This article is about the composer Claudio Monteverdi, a key figure in the evolution of Western classical music at the transition from the Renaissance to the Baroque period. We have already run the article through a peer review and made changes (and sometimes not) accordingly; those who did not see the review may like to take a look at it before commenting here. All and any constructive opinions will of course be very welcome. Smerus (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was a participant at the peer review, see here, my concerns, and they were few, were addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I took part in the peer review and have no outstanding concerns. Looks like a very thorough job. --Folantin (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of the above. Your contributions to the peer review were much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this: I have altered one of your edits (no evidence that M. 'originated' basso continuo). I've changed 'made' to 'undertook'; but 'almost 150 years' (implying 'less than') is not the same as 'about 150 years' (which could be a few years either way), so I have left it. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Always good to see you at FAC, Smerus (and Brian!). Right, I wasn't saying he originated it (see the edit summary), I was saying that either the lead needs an edit or the text does. The text says "among other innovations, Monteverdi introduces a device that was to become a typical feature in the emergent Baroque era, the concertato style with basso continuo" ... since you're talking about multiple innovations here, and you list and link two things, many readers will think you're referring to both of them as innovations. - Dank (push to talk) 12:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get! I will think on this. Thanks, Smerus (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reworded the text in a manner which I hope meets your point.Smerus (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I have changed Vartolo and Kemp. Not too sure about the state references; I have normally used these in the past on FA for US publications for clarity's sake, and under the assumption that this was in accordance with WP guidelines - but I can't now find any such guideline. Would be grateful for any further opinions on this. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Generally what I do is give state for anything but blindingly obvious US cities (so plain "New York", "Boston", "Los Angeles" (as examples) but "New Haven, CT" or "Berkeley, CA"), and country for anything but blindingly obvious non-US cities (so plain "London" but "Cambridge, UK"). It's up to you. You can leave off locations all together which avoids the problem completely - there isn't a requirement for locations, but it IS nice to give them. You can also just give the city and avoid the "state/country" issue. Just need some sort of consistency. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have now gone through and I think have achieved consistency on the above basis.Smerus (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC) –[reply]
Support. I said my bit at PR. Three quibbles so tiny as to be barely visible with the naked eye:
de' Medici or de’Medici? – we have both forms
ritornellos or ritornelli? – ditto
Cateau–Cambrésis – shouldn't the en-dash be a plain hyphen, as in the WP article?
The main editors have done wonders: the article is not only comprehensive and authoritative, it is remarkably readable, given the subject. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 20:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your accipitridoptical identification of these anomalies, which I have now resolved (de' Medici, ritornellos, Cateau-Cambrésis). And thanks of course for your endorsement. Smerus (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting read, and not excessively difficult for a person with no formal education in music. Possibly a few more links of technical terminology may be helpful.
File:Cremona_Duomo.jpg: this should include an explicit copyright tag for the building. Same with File:Veneza47.jpg, File:Frari_(Venice)_Cappella_dei_milanesi-_tomb_of_Claudio_Monteverdi.jpg
File:Gabriele_D'Anunnzio.png: source link is dead and needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Nikkimaria, can you please point me to the rules for copyright tags for buildings? I am completely unfamiliar with this territory. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Italy does not have freedom of panorama for buildings or sculpture. Thus, with the restrictions noted on that page, building copyrights are held by the architect and are subject to similar expirations as conventional 2D works. Does that help? For example, if the architect died over 100 years ago, {{PD-old}} would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I will proceed accordingly.Smerus (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now tagged the three views, and changed the D'Annunzio pic. Hope this is now OK, Best, Smerus (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Born in Cremona, where he undertook his first musical studies and compositions," – you can undertake musical studies, for sure, but a composition? Not sure.
"His opera L'Orfeo (1607) is the earliest of the genre still widely performed" – perhaps 'in the genre' or 'example/entry/work' of the genre
"Cremona was close to the border of the territory of the Venetian Republic, and not far from the lands controlled by Mantua, in both of which states Monteverdi was later to establish his career"
"When Wert died in 1596, his post was given to Benedetto Pallavicino, but Monteverdi was clearly highly regarded by Vincenzo" – Is 'but' the right preposition here? I'd have used 'yet'. Also do we need both adverbs before 'regarded'?
"but in a note to "the studious reader", he claimed that he would shortly publish a response" – perhaps use 'however,'
We have both 'among' and 'amongst' in the article
Each line in the paragraph ¶ Vespers starts with 'The'
"they were not especially regarded in Monteverdi's time" – highly regarded?
As you might gather, these are only subjective ramblings of a confused Norwegian. :) Hope they are of use anyway; you'll have my support in any case. Gertanis (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this. I have standardised 'among', cut 'of the territory', and added 'highly' to regarded. The other points seem OK to me as thy are for colloquial usage, unless anyone else objects. Best --Smerus (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Brianboulton has recently made some helpful edits; many thanks to him for that. I noted, however, that the article's source text has quite a few double spaces (" "). Are these deliberate? Gertanis (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've broken up the "The" paragraph beginnings in "Vespers", and knocked out a double adverb somewhere. Thanks for your comments and support, Gertanis. I'm not sure where the double spaces are - perhaps Smerus knows. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I blitzed the double (sometimes triple) spaces. Quite difficult to spot though. Gertanis (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I found a few more and dealt with them accordingly.--Smerus (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the lede describes him as a singer, but only mention of his singing in the article is to the fact that there is no evidence for the claim he was "a member of the Cathedral choir"
Late flowering: 2nd para mixes one "San Marco" with two "St. Marks'". Higher up the article, the text standardises on San Marco.
Artusi controversy, "L'Ottuso Academico": in current Italian, ottuso means the same as the English obtuse -- slow of thought, dense, stupid. The translation as "The Tedious Academic" should be checked. (Was Monteverdi's text published in English under this title?)
The picture thumbnails are too small, particularly the three in the Mantua section, and the D'Annunzio. These would benefit from being at least 50% wider.
Many thanks for this. I have adjusted the pix, and changed translation of 'Ottuso'. The remaining use of 'St. Mark's' comes in a direct quote - not sure what to do about this. Being a singer - this is generally stated (e.g. Carter says he presumably trained as a singer as he later gave vocal lessons) but I am having difficulty finding specific evidence at the moment.....Brian, do you have anything? Smerus (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is little evidence to suggest that singing was a major factor in Monteverdi's professional life; in my view, not enough to justify the headline description of him as a "singer", and I suggest we drop this. Similiarly, I think the description of him as a "string player" is questionable. Although this was the role he took when first employed in the Mantuan court, it's hardly what he became famous for. I would prefer to see him identified in the lead as a "composer and choirmaster", which I think more accurately summarises his career. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He describes himself as a string player in the intros to the 2nd and 3rd books of madrigals, and this is mentioned and cited in the article, so I think that should certainly stay. I am removing singer, and adding choirmaster, as suggested by Brianboulton.Smerus (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More comments from Scarabocchio:
"Cremona lay under the jurisdiction of Milan, a Spanish possession, so that Monteverdi was technically born a Spanish subject. Cremona was close to the border of the Venetian Republic, and not far from the lands controlled by Mantua".
This would be much clearer with a map. Monteverdi was active, professionally, over quite a small area. If the state boundaries haven't changed, it would be possible to re-annotate this map to cover all of the places mentioned in the article. (Specifically, Cremona would need to be added! (inside the Duchy of Milan, just to the left of the 'M' of Mantua)) I don't know how to clone and reannotate maps, but could look into it if you think such a map would add value. Scarabocchio (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Italy 1494
The map doesn't show Cremona. In any event I think the point in question is too trivial to justify including the image, but if Smerus thinks differently he may wish to replace the Cremona Cathedral image with it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather leave this. Apart from not showing Cremona, the map is as at 1494; here's a map as at 1600, looking a bit different, and showing Cremona, but alas copyright. Smerus (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a non-starter .. the boundary changes were very fluid at the time. Scarabocchio (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could draw a map based on the linked map if you can specify what should be in it. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but honestly it's not worth your time or trouble. The point it would illustrate is of very small significance. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Images. Possibly CM? The images are now a better size, (thanks, Smerus), but not very inspiring ....
The itWP article has this portrait of a musician with a viola da gamba, dated somewhere between 1570 and 1590 by an unknown Cremonese painter. The image description:
"The sitter has traditionally, but incorrectly, been identified as Antonio Stradivari. Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643) and Gasparo da Salò (1540-1609) have been suggested. He holds a Brescian viola da gamba, and there is a violin/viola with a bow in the background."
Given the size of it, it's likely a viola da braccio rather than a violin. Even if it is not Monteverdi himself (and this cannot be proven), it is of the right period and right locality to show clothing and instruments. (updated) Scarabocchio (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the choices of images were Smerus's, and I'll leave it to to him decide whether any should be changed. Personal preferences about choices of image are likely to vary. However, such exchanges of opinion properly belong to the article's talk page rather than to the FAC, and I suggest that the discussion be continued there. Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is true, if moderately surprising, that there are no requirements/guidelines on illustrating Featured Articles. The conversation can continue elsewhere, as you suggest. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This image was in the original article. One reason I took it out is that it was claimed to be possibly CM, whereas there is not in fact a shred of positive evidence for this; I don't think WP should give that line of thought any credibility. On images generally, by all means take the topic to the article talk page, but I suggest leave things as they are for the purposes of the present review.Smerus (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Music section is headed by a link to List of compositions by Claudio Monteverdi. This list uses the Statttkus catalogue as a principal source. The WP Stattkus-Verzeichnis article is, in my view, of little value, since it provides no information other than that in the Stattkus-Verzeichnis source. I don't think it's worth a link. Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reference to this in the 'Historical Perspectives' section, as it is indicative of growing interest and research in CM.Smerus (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good. The CM article should include something to say that a catalogue of his works exists. Scarabocchio (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holy orders. Pause: Final para: "His set of Scherzi musicali was published in Venice in 1632.[34] In 1631, Monteverdi was admitted to the tonsure, and was ordained deacon, and later priest, in 1632."
There's a little bit more in itWP (no inline refs, I'm afraid): "We don't know if it was for convenience or from devotion, but Monteverdi took sacred orders on 9 March 1632 .. we find him with the title 'Reverendo' in the second book of Scherzi musicali, which dedication is dated 20 June 1632." Scarabocchio (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fall of Mantua (One more, the last, from itWP). Pause, First para: "Mantua was invaded by Habsburg armies in 1630, who besieged the plague-stricken town, and after its fall in July looted its treasures, and dispersed the artistic community."
There's a bit more context in itWP: "In 1627, the throne of Mantua passed into the hands of Carlo I di Gonzaga-Nevers (the French, cadet branch), provoking a reaction from Emperor Ferdinando II, who in July 1630 sent in his Landsknecht troops. They took the city by assault, devastating it and spreading the plague."
