how can an article read so positively about the person and not be some campaign-driven PR stunt. I would love to have another double-TFA like we did in 2008 on the election day, but I really do think this article needs a large shift to a more neutral tone before deserving an FA star.
Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I hope you can understand how frustrating this must be for editors who have been hammering away at this for weeks / months (and I'm saying that because I'm not one of them). Can you list some specific examples that are actionable? I have no skin in this game, not being an American (though the whole world gets touched - and often pestered - by American foreign policy, so I would hardly claim to be uninterested). My reading is that this is incredibly carefully constructed, with four hundred citations. The Salt Lake City section for example, quotes extensively the views of those who basically say "he didn't do as much as he claimed, but used it as a platform", while attempting to report the financial facts of the case very objectively. I also think the suggestion that this is could be a "campaign-driven PR stunt" is incredibly insulting to Wasted Time and his colleagues, and completely unwarranted given their track record at WP. On a related point, I've left a message at the proect talk page, asking if a delegate might drop in and indicate if there are particular issues they are watching for here. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. - If there is any truth to the claim that Mitt spent much of his missonary time in Paris living in the Fitch Mansion, then I think the text string: "At the Mission Home, he enjoyed far more comfortable accommodations than he previously had elsewhere in the country" should be edited to be more specific and revealing. Was the "Mission Home" the text refers to the Fitch Mansion? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the Mission Home was originally built by Douglas Fitch in the nineteenth century. I think Romney was there for six of his 30 months in France. But it seems kind of tangential to discuss who built the house, and I don't see that there's any Wikipedia article about a Fitch Mansion. I'm sure WTR will be able to enlighten us further.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My main point here is that "the Mission Home" does not conjure images of one of the finest Mansions in Paris. It matters little that Fitch built the Rue de Lota, but readers ought to know that when we say "Mission Home" we are actually talking about a Mansion. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I edited so it reads as follows: "Residing at the Mission Home for several months, he enjoyed a mansion far more comfortable than the accommodations he previously had elsewhere in the country."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Fitch Mansion? This Daily Telegraph story is what we use to cite the Mission Home he stayed in. For a long time the article said, "In the Mission Home in Paris he enjoyed palace-like accommodations." I would be content to go back to that. I think AYW's "for several months" is misleading, because it was for the better part of a year. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source says "mansion", Gabe said "mansion", "mansion" is accurate, so I put in "mansion". It was not a palace, so I object to such hyperbole. And as far as I know, six months is better described by "several months" than by "the better part of a year".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Wasted, nobody calls it the "Fitch mansion", but its certainly a mansion, and it was built by a man named Fitch. They now call it Rue de Lota, and the building has an estimated value of more than $12 million US. Also, I agree with AYW, "several months" is a better way to describe six months than "the better part of a year", which I would reserve for 7 or 8 months minimum. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The source quotes the son of the Mission president saying it was 'like a palace', but I'm fine with 'mansion' too. I've never seen a firm date on when he arrived there, but one source says effectively soon after early 1968 and this source says spring 1968, weeks before the May disturbances, which started first week of May. So figure around maybe late March. And he leaves just before Christmas. So that sounds like nine months in the Mission Home to me. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Wall Street Journal is very specific that it was only six months.[48]Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no fresh reporting in that WSJ piece, it's just a recap of the Daily Telegraph piece and maybe something the campaign told them. Based upon what I've seen elsewhere, I think they have it wrong. But this is supposedly damaging (it's not, but people are silly) and since BLP's are supposed to be conservative, we'll go with 'several'. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is not comprehensive. It whitewashes his extreme religious beliefs and his right-wing politics. How can you state that Romney plans to lower individual income tax by 20% when that is clearly impossible, as has been reported by reliable sources. An article full of lies is not FA quality, sorry. 74.115.210.45 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP74, thank you very much for commenting. You object on two grounds: (1) we whitewash his extreme religious views, and (2) we whitewash his extreme politics like his impossible 20% tax cut.

Regarding the first of these two whitewashes, it would be very helpful if you could specify what we omit about his religious views. It's true that we could say something like the following, but we could say it of most any Christian:

Romney believes that there is a spirit in the sky who created the universe in less than a week, and who had a son that lived on Earth amongst humans. And humans who believe in this story will exist after they die, transported to a very comfortable place called "heaven" where the spirit in the sky lives together with winged creatures called "angels".

The problem with us writing such a thing in this Wikipedia article is that Romney has never himself said anything like this in public, nor do we write other BLPs of Christians in that manner. The Romney article presently says "Mormon" 45 times (forty-five times!), and has nine paragraphs (9!) about the role of religion in his life. What more can we do? Are you objecting because we don't say enough that he's Christian, or because we don't say enough that he's Mormon? Please be specific.