The change of ruling family, and hence change of side in the Wars of Religion, provides a bit of necessary explanation for WHY Mantua was attacked. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Holy orders and Mantua. As CM wasn't actually in Mantua at the time, and as there is a link to the article on the fall of Mantua, I don't believe we need to expand on this in the article about CM himself. If you have a citation about CM being 'Reverendo' in the book of Scherzi, please let us know - I can't find one, alas.Smerus (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no access to anything more than Grove and Google, ahime' Scarabocchio (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Banchieri. Artusi, 2nd para: "The theorist Adriano Banchieri wrote ...". I had to check to see if this was *the* Banchieri; it was. Either "The composer and theorist...", or "The composer of madrigal comedies and theorist...". The second has the advantage of identifying this as a compliment to Monteverdi from someone in an alternate and parallel set of musico-dramatic development. Scarabocchio (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Grove entry on BP, which is cited in the WP BP article, it seems that this animosity is very much a construct of the Grove writer - he offers no concrete evidence. I'm not greatly inclined to poke this fire.Smerus (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. I have just one point left to make, on context, and I think I can provide a possible solution to that at the same time as I propose the problem. Scarabocchio (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scarabocchio: Without wishing to hassle you, perhaps you would enlighten us as to what this one point is? Do we need to keep the FAC open for it, or could it just as easily be raised and discussed on the article's talk? Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which criteria are to used for evaluating this article? The WP Opera standards? Scarabocchio (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: Between here and the peer review, this has had a very thorough going over. I believe we are still waiting for a last point from Scarabocchio but as it only seems to be one point and as the reviewer has not been active much for the last week, I don't think we really need to hold this up any longer. Any further discussion could take place on the talk page. Just two little points from me: I notice that we have no alt text for images. While this is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always think that we should demonstrate best practice by including it. Finally, it might be worth someone checking duplinks as there seem to be quite a few. Neither of these points require this FAC to be kept open but I would appreciate it if someone could have a look. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
When waiting for the train in Seattle, you may find yourself heading underground and having to wait for buses that pull up at the very same platform (abutted by lovely pieces of art and architecture). This is a rather unique arrangement in the United States, only Pittsburgh does something similar (but without any stations), so the transit tunnel is treasured as an odd piece of our transportation system. It carries tens of thousands of train and bus commuters each day and forms the backbone of the regional train and bus network. This article has been the product of a few years of on-and-off writing, so hopefully it's as cohesive and consistent as I think it is. SounderBruce 02:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: This article is being nominated as part of the ongoing WikiCup competition. SounderBruce 02:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry this is a bit OT for this page, but is this really unique? I seem to recall something similar if not identical in Boston (trams and metros at a minimumn), and there are several stations like this here in Toronto. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: The Seattle tunnel is entirely unique because trains and buses share the same platforms and tracks/road in the tunnel. The Boston Silver Line tunnel is entirely bus-only, and I'm not sure if I've ever seen a similar situation in Toronto (granted, I've never visited either city and am going off information gleaned from the web). SounderBruce 02:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This TTCs page shows the layout of St. Clair West. As you can see, busses and trams run on the same underground level, and they definitely run over the same tracks. This image shows a bus leaving the platform, while driving on the rails. This one shows a tram on the same ramp. At the bottom of the ramp the rails make a 90-degree left turn, run around a peninsular-shaped platform with stops along it. The trams and busses have alternate stops along the platform and the track is doubled to allow streetcars to bypass stalled ones. Similar situations exist at Union where the trams along Queen's Quay also alternate with busses on occasion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle tunnel is somewhat different from your Toronto example, but it is still quite fascinating, so thanks for sharing. In the Seattle tunnel, buses and trains share the same raised platform, which allows for level boarding for both low-floor buses and low-floor light rail vehicles; since the buses aren't quite made for this kind of setup, the mirrors stick out at head level and have to have strobe lights attached so people aren't hit. The tunnel is also operated differently (I assume), with a central control center and signals that prevent buses and trains from getting too close to each other when traveling in the same direction; it's not uncommon to see buses and trains stopped in the tunnel approaching a station, waiting for the platform to clear. The tunnel has also been the driver of two unique bus technologies: dual-mode buses that switched to electric overhead wires back when it opened in 1990 (since converted to normal trolleybuses and retired); and hybrid electric buses that switch to electric batteries when operating in the tunnel, which lacks ventilation for diesel buses. SounderBruce 23:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Toronto buses are also hybrids on a route that formerly had trolley busses (briefly), the trams and buses stop at the same raised platform to allow direct low-floor entry (low-floor trams arrived in the last couple of years), and there is a control booth on the platform controlling signals at the bottom of the ramp that often lead to backups of buses and trams on the ramps. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first image shows the actual tunnel tubes, which I deem important enough for the infobox. The tunnel's portals (another option for the infobox image) are quite hard to photograph due to security and lighting. SounderBruce 14:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Metro unveiled its tentative plans for the bus tunnel in January 1984 - I know what you mean but tentative strikes me as an odd word..."initial" , "preliminary" fit better methinks.
Done.
A minor scandal involving the bus tunnel project emerged in late 1988 Eddie Rye Jr. of the Black Contractors Coalition notified Metro that the granite to be received by Metro for the stations had been sourced from South Africa. - are we missing a period or comma from the middle of this?
Looks like a few sentences were misplaced during an earlier edit. I've restored and tweaked them for better flow. SounderBruce 00:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looking good on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"served by buses from King County Metro and Sound Transit Express" I did a double take on this as it sounded at first like the names of terminuses, not operators. I suggest changing "from" to "operated by". I also suggest explaining that they are public authorities, not private companies. (I don't know about the US situation, but in Britain almost all public transport is now run by private companies.)
In the United States, the vast majority of public buses are run by public authorities, so I don't think this warrants a separate explanation.
"Soft openings of the five tunnel stations" What are soft openings?
Added a link and synonym (public previews)
"The roadway was lowered to 8 inches" lowered by 8 inches?
Fixed.
No change needed, but a lot of money must have been spent making several major changes to the system in a short period.
Despite that, it was cheaper than building a new tunnel for $1 billion. Our light rail system comes out to about $220 million per mile (which is almost as expensive as a proper subway).
"has been on hold since 2009." This should be as of a specified date, as it may become out of date in the future.
Decided to toss that sentence out, as it is covered in the station article...and the project has been cancelled entirely and handed to a new developer and architect.
This is a very good article, but far too detailed in places. Running schedules are liable to frequent change, and belong on the companies' websites, not in a Wikipedia article. Minor glitches in construction are not relevant in a general article about the tunnel. I would suggest you consider hiving off the construction to a separate article with a briefer summary here. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The running schedules for light rail don't change often (only three times over the last 8 years) and are well-documented. I think they warrant inclusion as a pretty basic measure of tunnel service levels (which can be compared to the theoretical capacity listed). As for the construction, I'm hesitant to split or reduce some of the details because I feel the balance of the history section is ideal as it is (with construction and operations being the same length, roughly). SounderBruce 23:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As I commented above, I think this article is too detailed in some parts. I do not think hours of operation or small power outages of a few hours during construction belong in an encyclopedia article, but these are minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness Comments by Finetooth[edit]
Really interesting article. The prose is generally excellent, but I have a few suggestions and questions, as noted below.
General
I don't think so many terms need to be linked more than once in the main text. (I unlinked the only two duplicates that I found in the lede.) WP:DUPLINK has guidelines and exceptions.
Removed almost every duplicate link. A few were repeated in the history section to help clarify things (mostly bus-related terms).
I like the clickable map in the upper right-hand corner. I didn't know something like this was possible.
The magic of KMLs! They work well for road articles, but I think they have potential in other transportation fields.
Lede
¶1 "...shared with Sound Transit, who signed..." – "which" rather than "who"?
Rewrote the sentence to remove some of the detail.
¶2 "...date back to the 1910s and 1920s..." – Remove "back", which doesn't add anything?
Dropped the "back" and rewrote the sentence a bit.
¶3 "The downtown transit tunnel is planned to lose its bus service during the permanent closure of Convention Place station in 2019; from that point on, the tunnel will be used only by light rail trains." – Recast to replace the passive "is planned to lose"? Suggestion: "Plans call for the downtown transit tunnel to lose its bus service...".
Reworded.
Routes and stations
¶1 "There is a total of 11 wheelchair-accessible elevators to the tunnel stations, as mandated by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the United States Department of Transportation." – This sentence stopped me both times through. How about "A total of 11 wheelchair-accessible elevators, mandated by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the United States Department of Transportation, connect the tunnel stations to the surface."?
Dropped the part about the ADA and USDOT, since the former did not take effect until after the tunnel opened.
Service
¶2 I may just not be seeing it, but it seems that the three bays are A, C, and D. Why no Bay B?
Bay B was removed in 2016, when Route 255 was moved to Bay A. It is still noted on maps, but I can't find a reference to it actually being deleted. (Also, there's still a pole on the platform where it used to be)
How do you know it was removed in 2016? Personal observation, I'm guessing. If you can find a reliable source for this, it would be worth adding. Finetooth (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal observation. There is a source showing Route 255 being moved to Bay A, but nothing discussing Bay B being eliminated.
Operations
¶1 "subsequent loss of motor vehicle excise tax revenue" - Hyphenate "motor-vehicle"?
Most documents and news sources omit the hyphen when referring to the tax.
¶1 "stations on the line would have additional entrances" – "were to have" rather than "would have" since it didn't actually happen.
Fixed.
¶2 "The line would be connected to surface and elevated lines..." – "was to" rather than "would be"?
Fixed.
¶3 "instead allocated to Atlanta, Georgia, to build their rapid transit system." – A city is an "it". So "its" rather than "their"?
Fixed.
Bus tunnel proposal and approval
¶1 "It was suggested by Metro officials and engineering consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff as part of a series of proposals from a task force on studying solutions to downtown traffic were unable to find suitable alternatives." – I'm not sure what this sentence means.
Rewritten, hopefully in a clearer way.
¶1 "The proposal gained further support from Metro Transit in their long-term "Metro 1990" plan, adopted in 1981, in which a transit mall or tunnel under 3rd Avenue carrying buses to be converted for a light rail system was suggested by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG)." – Split and then flip the passive voice at the end? Suggestion: "The proposal gained further support from Metro Transit in its long-term "Metro 1990" plan, adopted in 1981. It incorporated the suggestion of the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) that a transit mall or tunnel under 3rd Avenue should carry buses that could be converted for a light rail system." Or something like that.
Rewritten to split Metro from PSCOG.
¶2 "The Metro Transit Committee debated the inclusion of the bus tunnel in the environmental impact assessment of the Downtown Seattle Transit Project well into 1983, with Seattle members opposing the tunnel in favor of a transit mall and suburban members supporting a bus tunnel that would be converted to a light rail system connecting Seattle to Snohomish County proposed by the PSCOG." – This one is confusing too. I think the sentence would be more clear if split into two sentences, but even then I'm not sure what "proposed by the PSCOG" is modifying.
Moved the light rail proposal up to the last paragraph and slimmed this sentence down. Should be a bit clearer.
Construction
¶4 "were declared "nearly complete", with only minor work left to complete." – Rephrase slightly to avoid repeating "complete". Maybe "only minor work still undone".
Done.
¶4 "Tunnel construction was declared complete..." – Maybe substitute "finished" for "complete" here to further reduce the repetition of "complete" in this paragraph.
Done.
South African granite scandal
¶1 "Metro determined that replacing the 24,000 square feet (2,200 m2) of granite would cost $500,000 and delay both stations, but would not affect the overall budget or anticipated beginning of service in 1990." – If it cost a half-million dollars, how could it not affect the overall budget?
Most projects of this scale have contingency funds (or float) that cover unexpected circumstances. I'll try to fit that note in.
¶1 Was the granite removed? If so, where did it go?
The granite was never put into the stations, so no removal was necessary. As far as I can tell, from asking around Metro's archives department and asking people involved, no one really knows where the granite went.
Ah. I think it would be good to add that it had not been installed, if you have an RS for that. Since the quantity of granite is listed in the article as square footage, I assumed that was the total surface area of the installed benches and walls, which then had to be uninstalled, making everyone unhappy.
According to one of the news articles at the tail end of the scandal, the granite was never delivered and returned to the Italian supplier. Added that to the article. SounderBruce 23:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶2 "Metro Director Alan Gibbs confirmed that the granite was quarried in South Africa during a press conference on January 25, 1989, while preparing an investigative report for the Metro Council Transit Committee scheduled for February 2." – Maybe recast to avoid suggesting that the granite was quarried during a press conference?
@Finetooth: Thanks for the review! I think I've addressed all of your points. SounderBruce 04:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All looks fine with the possible exception of my remaining question about the granite scandal. It may be that there is no RS to answer this question and no RS to say when Bay B disappeared, but if you find sources, please add them. This is a fine article, and I'm switching to support on prose and comprehensiveness, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. It can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: The source review has been completed. I think this fulfills the last of the requirements. SounderBruce 01:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't hold up promotion over it but please check and rationalise where feasible the duplinks in the article; you can use this script to highlight -- it boxes the initial instances in green and the subsequent/duplicate instances in red. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This GA-rated article is about an American artist, actor, and occultist who was active in and around California in the period of the Beat Generation and the subsequent 60s counterculture. Cameron was a follower of the British occultist Aleister Crowley, the wife of the rocket scientist Jack Parsons, and a good friend of underground film-maker Kenneth Anger. She was involved in an array of sex magic rituals, experimented widely with hallucinogenic drugs, and made a wide range of apocalyptic predictions involving UFOs, comets, and Mexico conquering the US. The article is not particularly long but is (IMO) about a very interesting character, so if it tickles your fancy, please do give it a read and offer some comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, and those that are should
Good point. I have removed the one instance where this appears. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Crowley_unicursal_hexagram.svg is probably not simple enough not to qualify for copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport a fascinating read. Queries below: Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron briefly traveled to New York City to see a friend, there discovering that she was pregnant, and again decided to terminate the pregnancy - could write "have a termination" two avoid two pregnant/cies in one sentence. Also, change resulting in the termination of their friendship - as repetitive..."resulting in the demise/end of their friendship"
I have changed "termination of their friendship" into "end of their friendship". Saying "have a termination" may cause slight confusion for some readers as they may not be clear exactly what she was terminating; instead, I have gone with "decided to have an abortion". The use of that latter term makes it much clearer that it was the pregnancy that was being terminated while also ridding us of the overuse of the actual term "pregnancy". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron's reputation as an artist grew posthumously -> why not just write, "Cameron's reputation as an artist grew after her death" ?
I personally think "posthumously" works a little more smoothly (one word rather than three), but if you think that "after her death" will be more widely understood then I can certainly make the change, no problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just think using shorter plainer words (as long as no meaning is lost) is always good. You and I know what "posthumously" means but maybe some folks don't. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for he comment, Cas Liber - if there is anything else please don't hesitate to let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some copyedits throughout and added alt text to some of the images. Feel free to modify any changes I have made. I think the article could use a little more copyediting for clarity, but is very close. Hmlarson (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmlarson - given the further copyediting that has taken place, would you be willing to support this nomination at this stage? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting article about an unusual person. I have a fair number of suggestions about prose and style and a few questions or suggestions about other things. I made several minor copyediting changes as I went; please revert any you think are misguided.
General
The existing alt text for the images would not help someone depending on a screen reader that translates the text into sound. The image in the infobox has no alt text, and the other alts simply clone the caption text. Better would be something descriptive like "Half-length photo of a frowning man of about 30 with dark wavy hair, a moustache, and a neatly trimmed goatee" for the Jack Parsons' image. Could you spruce these up for readers who cannot see the images?
I've added alt-text to all of the images (the previous alt-text captions were just copies of the information included in the image descriptions - very odd). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
You could safely drop "U.S." from the "Died" entry.
I moved the quotation marks here, but you might prefer "elemental woman" here as well as in ¶1 of the Jack Parsons' section. Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Early life (1922–1945)
¶1 "She was their first child, followed by three further siblings..." – Delete "further" since "followed by" already says it?
¶1 "Relating that one of her childhood friends had committed suicide, she characterized herself as a rebellious child..." – These two ideas, suicide and rebellion" don't seem logically connected. Did Cameron blame herself for her friend's suicide? Even if so, how was that connected to Cameron's rebellious nature?
I've looked at the source and changed the prose accordingly: "Relating that one of her childhood friends had committed suicide and that she too had contemplated it, she characterized herself as a rebellious child,". Do you think that this now works smoothly or would you rather see the sentence cut into two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It now seems fine to me. Finetooth (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶1 "She enjoyed going to the cinema, and had sexual relationships with various men." – This implies that she had sex with them at the cinema. Is that what the source supports? Or does this simply mean that movies and sex were her two favorite things?
It just refers to the fact that these were activities that she took part in at the time. Do you think that there is a different wording that would make this meaning clearer? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just splitting them with a terminal period to make clear that they are not necessarily simultaneous. "She enjoyed going to the cinema. Another pursuit involved sex with a variety of men." Or something like that.Finetooth (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it further, I think it best to just cut the mention of the cinema altogether. It wasn't really adding anything. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶1 "After becoming pregnant, her mother performed... " – Her mother didn't become pregnant. Suggestion: recast as "After Cameron became pregnant, her mother performed...".
¶1 "experienced romantic relations" – Is this a euphemism for "had sex with"? If so, I'd use the more direct phrase.
I've trimmed this bit out. The information given in the book is very vague so I think it best to just be rid of this wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶2 "For reasons unknown to her, she received an honorable discharge from the military in 1945, traveling to Pasadena, California, where her family had relocated, with both her father and brothers securing work there at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)." – Too many clauses. Split"? Maybe "For reasons unknown to her, she received an honorable discharge from the military in 1945. To join her family, she traveled to Pasadena, California, where her father and brothers had found work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)."
Good idea. I've made the split.
Jack Parsons: 1946–1952
¶1 "had just finished a series of rituals utilizing... " – "Using" rather than "utilizing" on grounds that the former is more plain.
¶1 "spent the next two weeks in Parsons' bedroom together" – Not literally, I assume. They probably left the room for breakfast, for example. Maybe "much of the next two weeks"?
¶2 "It nevertheless became apparent... " – No need for "nevertheless".
¶3 "which was then demolished" – Why was it demolished? Is the fact relevant?
I think that it was just demolished for new development, but I do not think that it is particularly relevant to this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe just delete the phrase about demolition?Finetooth (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it worth retaining the mention of demolition (after all, there may be readers who decide to go and look for The Parsonage). However, I will add that it was demolished for redevelopment (which I checked was correct with the RS). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶4 "with Cameron attending the jazz clubs of Central Avenue..." – Replace the "with plus -ing" construction with "and Cameron attended..."?
The Children, Kenneth Anger, and Curtis Harrington: 1952–1968
¶1 "In the hope of communicating with Parsons' spirit, Cameron began performing blood rituals while in Mexico in which she cut her own wrist." – Slightly smoother might be " While in Mexico, in the hope of communicating with Parsons' spirit, Cameron began performing blood rituals in which she cut her own wrist."
Changed to "While in Mexico, Cameron began performing blood rituals in the hope of communicating with Parsons' spirit; during these, she cut her own wrists.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶1 Is anything more known about the suicide attempt? What did she try? How did it not succeed?
Unfortunately not. Consulting the reliable source cited, all it states us that "Cameron's heartache reached critical mass and she made another unsuccessful attempt at suicide in a derelict house in Altadena. Once she recovered...". I don't think that there's much more that we can include here, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The wrist-cutting in Mexico is self-injuring and perhaps suicidal. We have to assume that she took it one step further. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶3 "with she and her followers being rescued by a flying saucer that would take them to Mars" – Replace "with plus -ing" with "and that a flying saucer would rescue her and her followers and take them to Mars."?
¶7 "Having based herself in the Los Angeles area of Venice,[68] it was here that an exhibit of her artwork was held at a local arts shop in August 1961." – Is this Venice different from Venice, California? If not, maybe "After Cameron moved to Venice, California, a local arts shop exhibited her work there in 1961."?
"Venice, California" is a redirect that takes us to Venice, Los Angeles, so I think it best to stick with "Los Angeles" over "California". However, I liked the rest of the suggested wording, which I have implemented. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶7 "He then launched a poster campaign against his former friend, The Cameron File, in which he labelled Cameron "Typhoid Mary of the Occult World"." – Since his friend isn't The Cameron File, I'd recast this. Perhaps "He then launched a poster campaign, The Cameron File, against his former friend, labelling her "Typhoid Mary of the Occult World".
¶2 "The claims regarding a prehistoric matriarchal society devoted to a Goddess which were made in the writings of archaeologist Marija Gimbutas also interested and influenced her." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "She was also influenced by claims made in the writings of archaeologist Marija Gimbutas about a prehistoric matriarchal society devoted to a goddess."
That's all for the moment. Finetooth (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Finetooth. I've made most of the changes but for the remaining ones I want to consult the reliable sources first before making certain alterations. Hopefully I'll be able to do it tomorrow. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to support on prose, as noted above. Very interesting article, highly readable. Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to see this here. I suspect the scrutiny over sourcing has only served to improve the article.
"The Parsonage" or "the Parsonage"?
I've standardised the prose to "The", although do not think it matters particularly which we use, so long as we are consistent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"with Hubbard and his girlfriend Sara Northrup" Ambiguous; whose girlfriend?
I've changed this to "Hubbard and Hubbard's girlfriend". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It became apparent that Hubbard was a confidence trickster, who tried to flee with Parsons' money, resulting in the end of their friendship." I note, given Hubbard's history, that this is potentially a highly contentious claim. Would it be worth saying "x saw Hubbard as a confidence trickster" or something?