Regarding our second purported whitewash, we say this:


As an abstract matter, of course, it would be possible for Romney to reduce taxes by 90%. Perhaps you are referring to the impossibility of a 20% tax cut WHILE lowering the federal deficit, together with the deficit-cutting measures he has proposed (scrapping ObamaCare, block-granting Medicaid to the states, capping exemptions and deductions, et cetera), and with the military spending he has proposed, and the economic growth he has forecast. Is that what you mean, IP74? Please keep in mind that this is a summary section in the Wikipedia article, and we are merely trying to BRIEFLY state his political positions without stating their rationales, their effects, their consistency, et cetera. We do not have space to critique his political positions and say which ones are realistic or likely to succeed.

Several non-partisan analyses of Romney’s tax plan have estimated that it COULD add more than $3 trillion to the federal deficit. But supporters of his tax plan say such analyses make assumptions that are not detailed in the plan, and ignore the economic growth that would be generated. Some experts, like Rudolph Penner, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, think 20 percent cuts are entirely possible. According to the Tax Policy Center, "Romney will need to do much more than capping itemized deductions to pay for the roughly $5 trillion in rate cuts and other tax benefits he has proposed.” Indeed, the Romney campaign responds: "he has only suggested that capping itemized deductions is one option that could be explored, and there are others".

But like I said, the present article just states his positions without analyzing them. There's just no room, and any analysis we do would likely be very controversial (and unusual for a featured BLP). This applies to all of the other political positions too. For example, we say that he's against gay marriage without describing or analyzing the reason that he has often stated: to provide an optimum environment for children to grow up in.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I had power and my WP time wasn't extremely limited, I could respond to this more deeply, but please note that 74.115.210.45 has four career edits, three of which are FAC or RfM comments. Clearly a sock of some kind. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this has been combed over very thoroughly. There will be ongoing debates about minor points of neutrality but I think the close referencing and strong scrutiny of the article ensures its integrity. I think the article addresses his mormon faith regularly and relevantly without becoming unduly obsessed with it (as some on both sides of American politics sometimes have been in the past). I congratulate the editors who have worked so assiduously on it in recent weeks. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on some POV issues and a lack of comprehensive coverage of his political positions, a section that is so slanted in favor of Romney that the article reads like it is Mitt's official webpage. The prose is also poor quality and most of the research is based on two or three writers. The article is not neutral and it has not been stable over the past several weeks with substantive changes being made during edit-wars after supports were registered. The article is also way too long to have no mention of polygamy, tithing, or Romney flip-flopping. The material on Bain makes it sound like it was just an ordinary desk job. The article does not explain the venture capitalistic nature of Bain's ruthless business practices meant Romney fired thousands of people and shipped their jobs overseas. The coverage of his Governorship in Mass. is far from comprehensive, even misleading. It gives the reader the impression that Mass. was in a better financial condition when Romney left office then when he took office, impling he saved them a deficit. The article has no mention of Romney's extensive car collection worth millions (that has it's own elevator), and the article does not make clear how many homes Romney owns. How many horses do they own and why doesn't the article detail his involvement in equestrian pursuits? In 2004, Romney vetoed Disaster Flood funding for Mass., and in light of Sandy, this should be mentioned if you want to claim the article is comprehensive. Why is his net worth listed at $190-250 million in the lead, yet the section on his finances suggests he is worth nearly twice that. There is mention of who he would appoint to SCOTUS, but no mention of any specific litmus tests for candidates other than anti-abortion, but the article does not present the material in that way, as a litmus test. The article does not mention that Romney will not release multiple-years of tax returns. A bit of a whitewash, this overly long article is not well-written, well-researched or comprehensive. It lacks neutrality and has been unstable for weeks. Kolob1x2 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I had power I and wasn't extremely limited in WP time, I could respond to this in detail, but note that commenter has ~20 career edits, about a quarter of which are FAC comments. Clearly a sock of some kind. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How very rude of you Wasted Time R. Is there a minimum number of edits for user accounts to be eligible to vote at FAC? I've edited wikipedia for years as an IP (often voting at FAC), and last month I decided to make an account. Now I come here as a registered user and you bite me the first chance you get. What a warm welcome I've received from you, thanks! Is that how you want to get this passed, by casting doubt on the legitimacy of your opposes? Shame on you! Kolob1x2 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No offense Kolob1x2, but I thought you were a sock as well. It's very odd to see a new editor with less than 30 edits writing knowledgeable paragraphs at FACs. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't assume that all new user accounts are also new editors. I've been editing here for years as an IP. I only registered an account last month to avoid the inherent distrust of IPs, and now I'm being distrusted because My account is only 6 weeks old. I thought veteran editors were expected to not bite new users. Aren't suspicious editors expected to file an SPI and not just make flippant accusations against new user accounts? Kolob1x2 (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I phrased my comment wrong. After your explanation, I have no doubts that you are a good-faith editor, who has not acted maliciously. I never really suspected you to be a sockpuppet, which is why I didn't file the SPI. Regards, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kolob1x2, for taking the time out of your schedule to share your point of view about the article. I’ll address your specific comments:

1) lack of comprehensive coverage of his political positions, a section that is so slanted in favor of Romney that the article reads like it is Mitt's official webpage

AYW: There’s a hatnote on the Political positions section referring readers to Political positions of Mitt Romney which is much more comprehensive. We couldn’t fit everything in here. The only example you give of slanting is regarding SCOTUS and litmus tests, which is incorrect as I’ll describe below (item #10).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2) The prose is also poor quality and most of the research is based on two or three writers.

AYW: There are 399 footnotes. Who are the two or three that you think are over-emphasized? Do you have an example of poor prose?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3) The article is not neutral and it has not been stable over the past several weeks with substantive changes being made during edit-wars after supports were registered.

AYW: Seems remarkably stable under the circumstances. a diff showing changed during the past two weeks. As you can see, the changes are relatively minor. The biggest change was to tighten up the personal wealth subsection, but I don’t recall that anyone objected to this final version of that subsection.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4) The article is also way too long to have no mention of polygamy, tithing, or Romney flip-flopping.

AYW: Regarding polygamy, there was recently some discussion about it, but no one thought it pertinent enough for this article. We don’t mention it, for the same reason that we don’t mention American slavery in the article about John Kerry; slavery is part of Kerry’s national heritage, but he had nothing to do with it, and slavery was extinguished decades before Kerry was born. Regarding tithing, you’re mistaken; it is mentioned (“Romney has tithed to the LDS Church regularly, and donated to LDS Church-owned BYU. In 2010, for example, he and his wife gave $1.5 million to the church”). Regarding “flip-flopping”, that’s mentioned both explicitly and implicitly, for example the article says that, “Huckabee and McCain criticized Romney's image as a flip flopper and this label would stick to Romney through the campaign (one that Romney rejected as unfair and inaccurate, except for his acknowledged change of mind on abortion)…. After the charges of flip-flopping that marked his 2008 campaign began to accumulate again, Romney declared in November 2011: ‘I've been as consistent as human beings can be.’”Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5) The material on Bain makes it sound like it was just an ordinary desk job. The article does not explain the venture capitalistic nature of Bain's ruthless business practices meant Romney fired thousands of people and shipped their jobs overseas.

AYW: Not sure what you mean by an ordinary desk job. The article is extremely clear that he cofounded Bain Capital, and was CEO and President. True, we do not label Romney as “ruthless” because that would be biassed POV writing. We try to give both sides, as here: “Dade Behring was another case where Bain Capital received an eightfold return on its investment, but the company itself was saddled with debt and laid off over a thousand employees before Bain Capital exited (the company subsequently went into bankruptcy, with more layoffs, before recovering and prospering). Referring to the layoffs that happened, Romney said in 2007: "Sometimes the medicine is a little bitter but it is necessary to save the life of the patient. My job was to try and make the enterprise successful, and in my view the best security a family can have is that the business they work for is strong."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6) The coverage of his Governorship in Mass. is far from comprehensive, even misleading. It gives the reader the impression that Mass. was in a better financial condition when Romney left office then when he took office, implying he saved them a deficit.

AYW: Are the numbers we give inaccurate? No they are not inaccurate. “Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, the state achieved surpluses of around $600–700 million during Romney's last two full fiscal years in office, although it began running deficits again after that.” I would argue that we are more negative in this sentence than we should be, by suggesting that deficits subsequent to Romney’s term are his fault.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7) The article has no mention of Romney's extensive car collection worth millions (that has it's own elevator), and the article does not make clear how many homes Romney owns. How many horses do they own and why doesn't the article detail his involvement in equestrian pursuits?