While I appreciate that Hubbard and his followers may take issue with this assessment, it is something that is backed in the Reliable Sources. Does anyone else have a view on this issue? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"of Sara with her legs severed below the knee" Northrup?
"By the mid-1980s, Cameron was focusing to a greater extent on her family life, particularly in looking after her grandchildren, who were known to go joyriding in her jeep." It seems a little odd to first mention the grandchildren here.
I see what you mean, but I do not think that their births are actually dealt with in the reliable sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the Neo-shamanic practices" Why the capital?
I understand that "Neo-shamanism" is often regarded as a religion, in which case a capital letter at the start is probably warranted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At what point in her life did she become open to Thelema? In the section on Parsons, we have "Although she still did not accept Thelema,", but by the later life section we have "she retained faith in the Thelemic ideas of Crowley".
I've added a bit about her embrace of Thelemic beliefs in the "coming to understand the purpose of his Babalon Working" sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"According to The Huffington Post" Why not credit author of the piece?
Ah, a spelling error. "Word" should be "work". Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very readable and engaging. If I was being very critical, I'd say that I wanted to hear a little more about her artwork. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that more information on her artwork would improve the article, but thus far these discussions just do not seem to be provided in the reliable sources. Hopefully further work on the subject will be forthcoming in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, many thanks for taking the time to read through this one Josh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a Google around for potential scholarly sources on Cameron's painting. I didn't find anything, but I did come across Contextual Practice, by Stephen Freman. From page 108: "Berman's friend, the artist and hermeticist Cameron (Marjorie Cameron Parsons Kimmel, 1922-1995), took peyote for the first time in 1954 after hearing Huxley speak. Her peyote session resulted in the "allegorical" drawing of sex between two keeling nudes that was responsible for Berman's arrest and the closing of his Ferrus Gallery exhibition." Sounds like there may be an interesting story there? (The story is even how the author opens the book; p. 1 recounts it.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
J Milburn: I've looked at the book. Unfortunately it does not go into any real depth on her work or life, but I've used it and the Kansa biography to add a few extra sentences on Semina and the exhibition which got shut down because of Cameron's Peyote Vision. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a pain, but... I know there's already been an image review, but I note that the trailer for Night Tide pretty clearly does not contain a copyright notice, so it will be PD in the United States. The film itself is apparently PD; my only guess is that this is because copyright was not renewed, but I don't know how to go about checking that. This means that we can't really justify a non-free image for the lead; we should use a screen capture instead. I can't reliably identify Cameron, but I think there are at least two close-ups of her face in the trailer (one in a veil, one with maniacal laughter), and likely many more in the full film if its PD status can be confirmed. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... the quality of the image is pretty low. Most of the face is shrouded in dark and it is difficult to identify her. To be honest, I do not think that it would be of the appropriate quality for the visual identification of the individual, as is required for the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's the possibility of another screen capture. I strongly suspect that this image is in the public domain, as I suspect that it was published as a publicity photo without a copyright notice. It'd be hard to prove, though. By the way, there are some valuable-looking sources listed here. In particular, this article by Peter Lunenfeld was in Artforum; perhaps a nice way to expand on coverage of Cameron's work in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several sentences from Lunenfeld, so thank you for bringing that source to my attention, Josh. I've also added citations from a number of the other sources listed in the Cameron-Parsons website that you link to. I'm still having some trouble with finding an image from Night Tide that can be used although I will keep looking. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks- I think those additions are great, and I think the article is very well-written and well-referenced. My one remaining worry is the use of the non-free image. I'm not going to oppose on that basis, but I am inclined to think that public domain images exist (though digging them up may be tricky), and so they should be used. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an alternative: I would not be opposed to the lead image being a non-free image if it is Cameron's self-portrait. I have seen this done to good effect on other articles about artists, as it means that the lead serves to identify both the person and their artwork. Given that you are already using Cameron's self-portrait, this could be a viable option. A screenshot (such as the one I have already uploaded) could then be used in the article body for the purposes of visual interest. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That could certainly work if her portraits were highly realistic, but in a case like this, where her works are a little bit more 'abstract' (if that's the right word), I'm not sure if it would. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt.
I have standardised the use of state names (by removing rather than adding them, if that is okay), and also by ensuring that the ISBNs are all formatted in the same way (with the dashes). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows a few spots where paraphrasing could be improved - I'll note that most of the issues are for titles/quotes, but there are a few spots that aren't.
I've copyedited a couple of minor points; please feel free to revert if you don't like the changes.
Between 1946 and 1952 I think a couple more fixed dates would help the reader keep track of events, if the sources can provide the dates. For example, "then moved to the coach house": I can't tell to within two or three years when this is.
I took a look at the sources, and although in some cases I was unable to find any dates, in two cases I was, and have added those into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"On his return to the U.S. from Europe, Anger moved in with Cameron for a time,[72] although in early 1964 the duo moved into a flat on Silverlake Boulevard until he departed for New York City": why "although"?
No real reason. "before" would work better, so have made the switch. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"closely impacted" - I think this is a bit vague. Perhaps "strongly affected" or "had a long-lasting impact on" or something like that?
"strongly affected" is a good option. I have made the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
-- That's everything I can see. The article is in very good shape and I expect to support when the above minor points are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: - many thanks for your comments. I have responded to all three, but if there is anything else then please do let me know. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment: J Milburn (unless I've missed anything this time!), how is this looking to you now? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would support but for the image issue, but I do not want to oppose over that, so I would rather remain "neutral". But for that one question mark, I think the article is excellent. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the actor/filmmaker Ben Affleck. It was listed as a Good Article in June 2017, and has been copy edited and peer reviewed since then. Popeye191 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did a detailed review at the PR; here are my edits. I was satisfied then and the article still seems in good order. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to do some copyediting Popeye191 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶1 "and later remarked, "I'm going to vote twice next time, in true Boston fashion." – Should this say "joked" rather than "remarked"? If taken straight, it might feed into the mistaken idea that voting twice is commonplace in the United States.
Religion
¶1 "In a 2003 interview, Affleck described himself as a "lapsed Protestant... " – Again I would recommend moving the linked term outside of the direct quotation. In this case, I think you could simply drop the quotation marks.
References
Most of the titles are in title case, but some like citations 96 and 97 are in sentence case. Making them all the same would be good.
Thanks, the first four points have been addressed and I'm looking at references now. Thanks for the suggestions Popeye191 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good. I'm happy to support, as noted above. I leave the title case – sentence case decision to you, but I'd opt for title case myself. Looks to me like most are already in title case. Finetooth (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, I've changed them all to title case now Popeye191 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better, though I confess that my suggestion was nit-picky and that fixing these dudes must have been a tedious chore. Finetooth (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, there hasn't been one yet. I've requested it at WT:FAC Popeye191 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A random Google search of four sentences revealed no problems.
Earwig's tool finds no real problems but flags this text, which must have been copied from Wikipedia to YouTube without acknowledgment.
Yes, I think so. The article's introduction has been gradually edited over years to get to the current draft.Popeye191 (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 48. What makes blogspot.com highly reliable?
If this reference needs to be removed, that's okay. The Boston Magazine ref also speaks to how the movie was based on their own experiences (but not as expansively). It's the blogspot of Tom Shone - he writes for The Times and uses the blog to share extra material he didn't have space to fit in printed articles. He links to the blog on his twitter profile and the Sunday Times regularly link to his twitter profile. This specific blog post was reported on by Indiewire - they linked to blogspot.com.Popeye191 (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. It can stay. Finetooth (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 147. Author's name should be last, first.
Spotcheck: I just realised that this will be the nominator's first FA if successful, unless I'm mistaken. In that case, we need a spot-check of sources for reliable use and close paraphrasing, above the Earwig check carried out above. Finetooth, any chance you could do this as well? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I might add that this is my first-ever formal source check for FAC, and I won't be insulted if someone else double-checks. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found reliable use and no close paraphrasing for these six citations chosen at random: 25, 51, 96, 163, 225, and 313. Finetooth (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 2 - we should have a secondary source that connects the birth record to the actor - how do we know that the "Benjamin G. Affleckbold" is the correct person? It is OR to assume that some primary record is the person without some other way to connect them than the same name.
I think we'd better be safe and not do something that might be construed as OR. If there is a ref that connects all the info, we're better using it than having two that aren't quite complete. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added the Brittanica referencePopeye191 (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was founded in 2011 and is a bi-monthly Dubai-based publication. The editorial director is also the Middle East correspondent for Women’s Wear Daily and a contributor to Bloomberg Television. Because this is an Asian publication, Affleck went into much more detail about his interest in Middle Eastern Affairs than in other interviews. Popeye191 (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://tomshone.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/how-good-will-hunting-got-its-ending.html a high quality reliable source? I saw your reply to Finetooth, but I'm not quite convinced that this is high quality - is the information not shared in the actual newspaper because there isn't space or is it rejected by his editors? I'd like to see something that shows that it's the former and not the second - and not from the writer. Do other writers pick up on what he puts on his blog and consider it reliable? Or do they ignore it?
Indiewire reported on the additional information contained in the blog post concerned and linked directly to the blog. However, I've replaced the source with a link to the published interview in The Times. Sorry - I've only just realised that the quote about how they drew from their experiences to write the screenplay is there too. Popeye191 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boston Common Magazine is a well-known Boston-area publication. The Boston Globe often runsstoriesbased on interviews in Boston Common. Entertainment outlets like E! News and the Huffington Post have also picked up their features.Popeye191 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 218 (Van Pileup) returns an invalid ISBN when searching at World Cat.
Coordinator query: Just a quick question of my own. Throughout the article, there are a selection of reviews of Affleck's performances. Given that there is no biography available, how have we chosen which quotes and reviews to include? I also wondered if there were any sources available that took a broader overview of his career, rather than just interviews publicising his films? (If there are not, that isn't a problem, I would just like to check we have exhausted every option.) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only included reviews from publications on Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics list - The New York Times, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, The Boston Globe, The New Yorker, New York Magazine, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, Time, Chicago Sun-Times and The Atlantic. When it came to deciding which quotes from the reviews to use, I initially included the quotes in full but, over time, I and others edited them to make the article flow better. I'd like to think that the reviews chosen are a balanced and accurate reflection of the reception to his performances.
Some of the articles included (Backstage, Playboy) look at his career in a broader context but unfortunately, like most actors, he only gives interviews when he has something new to promote. This article discusses the trajectory of his overall career and I think the sub-sections of the current article reflect those phases of his career. Popeye191 (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In an ideal world, I would have liked a secondary source to sift the reviews of his performances as there is no obvious way to know if the reviews here are representative. But if these sources do not exist, there is no way around this. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the most populous non-cultivated bird in the world. Newcomer Dwergenpaartje has done most of the heavy lifting in this one, but many folks of the bird wikiproject have had a look. It got a detailed going over at GAN and I think has buffed up quite nicely and is within striking distance of FA-hood. Have a go at it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are 8 images in the article, and all have proper description templates, and have no coyright issues. Also, they are well-relevant to the context.
There is some sandwiching of text in the description section, and it would be great if that could be removed. Also, the images do not have ALT text.
Why is there citations in the lead? I don't think that there needs to be any except after that quote in the next-to-last sentence.
You're right, though I don't think even that one is controversial enough to warrant a ref. removed refs in lead Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ref for the quote should probably be included since it is a quote. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be good to include the pronunciation in the lead.
didn't strike me as that odd a word to pronounce.. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least for me, it is. I had something like /kwɛlɪə/ going. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yeah me too...I'd not thought about any other way... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is interbreeding with the red-headed quelea included in the phylogeny section? Maybe put it in the section on reproduction and add some more details about how it affects clutch size, success rate, etc.
I have always put hybridization in taxonomy as it touches on the relationship with other species or a population with distinct characteristics. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I will do some more soon. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some more:
The last part of the sentence "The species is endemic to Sub-Saharan Africa and avoids forests, deserts and colder areas such as at high altitude and southern South Africa" doesn't seem to be right; maybe say "such as high altitudes and..." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the altitude isn't a place so needs some sort of preposition and article. Added "those". Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to have what family it is in in the first sentence, instead of in the middle of the first paragraph. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of saying "globular roofed nests" in the sentence "It constructs globular roofed nests woven from strips of grass hanging from thorny branches, sugar cane or reeds", maybe say "roofed, spherical nests"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
not sure about this one..."globular" implies a less exact roundness than "spherical" and hence strikes me as more appropriate word. Can you expand on why you think this change is good (am I missing something...?) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "globular" pretty much implies roofed, but some may be confused if we leave that out. Maybe say "spherical-like"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Readers might be a bit confused when you mention out of the blue that "In 1850, Ludwig Reichenbachthought the species was not a true bunting, but rather a weaver, and created the genus name Quelea, as well as the new combination Q. quelea". Maybe, after the citation to Linnaeus, say that it he placed in the bunting family? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A very worthy topic, and one that I am sad to say I know little about. Only have a few minutes right now, but I'll be back soon enough to finish up. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally not keen on referring to people by surname only at first mention; it strikes me as a little over-formal, and alienating to certain readers. YMMV. Also, why no link to Reichenbach in the lead? How about the countries mentioned?
"The usual pest control measures are spraying avicides or detonating fire-bombs in the enormous colonies during the night." Avicides is jargon- link? Also, wouldn't it be pest-control?
linked...was trying to think of an accurate plain English substitution but couldn't without getting really wordy.. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "a chemical bird control substance"? Do'nt like it too much for it is really wordy. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"When food runs out, the species migrates to locations where in recent weeks the rains have started and grass seed is plentiful and so exploits its food source very efficiently." Could this sentence perhaps be broken up?
"without giving the literature reference however." I would recommend "without, however, giving the literature reference", but more importantly, I'm not sure it is clear what is meant here.
I think it means that he didn't explain the name or bird...but then again he almost never does anyway. I removed it as no real meaning is lost. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The nominate" is this common? Would "The nominate subspecies" not be more standard?
slightly worried it is a tad repetitive but done Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Q. quelea intermedia is regarded a synonym of the nominate" Could we perhaps have a smidge more about this name?
added. Reichnow named it but a few years afterwards realised it was aethiopicaCas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The type was collected in the neighbouring Sennar province in today's Sudan." Of the subspecies, you mean? Probably no need to change if so. If you mean the type specimen for the species, the placement is a little odd.
yes. I used a run-on "and" and "its" to tighten the link Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The mask is surrounded by a varying area of yellow, rusty, pink, purple or (in case of a white mask sometimes) black. This coloring may only reach on the lower throat or extend along the belly," Could this be smoothed out a little?
"The male sings in short bursts, starting with some chatter, followed by a warbling tweedle-toodle-tweedle.[21]" Do females not sing?
not sure - have tried to search for any details on this. The guidebooks say the flocks give a chittering, but is unclear if they know that both sexes make the calls. So I have nothing conclusive to add... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The birds however avoids forests, including miombo woodlands, and rain forest such as in central Africa. It is also" Singular/plural
Done
"where it attacks crops, although it is suggested it prefers seeds of wild annual grasses" I think "attack" is a little strong, and is the passive voice necessary?
attack changed. tweaked it a little but hard to get out of passive entirely Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"When breeding, areas with thorny or spiny vegetation below 1,000 m (3,300 ft) elevation are selected, such as Acacia, and lowveld." I'm struggling with this.
We're given two lots of stats about birds caught "near N'Djamena"; I don't think we need both. Also, I feel the paragraph quickly loses track of the "three methods" structure that it sets out with.
I thought both facts were helpful and illustrative so I rejigged so they were flowed better. I am not sure how else to set out the three methods, but did add a comma and a "while" between methods two and three to try and delineate them Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Quelea guano is collected in Nigeria. Tourists like to watch the large flocks of queleas, such as during visits of the Kruger National Park. The birds themselves eat pest insects such as migratory locusts, and the moth species Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera exempta.[6]" This feels a little out of place. Also, perhaps you could specify the uses of guano?
added, though little other info available. Have split this into second para Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fear the "Aviculture" section is a bit how-to. A striking example: "Particularly during the breeding season living insects such as mealworms, spiders, or boiled shredded egg should be provided."
rejigged now..better? This is tricky to massage. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like the "illustrative images" section. You could consider using {{external media}} in the article body as an alternative.
We have a pic of nests in article, videos now in EL with template. Most photos don't add a huge deal so removed Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"When breeding, it selects areas with thorny or spiny vegetation below 1,000 m (3,300 ft) elevation, such as Acacia, and lowveld" I'm still struggling with this. To my mind, there's a category mistake in referring to a habitat and a genus as the same kind of thing. How about "When breeding, it selects areas with thorny or spiny vegetation below 1,000 m (3,300 ft) elevation. This can include lowveld or areas dense with Acacia." Or maybe I'm misunderstanding; what is Acacia?
There seems to be an inconsistency in the way you link to other taxa. For example, you have "weaver birds (Ploceus)" but "teff (Eragrostis tef)". Sometimes you don't provide an English name at all. Maybe I'm being too picky here, but it did jump out at me.
I try to do both names where possible as it prevents a sea of bluelinks in a list of organisms. The sorghum seems to lack any common name though... Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"They have also been observed" The they is (grammatically, anyway) ambiguous here.
I'm actually still struggling with the "three methods". Net, tree-climbing and traps? Actually, thinking aloud, I realise you don't actually specify the method used to take birds "from roosts in the trees during the moonless period".
Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
color, coloring, colored—the English-speaking counties in its range all use BE, but your spelling is inconsistent and regularly wanders into AE
I'm not a native speaker, but try to stick to BE, although I may not always be aware. I'll correct to colour, and any other irregularities that will catch my eye.
Over time, two other subspecies have been describe—"Formerly" is better
Done
However is overused
Avoided using it now in 3 out of 7.
kwelea domo-jekundu in Swahili—is this borrowed from English or vise versa?
It is described as small in the lead, but I think the actual size and weight should be given there.
done
"The male sings in short bursts" Presumably the female does not sing, and if so worth saying so.
Yes, it is likely she doesn't, but I haven't found a source that says so.
"Nest building usually commences four to nine weeks after the onset of the rains and a quantity of about 300 mm (12 in) has been exceeded." I checked the source on this as 300 mm seems high, and I could only find a statement that the quelea needs 300 to 800 mm annually, not before nest building. You give one reference for 6 citations to a 73 page thesis. This is far too long to cite the whole document. You need to cite each separately with page numbers so readers can check your source.
You are doubly correct. The amount does seem rather high and the reference did not cover that aspect of the statement. The source actually says under the heading "Early Warning Systems": They utilized knowledge that 60 mm of rain within a two week period would stimulate grass-seed germination, and hence the initiation of the early rains migration, and that only if a further 240 mm falls within the following six weeks will conditions allow breeding.
I have added the page numbers for the thesis for each citation - e.g. rainfall and breeding are mentioned on 2 separate pages but one refers to the other. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still cannot see any source to justify the statement. The thesis says "Annual rainfall of 300-800mm for successful breeding". This is not 300 mm before nest building commences. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My colleague added it, not me, but my interpretation was reading the above fact with (on p. 12) "From 4-9 weeks after the rain fall, sometimes very large colonies are formed..." (note the "the", presuming a certain amount). If this is too tenuous an assumption. I'll change it I changed it anyway. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Predators and parasites section. There is five lines on predators of quelea ending with the scorpion Cheloctonus jonesii. The reference for these lines only suggests the scorpion as a possible predator, and does not cover other predators. The next sentence regarding parasites has two refs, one a general description which covers most of the paragraph and the other about a rare example of turtles preying on quelea.
I think I've disentangled it now.
The final paragraph is confusing. It starts by saying attempts at control took place at the turn of the last century, and later in the 1950s and 1960s.
I've rearranged it a bit to avoid breaking the time line. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is interesting and well written, but the referencing is unsatisfatory. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The site is run by the Department of Biological Sciences of the University of Cape Town. As far as I have checked, all information is consistent with other sources, but not everything can be found elsewhere freely accessible on the web.
Current ref 2 "Quelea quelea" Handbook of the Birds of the World - any reason the Handbook part isn't in italics? And is it "Handbook of the Birds of the World" or "Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive" (as it's given in current ref 23)
The source is identical, no reason for avoiding italic, corrected
XC is a bird sound data base. It gets its material from crowed sourcing. Many birders contribute and also check on each others contributions. I think it is actually more reliable than many peer-reviewed science articles. In fact, by allowing media from wiki commons, we include illustrations much less reliable in almost every wikipedia article.
Generally user generated content is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it is a difficult issue. I was unable to answer a question on whether the female made calls with any other source. XC has many biologists contributing and vetting content. I will have a look on whether this has been discussed elsewhere Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The website says its content is taken from a book titled The Bird Almanac, by David M. Bird. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ouch. So they are basically copying the information and/or doing a copyright violation? Better to get the information from the original source. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed that - apart from the almanac (a tertiary source), the consensus appears to be 1.5 billion with no mention of larger figures. Hence I have removed the sentence Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations. I did not check the reliablity of the foreign language sources.