AYW: Rich people tend to have a lot of possessions. We clearly say how rich he is, including in the lead, which is the main point that we needed to get across. Also, you’re incorrect that we don’t describe his homes, e.g.: “In 2009, the Romneys sold their primary residence in Belmont and their ski chalet in Utah, leaving them an estate along Lake Winnipesaukee in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, and an oceanfront home in the La Jolla district of San Diego, California, which they had purchased the year before…. And bought a smaller condominium in Belmont during 2010.” Regarding horses, we mention “equestrian therapies that enabled her to lead a lifestyle mostly without limitations.” This gets the message across. There’s no need to count dogs, horses, pigs, mules, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8) In 2004, Romney vetoed Disaster Flood funding for Mass., and in light of Sandy, this should be mentioned if you want to claim the article is comprehensive.

AYW: I don’t think the comprehensiveness of the governorship material depends on a storm six years later. We say that he vetoed “nearly 250 items”, and there’s no way to describe them all here, or to forecast which ones might seem more noteworthy in hindsight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9) Why is his net worth listed at $190-250 million in the lead, yet the section on his finances suggests he is worth nearly twice that.

AYW: The personal wealth section does not suggest he is worth twice that. The lead says his net worth is 190 to 250 million bucks. The personal wealth subsection repeats that figure, and says that figure is “including” their retirement account. The blind trust in the name of their children is not part of Romney’s net worth. The cited source from Bloomberg Businessweek says: “The Romney family trust is worth $100 million, according to the campaign. That money isn’t included in the couple’s personal fortune, which the campaign estimates at as much as $250 million.”Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10) There is mention of who he would appoint to SCOTUS, but no mention of any specific litmus tests for candidates other than anti-abortion, but the article does not present the material in that way, as a litmus test.

AYW: A primary test is judicial philospophy. The article says: “He has advocated judicial restraint and strict constructionism as judicial philosophies.” I won’t comment about the abortion material specifically (other editors can do so if they like).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11) The article does not mention that Romney will not release multiple-years of tax returns.

AYW: Yes we do. “he quickly decided to release two years of his tax returns…. Romney faced demands from Democrats to release additional years of his tax returns, an action a number of Republicans also felt would be wise; after being adamant that he would not do that, he released summaries of them in late September.”Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as it is. The article is not neutral and not comprehensive enough. JJ98 (Talk) 23:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Support JJ98 (Talk) 01:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good of you to drop in five weeks after this FAC opened, write thirteen words of opposition without any constructive suggestions or examples, and then piss off again. And why the sudden pile on of uninvolved editors after weeks of nothing? I hope this gets treated appropriately by the delegates. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also represents a remarkable change of view since what you thought in September and just today deleted, given the hard work that has been done since that date.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fine piece of work, well examined above. Reads as neutral to this foreigner. Some dubious opposes above. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Boring and poor quality prose, a severe lack of neutrality, uncomprehensive and the article is not at all stable, just look at the talk page. There has been edit-warring as recent as a couple of days ago, and the article's length makes it very difficult to read through. It seems to me, and I am speaking here as someone who knows quite a lot about Romney and Mormonism, that each section has been carefully whitewashed so as to not cover any unpleasant facts that might cost Romney a vote. There are also numerous issues with close paraphrasing that border on copyvios, but the sloppy sourcing is extremely difficult to discern so it is hard to tell what is, and what isn't properly paraphrased. Numerous factual errors, omitted facts, and overall a near complete failure in terms of capturing who Romney is as a politician. The article repeats obvious lies and discrepancies while painting the picture of a job creating deficit reducer that Romney is not. BobRosencrantz (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Bob. Unfortunately, the nominator and lead author (Wasted Time R) is without power in New Jersey, so I'm trying to help out. It seems like your comment would be more useful if it contained examples of the maladies you mention. Regarding the talk page, do the FAC criteria require a stable talk page, in addition to a stable article? I don't think so. There was a minor kerfuffle a couple of days ago involving me and Dezastru and "means-testing", but I didn't even break 1RR, and I ended up inserting verbatim the language that Dezastru suggested. You say the article is too long, but you also object to lack of comprehensiveness --- the length is actually due to comprehensiveness, it seems to me. To the extent that you're accusing me and WTR of being liars, whitewashers, copyviolators, and propagandists, all I can say is that your unsubstantiated comment is squarely in the tradition of Wikipedia established by its leaders and applied against me in the past. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mitt Romney spent thirty months in France as a Mormon missionary beginning in 1966 - why not say " Mitt Romney spent two and a half years in France as a Mormon missionary from 1966"?
The nominator and lead editor is without electricity in New Jersey due to a recent hurricane, so I'll respond, though I would much prefer if he could handle this subsection. I changed 30 months to two and a half years, though the difference seems slight. I changed "beginning in 1966" to "starting in 1966" to chop a syllable. From an American perspective, "starting in 1966" sounds more normal than "from 1966".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He arrived in Le Havre, where he faced physical and economic deprivation in cramped quarters - huh? This doesn't really tell me much, can this be clarified as to what it means?
It's in a larger context. The article already said that he lived in "the affluent suburb of Bloomfield Hills". So we're saying that he got a taste here of non-affluence. This becomes more clear later on when we say: "Residing at the Mission Home for several months, he enjoyed a mansion far more comfortable than the lodgings he had stayed in elsewhere in the country."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, I think describing the conditions would really help, otherwise I think the sentence can be lost. It sounds a bit lame to describe average people's residences as "deprivation". Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware the Wikipedia article says anything about "average people's residences". The cited New York Times article says:

The cited Boston Globe article says:

When the Wikipedia article says that he grew up in an affluent town, and later when it says that he lived in a comfortable mansion in Paris, I don't think we need to elaborate about what that means, right? So why should Le Havre be different? We run the risk that if the deprivation were detailed, then some editors would cry foul and want the luxury detailed too. The description we give seems accurate, right? And readers can visit the cited sources. But feel free to suggest some different language if you like. I didn't write this sentence, but I think a primary goal was brevity, given the length of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - let me think about it, but even "cramped conditions sharing amenities" is alot more descriptive than what is there...and I made an incorrect assumption. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we'll wait and see on this one. I don't have any firsthand knowledge, but it seems plausible that Queen Elizabeth shares amenities with Prince Phillip. Maybe the word "spartan" might help. I've inserted it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem with this phrase is "deprivation" - it implies something a bit more extreme than the conditions under which the mission lived. In 1966 France, a lack of television and shared bathroom facilities wasn't that extreme I don't think. In contrast, I think "cramped and spartan quarters" is good. I'm taking a punt and simply deleting the first phrase "physical and economic deprivation" and running with cramped and spartan. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to disagree with this change, but will not revert unless others object. I don't know what WTR will think about it. $100 per month was worth a bit more in those days. According to an online inflation calculator, what cost $100 in 1966 would cost $683.65 in 2011. That's not much to live on. The new version suggests that his room was crowded and sparsely furnished, but that he may have had a car with chauffeur, fancy clothes, the best French cuisine, and an allowance befitting the son of a wealthy automobile executive. This article devotes much space to detailing precisely how rich he was when he has been rich, and we should be careful not to water down the two years when he was poor.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to further revise it, but i still associate the word "deprivation" with serious third world poverty, and torture techniques, so i found that word too strong. But if I'm on my own on that, then that's OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The federally established poverty level for 2012 was set at $23,050. That works out to $1921 per month. He got the equivalent of about $700 per month. I will tweak the recent edit to refer to spartan "conditions", not just spartan quarters.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It now says: "He arrived in Le Havre, where he shared cramped quarters with three others, and conditions were spartan."Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I am leaning towards supporting - there are some repetitive uses of words, but in cases I looked at it was very hard to lose a repeated name without introducing ambiguity. Another issue is bias. As a left-winger myself, I come to this somewhat skeptical, yet I do believe in a genuine dilemma of a BLP where we can veer towards either hagiography or criticism and the arguments are equally valid for each, I think leaning toward the former is fairer if all else is equal. I don't recall any specific negative episodes not covered, but I am not overly familiar with Romney's background. I'll read through again tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your left-wing skepticism will be alleviated by the knowledge that the lead author of this Wikipedia article has been the "unofficial guardian" of the Hillary Clinton article, and voted for her in the Democratic primary four years ago. As for me, I just started today doing some volunteer work for Romney (mainly wasting my time knocking on doors of people who aren't home). Of course, I have never been in contact with anyone associated with the Romney campaign (or with anyone who works for the Republican Party, or with anyone at any political action committee, or the like) regarding this Wikipedia article. I have always strived for NPOV when I edit Wikipedia, although the POV-pushers who I tend to oppose most are the left-leaning ones (because plenty of people are already combating the right-leaning ones but I've reverted them too in order to keep this article neutral). Incidentally, I am officially retired from Wikipedia, and look forward to fading away again after the election. The attacks that I have endured at Wikipedia are too hurtful, too outrageous, and too dangerous. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I have decided to promote this candidate. As I am English and live in the UK, I think I can offer some strategic distance. The consensus is that the article satisfies the criteria and any further refinements can be discussed on the Talk Page. WRT to stability, further edits are inevitable given the election. Please do not escalate any discussions to my Talk Page, and keep focussed on the article.

talk) 23:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Met was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference oneale-26 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/November_2012&oldid=983716230"