Coordinator comment: I think we are almost ready to promote here, but I'd just like to check if J Milburn has anything further to add, or if any of the reviewers have an opinion on Ealdgyth's unstruck sourcing queries? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to stand by my support! I don't think I have anything further to add. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed that support. I think I'm losing it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a (hopefully) less embarrassing note, did we find any other discussion of female calls? I tend to agree with Ealdgyth that the xeno-cato.org source does not look ideal as it is pure user-generated information. Biologists might vet and review, but so can other people, and there is no guarantee of quality there. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the answer is a frustrated "no". Many sources describe the calls and reading between the lines the assumption seems to be that both sexes make them...but no source says that. xeno-canto is the only on that does....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is worth holding up this review over, as it only concerns one sentence. Hopefully another source will turn up at some point. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Vultee Vengeance dive bomber is one of the most notorious lemons to have been operated by the Royal Australian Air Force. Ordered when the country faced the threat of Japanese invasion in early 1942, the aircraft didn't arrive in significant numbers until this threat had passed. While five RAAF squadrons were equipped with the type, their performance was mixed and the only significant deployment of Vengeances ended in embarrassment when they were ordered back to Australia after only six weeks to free up space at airstrips for more capable aircraft. Nevertheless, the history of the Vengeance's Australian service provides some interesting insights into the RAAF's successes and failures during World War II, as well as air combat over New Guinea during 1943 and 1944.
I developed this article as part of a series on aircraft operated by the Australian armed forces, with the previous articles covering some of the most successful types. It passed a GA review in April this year, and a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in June. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are also met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are 7 great images which are in public domain, have proper description templates, and are also relevant. No issues; good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the image review Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I reviewed this article at both GAN and Milhist ACR, and have reviewed all edits made since then. It has been significantly improved by the addition of material relating to the perceived performance of the aircraft and dive-bombing as a tactic in general, and is really comprehensive and an interesting read. Great job! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The USAAF was also rapidly expanding at this time, which limited the number and types of aircraft available to the country's allies. Suggest "its allies", as "the country" refers to Australia in the previous sentence.
While in Washington DC should be "While in Washington, DC," and why was he there anyway?
To represent Australia on the Pacific War Council and seek aircraft: added Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian Government eventually placed an order for 400 Vengeances. Were they acquired under Lend Lease?
I tried to clarify this one, but no source was clear. Several sources noted that the Vengeances were expensive to purchase (as noted towards the end of the article), so it seems not. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to Hasluck (p. 16), the first of 400 Vultee Vengeances were to be delivered in January 1942. So they must have been ordered in 1941. He later says that as a result of Evatt's mission, it was agreed to deliver 34 in 1943 (p. 214) Odgers says that 297 were on order in December 1941. (pp. 268, 484). The Wikipedia article says "a mixture of Lend Lease and diversions from the original British orders". (Shores. Christopher and Smith, Frank. "Diving Vengeance." Air Enthusiast Number Five, November 1977 – February 1978. Bromley, Kent, UK: Pilot Press, 1977. p. 31) Hawkeye7(talk) 21:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for this. It looks like the RAAF history I'd relied on here was totally wrong - from Googling the quote from Evatt in the paper, it appears that they got confused with a deal he struck in June 1943! ([7]). I'll do a bit more digging, and amend the text. There appear to be some useful-looking files on the NAA website which hopefully provide a clear cut date. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After a fair bit of digging (including the fortuitous availability of a book I was unable to consult earlier), I've been able to provide an overview of the procurement history. The Australian Government paid for most of the aircraft, with the remainder being provided under Lend Lease. Interestingly, this purchase replaced an earlier order for an aircraft type often described as being among the worst aircraft of World War II. Also interesting, multiple highly reliable sources (including the RAAF Museum and the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History) stated that the Vengeances were ordered in early 1942, which explains why I didn't think to check the earlier official history volumes which demonstrate otherwise. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! It makes a lot more sense now. Hawkeye7(talk) 04:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The US Fifth Air Force preferred to use fighter-bombers and light bombers to support ground troops in New Guinea. You might also mention that it had withdrawn its own A-24 Banshee dive bombers
The commander of the Allied Air Forces in the South West Pacific, Major General George Kenney, requested in late August 1943. Suggest linking South West Pacific Area at this point, and Kenney was a lieutenant general in August 1943.
USAAF units equipped with superior types were rapidly arriving in New Guinea during early 1944 The Fifth Air Force had six fighter groups during the war. The 8th, 35th and 49th arrived in New Guinea September-October 1942; the 348th and 475th in June-August 1943; and the 58th in October-December 1943. No new fighter groups arrived in New Guinea in 1944, although the 3rd Air Commando Group arrived in November 1944, and went straight to the Philippines.
I've added a bit more to clarify this - the main factor was the need to accommodate the USAAF fighter groups at forward airfields. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning the August 1944 crash? [8] It appears that someone has written a whole book on it, and there's a memorial plaque. [9] It doesn't seem to have been the only crash though [10][11][12]Hawkeye7(talk) 21:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not without being about to note how many of the type were lost in crashes, which no source states. The NAA has files for large numbers of crashes for this type (and one appears to list about 189 incidents involving casualties). Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The number of crashes seems large, but I have no point of comparison with other aircraft types. If you're thinking of taking a trip to the National Archives, A649 22/600/31 and 57 probably contain the purchase history. Hawkeye7(talk) 20:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Thanks very much for this review. I think that I've now actioned all of your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Support Looks good. I made one minor change. Hawkeye7(talk) 04:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recusing coord duties, I copyedited and supported at MilHist ACR but quite a bit has changed since then so I've gone through the whole article again rather than just checked diffs, copyediting as I went...
Generally happy with prose and structure, although there might be an argument for putting the last two paras in a separate Assessment section or something similar (not that fussed).
I was thinking about that as well on the weekend given that section covered two different topics - done. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as comprehensiveness goes, I don't think much is missing -- No. 75 Wing, which controlled No. 23 Squadron for a while, isn't mentioned, but you decide; there are also a couple of anecdotes related to the type's safety record that could be added here if you feel like it, a somewhat amusing one in No. 75 Wing's article, and a more serious one in John Lerew.
I've added those details on 23 Squadron. Unfortunately none of the sources discusses the Vengeance's overall safety record (beyond some hints that it wasn't very good, as noted above), and the anecdotes would lack context without this. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've nothing to add to Ealdgyth's source review but I think it would help if Nikkimaria ran her eye over the images since she highlighted in her recent review of RAAF area commands that some of the AWM works that have been in WP for a while might benefit from licensing refinements.
Well done as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your review and edits Ian Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that relies on the URAA tag should identify when the image was published. Alternatively, the PD-AustraliaGov tag on Commons can be used for images to which it applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki - I've replaced the tags with the PD-AustraliaGov one as all are official government photos from the Second World War which were transferred to the Australian War Memorial (as the archive for military records of this era) following the war. The work which went into gaining a position on crown copyright in Australia and adding the tag is fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This GA-rated article is about one of the most famous South Africans in modern history, a man who is probably the second most prominent icon of the anti-apartheid movement (after Nelson Mandela, whom I successfully brought through the FAC process earlier this year). The fortieth anniversary of Biko's death (killed in police custody) is coming up on 12 September 2017 and it would be really good if we could get this to FA status well before then so that it can be listed as the TFA on that date. With that in mind it would be fantastic if we could have some comments from other editors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This text is a simple commandment or warning; there is no reason (that I can determine) for it to be in copyright. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There were a large range of variations on this theme. It does not seem likely that they would have been copyrighted at the time, or that anyone would be likely to claim copyright now or in the future. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 11:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Fist.svg: Use seems fine, source information is missing however.
The upload date at Wikipedia predates the external website, suggesting that the other website took the image from Wikimedia/Wikipedia rather than vice versa. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it further, so am I. South Africa still has a law dating from the 1970s banning any freedom of panorama for public artworks. That means that this sculpture, and any photographic representations of it, are restricted under copyright. I've removed the image from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about more chronology, like letting the parents get married before having children? Could be called background, if needed.
Preferably I'd like to avoid the creation of a new "Background" section. Here I have followed the example that I have found successful with political biography articles like Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin by adding a little bit of family background into the 'early life'. I'm open to moving the sentence about his siblings, but am unsure where to position it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Xhosa, Afrikaans, and English were all spoken", - can you turn it around, for people who don't know that Xhosa is a language?
I would personally rather see Xhosa mentioned first given that Biko was from a Xhosa family. What does Vanamonde93 think? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree: Xhosa being Biko's native tongue, leading with that makes sense to me. Vanamonde (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything we can do about "The township housed both Bantu African and Coloured individuals, and Xhosa, Afrikaans, and English were all spoken." - I understand that "individual" sometimes is understood as a negative way to speak about a person, and don't like passive voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "individuals" to "people"; and I've changed the structure of the sentence to the following; "Both Bantu African and Coloured people lived in the township, where Xhosa, Afrikaans, and English were all spoken". How does that work? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"His family were Christians,[5] and he was brought up as an adherent of the Anglican denomination of Christianity." Sounds complicated. I'd say: "His family were Anglican Christians.
"Alice's family was forced to live on the limited income that she earned." I'd say: "The family was forced to live on the limited income that Alice earned."
I believe that "Black is beautiful" is lead material.
I'm certainly open to this possibility but am not quite sure where to position it. The third paragraph is likely the most appropriate place, but it is eight sentences long already and if we add anything I think we need to remove something else. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a shot, by moving some other stuff as well. The third paragraph is a bit long, but now at least BC ideology is all within one paragraph. Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adjusting, all but one fixed. It may take more time until I can read more, please be patient. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Black People's ...
Image caption: "Donald Woods, who wrote a book about Biko after the latter's death", - I think we can safely say "after his death" because Wood could hardly do it after his own?
I wonder if that is a neutral header. In German, it has negative connotations, while Ideas sounds positive.
The term "ideology" does not have the same negative connotations in English (I once heard someone say that "ideology" has negative connotations in German because of the term's association with Nazism and Marxism-Leninism; I wonder if that is true...). I really do not think that "Ideas" would work. "Political thought" might be an alternative, but generally I think that "Ideology" is best; we use "Political ideology" in the FA-rated Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Learning. In German, it means something extreme, which is often intolerant of any other view/idea/philosophy/concept. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In English, "ideology" applies as equally to liberalism or conservatism as it does to more extreme world-views like Nazism. Perhaps that has something to do with the greater political stability that Britain has experienced in the past century or two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"... and forms of Christianity, with black theology being described as Black Consciousness' "twin movement"." - Sorry, I don't understand it. Perhaps a bit more about black theology?
I've gone with this, how does this work: "Other movements that have been cited as influences on Black Consciousness include the United States-based Black Power movement and forms of Christianity; one form of Christianity, black theology, has been described as Black Consciousness' "twin movement".". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Makes me happy but for the repetition of the very general "forms of Christianity". Church? Ideas? Suggestion: "The Christian black theology ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've restructured this whole sentence as the following: "Additional influences on Black Consciousness were the United States-based Black Power movement, and forms of Christianity like the activist-oriented black theology.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"When he met Biko for the first time, Woods expressed his concern" - after a while of talking about Biko, the reader doesn't get that this "he" is someone else.
I've moved this sentence to the "The Black People's Convention and Biko's Banning: 1971–77" section, where the wording should not be a problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly: "Because they contained white individuals in dominant positions of control, Biko and his comrades regarded ..." - it's too late that we know who "they" means here, ... followed a bit later by a "he" that is not not clear.
I've restructured this sentence as follows: "Biko and his comrades regarded multi-racial anti-apartheid groups as unwittingly replicating the structure of apartheid because they contained white individuals in dominant positions of control." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"One of the ways that Biko and the Black Consciousness sought to achieve this was through community development." - not clear what "this" means here.
Replaced "this" to "psychological empowerment". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also
I don't care much about (any) see also section, - mixed topics. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the further reading section should not be listed as a component of "References". It's slightly misleading and might be better if given its own section. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indy beetle, that's a fair point, which I have addressed now. Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indy beetle thanks for your comment. Did you have any other comments, and if not would you consider offering your support for this nomination? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Honestly I only made the comment as sort of a "drive-by" thing but this article deserves to be the best of the best so I'll make a few more. Prose only, really, as I have very limited technical knowledge in this area:
In the third paragraph in the lead it says, "The government was concerned by the movement". Generally, one is concerned about something, not by something. Perhaps a word like "disturbed" would be better?
I've replaced "by" with "about". Personally I think "concerned" works better with "disturbed", which I find might be a little strong. Certainly open to other possible alternatives though. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this one up to you and the other reviewers, but I find "crèche" to be a rather obscure word for the lead. Would "healthcare facility and day care centre" not be a suitable alternative for that sentence?
When I see "day care" I immediately think of the United States. I'm not really sure if it is a term that has a great deal of acceptance outside of that country. The common British term would for instance be "nursery"; I do not know what the usual term in South Africa is, but the RS cited uses "crèche". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the early life section it says "He later noted that after this experience, he "began to develop an attitude which was much more directed at authority than at anything else. [He] hated authority like hell."" If Biko's word really were "I began to develop an attitude which was much more directed at authority than at anything else. I hated authority like hell." if might be best to use the "I"s instead of the "he"s for better flow. When it says "He later noted that after this experience," it implies that he would be talking, and people generally speak in the first person about themselves. Hope this makes sense.
I get what you mean. I have reformulated the sentence so that "I" is now used in the appropriate junctures rather than "[he]". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the Developing SASO section it says "Biko stood down from the presidency after a year". Shouldn't this say "stepped down"?
In the Response to death and investigation section it says, "Biko's death attracted far more attention worldwide than he had during his lifetime." I see what this means here, but perhaps it could be revised to say "Biko's death attracted far more attention worldwide than he had himself during his lifetime" or "In death, Biko attracted far more attention worldwide than he had during his lifetime." Once again I'll leave this up to you and the other reviewers.
I have made some amendments on the basis of your suggestions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remaining issues are: can a few more sentences be added about his death, and can the nominators clarify the issue of his first and middle names? Lots of sources call him Stephen Bantu Biko.SarahSV(talk) 06:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SV. I am okay with your copyedits, but I would like MBO to look at them before moving on. I will investigate the issue of names. More content on Biko's death may also have to wait for MBO's sources, though I will take a look at that too. Vanamonde (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be that there is not a single 'correct' way of arranging his name, and that he used both during his lifetime. Truth be told, I just don't know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Slim. I've removed the recently added Mandela quote from the lede as I was not really sure if it was appropriate at that juncture. In part, Mandela's comments on Biko may have been part of unifying different black factions in post-apartheid South Africa, and thus may have been a form of propaganda or something like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MBO, SlimVirgin, and John: While I have no problems with any of your individual edits/suggestions for the last paragraph of the lead, the end result is that to me the paragraph as a whole look very short and insubstantial, almost like it has been tacked on to include material we were not able to fit elsewhere. I think we need to beef it up a little. I think a quote is one option; a statement about his political importance is another; a statement about his status as the first anti-apartheid activist known internationally is a third. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the version of the final lead paragraph that I've preferred so far. We need the introductory sentence to lead into the criticism. And I liked the Mandela quote that Vanamonde93 added. I'm not sure I understood the point about it being propaganda; it seems to be true from any perspective. But if not that, then something else that signifies his importance. SarahSV(talk) 05:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that we need the "During his lifetime Biko attracted criticism from various fronts" wording to introduce the fourth paragraph. However, I feel that the Mandela quote does not come across as particularly 'Wikipedia-esque' when placed at this juncture. It reads like the sort of thing that we would find in a press article rather than an encyclopaedia. A Mandela quote has been selected because Mandela is a 'big name' but the quote in question was produced at a point in time when Mandela was trying to unify various black political factions in the post-apartheid era. He was thus trying to quell rivalry between his ANC and the Black Consciousness movement and his quote must be seen in this context. For this reason I am really unconvinced as to whether it can be regarded lede material; however, I am not totally and utterly opposed to the use of the quote and if everyone else disagrees with me on this point then I will go along with the majority decision. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl, if you're not keen on that quote, that's fine by me. Are you or Vanamonde93 willing to add a bit more about the death? There are currently only two sentences in the death section on what is thought to have happened in the hospital (third paragraph): "On 11 September, police loaded him into the back of a Land Rover, naked and manacled, and drove him 740 miles (1,190 km) to the hospital.[140] There, Biko died alone in a cell on 12 September 1977." SarahSV(talk) 01:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has to be the quote, but I do think the last lede paragraph needs something more. If you folks are not too particular about what that could be, I will try to add something later today or tomorrow (busy elsewhere on Wikipedia and in RL...). Vanamonde (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin and Midnightblueowl: I've pondered this some more, and I think one possible solution would be to break the third paragraph, and combine Biko's death into the fourth. Another option would be to add a sentence about the continued relevance of his thought. The only other alternative I'm seeing is the Mandela quote, which MBO has expressed reservations about, because the other good quotes have either been removed, or are redundant with what we have. Vanamonde (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like the idea of moving the death into the fourth paragraph to be honest (in fact I'd rather the Mandela quote!). I think it might be worth mentioning that he has been the subject of various songs and artworks, that various places are named after him, and that political parties have argued over the ownership of his legacy. That would all fit well with the general 'reception and legacy' theme of that fourth paragraph. How does that sound, Vanamonde? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: I've gone with something similar; mentioning those various aspects is a good idea, as individually they would be out of place, perhaps. Since we're mentioning books and artwork I also moved the book and film, which fits better there, IMO. Take a look; if you don't like it, we can work it out. Also, a general question; ordinarily, I think we'd want three or four detailed reviews at FAC, but I'm wondering if we need another for this one, given the importance of the subject, and the contentiousness of some of the material; I had six reviewers for starship troopers, and that was definitely a good thing...Given the level of support it has, we wouldn't be wrong in asking the TFA coordinators to reserve 12 September even while this is here. Vanamonde (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I enquired about reserving the date from a TFA coordinator a few weeks ago; they suggested that I get the article passed as an FA before they would consider it. Generally, I'm happy with the number of reviews that this article has received; certainly it has had enough to pass as an FA. Additional reviews are always useful, but given that time if breathing down our neck on this one, I think it best to get this thing wrapped up as soon as we can. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and support this because it needs time to be promoted and make its way through the TFA process for 12 September. I would like to see more added about his death, but overall it's excellent work. SarahSV(talk) 02:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What a super article! I've read it twice and read through this review. I am minded to support, but I may have comments subsequent to the minor copyedits I performed. Great work. --John (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I now support. The article isn't perfect but think it is good enough. --John (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Thanks for the support. Since you mention it, what do you think it would need to be perfect? Vanamonde (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. I reduced the over-use of "although" here, and I feel there may be one or two other tweaks which would bring the prose quality to fully-brilliant level. --John (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: This looks good to go. I've fixed the references to put multiple refs in numerical order, and it might be worth someone taking a look at duplinks to check they are all necessary (I've removed one where the duplinks were close together in the text) but this isn't worth holding things up over. This has had a particularly good, in-depth review and there is an obvious consensus to promote but if John can see tweaks, I'm hoping he will do his polishing before TFA day! Sarastro1 (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
We have improved this article to the point where we invite others to let us know (hopefully) about any last fixes before it gets a shiny star. I feel it is the equal of some other bird FAs so have at it.. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last part of the sentence "This is because of the wide range, big population and low rate of decline, which are well beyond the threshold to consider them as vulnerable" makes them sound as if they are well below the threshold for being vulnerable. Maybe instead of saying "beyond", say "above"? Or reword it entirely so you don't have that confusion.
What are you trying to convey about the bare skin around this bird's eyes? "The black stork has brown iris, and the bare skin around its eyes."
Oops. Nothing about the bare skin, but just that it surrounds the eye. Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which bird has the traits noted to differ in the sentence "Mostly similar to the Adbim's stork in appearance, it differs by having bright red bill, legs and feet, and black rump and lower back"?
The first part of the sentence "The juvenile resembles the adult in plumage pattern, but the areas corresponding to the adult black feathers are browner and less glossy" might confuse some non-birders, as they might think that "plumage pattern" is a type of moult or something. Maybe just say plumage?
That is all for now. More will come later. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last part of the sentence "The female lays two to five white shelled eggs having greyish hue" is confusing. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But how can a white shell have a greyish hue? That is a contradiction. Maybe say "The female [actually, that should be reworded too, as both sexes incubate the eggs] lays two to five greyish eggs." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "It was moved to the new genus Ciconia by French zoologist Mathurin Jacques Brisson two years later" is a bit confusing, since it was originally assigned to the genus Ciconia, thus meaning that genus is not new. Maybe say "It was moved back to the genus Ciconia, which had just been formally established, by French zoologist [name] in [year]"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it needs to be made clear that Francis Willughby wasn't formally describing it - his name was not a Linnaean binomial since he predated Linnaeus (so it was never assigned to Ciconia until Brisson did). Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 19:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, have been scratching my head over this bit. The Willughby material is fascinating as it shows that many of the binomial names used by Linnaeus had been in use 100 years earlier, though Linnaeus obviously marks the start of Linnaean taxonomy. I need to think how to note this.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A footnote? The pre-Linnean history of biological nomenclature is somewhat tangential to the subject at hand. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 05:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this sentence, "black stork" needs to be singular: "Black storks host more than 12 species of helminth, with Cathaemasia hians and Dicheilonema ciconiae reported to be the most dominant." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence "Juvenile black storks host fewer helminth species overall, but carry higher parasite loads than adults do", "black stork" needs to be singular and the last part needs to be reworded. Maybe "The juvenile black stork, although having a less diverse helminth population, is parasitized more frequently than the adult." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Just don't count my review, because I don't know if it is thorough at this point, and I don't really want to spend the time to do so. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
large wading bird waders (which is linked to) typically means sandpipers, plovers and the like, not storks, herons and ibises and the like. It's slightly different in the US but this is supposed to be UK English right?
Agreed and delinked. I have left as "bird". I could call it Water bird but is a bit of a silly link. I don't know of a common name for Aequornithes, which might be another possibilityCas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of overlinking in the lead
Removed some more major geographical regions, but left the ones which may not be known to few readers (like the straight of gibraltar, etc.).Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To a layperson it may be weird that conservation actions are being taken for a species not at risk. Rather than listing conventions that protect them, perhaps discuss localised declines and then provide global context of their status?
hopefully the moved material on local declines will help with flowCas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the lead is still an issue (and this comment was about the lead, sorry should have been more clear. The structure of the last paragraph is "not threatened IUCN/treaties protecting the species/conservation \actions underway". It should be "local declines/global context and IUCN status/ conservation actions" Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 19:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence and rejigged it slightlyCas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
English naturalist Francis Willughby wrote about the white stork in the 17th century, having seen one in Frankfurt, naming it Ciconia nigra Is this in the right article?
The information in distribution about declines might be better in conservation?
Right, I have moved some material on declines to conservation. There is some more entwined but is hard to unravel.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a Old World species in American English in places (Behavior)?
good point, gonna UKize it think all UKized now...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A wary species, it avoids human contact and forms small flocks especially during winter. Is a bit of a non sequitur.
In feeding, why does the article suddenly start throwing in binomials after common names?
It is a good point, but in other bird FAs like white stork, such binomials are mentioned after the common names, too. However, if you think that it should be removed, I would remove it.Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a consistency thing. Do it consistently or don't do it consistently. Personally, I would only use a scientific name if there is some ambiguity in the common name. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 03:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added rather than subtracted. It helps avoid a sea of bluelinks.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the whole section adds nothing. It flees in the presence of large predators? That's pretty much the rule isn't it? Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 22:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I read it initially, it was the contrast between the storks following large ruminants but scared of dogs. But yes, I take your point that most animals can distinguish between herbivores and carnivores...so removed itCas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
which had large side branches that allowed it to build the nest away from the trunk as well as black pine, (Pinus nigra) and to a lesser extent oak I think a comma is in the wrong place (it should be after trunk, not pine)
Considering the rarity of infanticide in this species has it been given undue weight in the lead? Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 19:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly smaller than the white stork, the black stork is a large bird, why does this start with a comparison to the white stork?
the former is more familiar...but agree not essential so removedCas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like all storks, it has long legs, a long neck and a long, straight, pointed beak. I don't think all storks have straight bills (check out the [[openbill]s.
It may be confused with the juvenile yellow-billed stork, really?
this is mentioned in Cramp (1977) under both species, though under the black stork entry it concedes the resemblance is "slight". OTOH, many folks are not that familiar with juvenile plumage so can argue might be better to leave in...I did tweak it a little to get a sense of that.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The black stork walks slowly and steadily on the ground. Like all storks, it flies with its neck outstretched. Why is this on the paragraph about juveniles?
Distribution and habitat - first paragraph lays out the European distribution of the summering birds - and nothing about its Asian summer distribution (except a line about Korea further down). This whole section needs work on weight (undue focus on extralimital distribution) and structure. Migration section heavily weighted towards Europe too.
have begun reorganising it. Unfortunately appears to have been much more studied in Europe than Asia...but I think there is some Asian material I can add. looking now..got some Asian material in but it's been a hard slog...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The black stork mainly eats fish, although it may feed on amphibians, insects, small reptiles, snails, crabs, mammals and birds.[39] Its insect diet primarily includes water beetles and their larvae, and earthworms.[40][41] It also forages on newts, shrews, small rodents and molluscs. Structure issues here. Earthworms aren't insects, and then the last sentence is basically repeating the first with a bit more detail but no clear logic.
Can anything be said about the significance of the statement also forages with both wings raised in an open canopy. Maybe linking it to the sentence on the following paragraph It has been observed shading the water with its wings while hunting.
removed - taken as a misunderstanding as I thought it meant canopy (foliage) but it just means its wings as shade...like what the other sentence already says.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead you talk about deciduous and evergreen trees for nesting but in the article you use deciduous and coniferous - coniferous and evergreen overlap but are not synonyms
changed to conifer in lead - as references are using it in this wayCas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The listing of the nesting sites in the lead gives them equal weight but the article makes it clear that trees and particularly deciduous trees are favoured.
Lead has some focus/weight issues - lots of info on conservation and migration, but a single short sentence on eggs, incubation, chick rearing and parental care. Nothing on taxonomy
It winters into the Indian subcontinent, particularly India where it ranges from Punjab south to Karnataka,[26] and Africa.[16] It is an occasional visitor to Sri Lanka,[27] and was first recorded in western Myanmar in 1998 Weight, again. The first paragraph of this section (distribution and habitat) goes into extreme depth, country by country, sometimes providing population estimates for countries (like Spain and Portugal). And then the entire wintering range of the western Eurasian population is two words and Africa. I think structurally this has been let down by breaking the migration section into its own subsection.
I have moved the wintering areas into D&H, leaving material on routes in migration section only. Have rejigged it but is tricky as there is little information from China. Still, will see what else I can do, including adding winter habitat mentioned belowCas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, I see no information about the wintering habitat in southern Asia and Africa. According to the HB, while they avoid open habitats while breeding flocks of passage and wintering birds may be encountered in open marshland and often frequent ricefields
added some info from India and southern Africa.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The eggs are usually laid in late April I would take out the chronology of breeding from the description of breeding and have it as a separate section, which would allow you to be more specific about where those dates apply too (I suspect it varies, particularly the African population).
I moved it to first para of breeding, where African breeding dates are mentioned.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Away from human disturbance, the black stork prefers to construct its nest in forest trees with large canopies where the nest can be built far from the main trunk. Does that mean that close to human disturbance they build their nests somewhere else?
I still think you need to restructure the status section of the intro (per my comments above) Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 20:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Improved. I removed extraneous information and retained the agreements the black stork is covered under, in the lead.Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay getting close:
A shy and wary species, unlike the closely related white stork, the black stork is seen singly or in pairs, I would shift the "unlike" to before the shy and wary, or break this sentence into two as it covers behavioural (temperament) and ecological (habitat) information, the linkages between are distinct enough to warrant separate sentences.
Both in the lead and the main body of the text the prose has a gloomier take on the status of the species than the IUCN does! Examples:
lead and appears to be declining in many parts of its range. IUCN The overall population trend is uncertain, as some populations are decreasing, while others are increasing, stable or have unknown trends
tried aligning them by adding uncertainty to lead and removing "many".Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the main body of the text Black stork numbers have declined for many years in western Europe, and the species has already been extirpated from Scandinavia.[17] ... Its habitat is changing rapidly in much of eastern Europe and Asia IUCN in contrast The European population is estimated to be increasing (BirdLife International 2015).
However, the state of the population overall is not known which directly quotes the iucn, however the IUCN says uncertain. Data deficient would be unknown.
though increasing in others such as the Iberian Peninsula in the lead but not the main text. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 05:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it is, it's just in the Distribution and habitat section...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a tendency to dwell on regional threats and declines in widespread species but the overall context should not be lost. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk
It's very hard to balance. Err, increases are in D&H and not sure about repeating..so I added most notable ups and downs to lead.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The IUCN Red List has two references for some reason, 1 and 42. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 22:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick read through, I'll look again later. In lead, "winter rather than summer." needs northern/southern to avoid ambiguity. Also some multiple refs are not in numerical order. I made a couple of minor tweaks as I read. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only one to add; The black stork nests solitarily, which are usually at least 1 km (0.6 mi) apart... uses nests as a noun and a verb simultaneously, perhaps The black stork's solitary nests are usually at least 1 km (0.6 mi) apart.... Changing to support anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Current citation 16 "MacKinnon" has OUP as an abbreviation - we don't generally use these sorts of abbreviations (and later with footnote 19, you don't use it there) Ref 27 also has OUP
I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows some flags that need to be checked out. The first "source" appears to be copying from Wikipedia, but the second (YouTube) doesn't have any disclaimer... it's quite likely they cribbed from Wikipedia also, but it should be checked out.
I'll leave the one bit out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - seems this already looks to be getting three positive reviews, I'll give an image review to get things going. FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This map could need a description template on Commons:[15]
I think you should show the juvenile, since we do have photos of it:[17][18] This one[19] shows both the nest and the juveniles well, so it could perhaps be used in place of the current nest image, to save space.
I might move mention of its range a bit higher in the opening paragraph. My first reaction was "where does it live" and (disregarding infobox) I felt I had to dig a little to far down for that.
Similarly, the info about Linneus's description of it: must it be as high as the second sentence? It seems relatively unimportant to the grand scheme of things. A solution might be to switch the present second and fourth sentences.
Moved the third and fourth paragraphs to the second and third paragraphs. Does it look good?Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Various conservation measures have been taken for the black storks, like the Conservation Action Plan for African black storks by Wetlands International." I might cut the word "the"
Instead, for consistency, tweaked it to "the black storks".Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" Fossil remains have been recovered from Miocene beds Rusinga and Maboko Islands in Kenya," Should there be an "on" after "beds"? I thought the name of the beds might be what you said, but the links are to the islands.
" It could possibly be confused with the juvenile yellow-billed stork, but the latter has paler wings and mantle, longer bill and white under the wings." I might put an "a" before longer.
" and the Levant" might "Middle East" be better than Levant? You mention Sinai, and I'm not sure "Levant" is totally current.
Ok here's the thing - "Levant" is a specific area that is more western part of ME along Mediterranean coastline. I could say - "western Middle East" I guess.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'd let it stand, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" Black storks summering in western Asia, migrate to northern and northeastern India" I might cut the comma
" Black storks summering in western Asia, migrate to northern and northeastern India,[17] ranging mainly from Punjab south to Karnataka,[24] and Africa.[16] It is an occasional visitor to Sri Lanka." there's something of a tendency to switch from the singular to the plural and back again that you may want to watch in this article.
"southern China, although occasionally further south, in Myanmar, northern Thailand, Hong Kong and Laos." I'm not sure Hong Kong is south of Southern China.
"Similarly it has been seen in the summer in Afghanistan, but is unknown if it breeds there. [17]" I think you need a "it" before ""is unknown". There is a vagrant space before the footnote.
"A broad-winged soaring bird, the black stork is assisted by thermals of hot air for long distance flight, although are less dependent on them than the white stork.[32][33]" There might need to be an "is" before "white". There's also a grammar problem, again singular/plural
I think you mean "is" before "the white stork", to make "is the white stork"? If so, I fixed that.Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"and many black storks travel south going through the Bosphorus,[33][17] " I might cut "going", also the refs are not in numerical order. Though I suspect you are doing more important first.
Removed "going". Also, I think now the refs throughout the article are in numerical order .Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The trip is around 5,667 km (3,521 mi) via the western route and 7,000 km (4,300 mi) via the eastern route, with satellite tracking yielding an average travel time of 37 and 80 days respectively[23] The western route goes over the Rock of Gibraltar of over the Bay of Gibraltar, generally on a southwesterly track that takes them to the central part of the Straight, from where they reach Morocco.[35][34] Missing full stop, and I think you mean "strait" not "Straight".
"The western route goes over the Rock of Gibraltar of over the Bay of Gibraltar, generally on a southwesterly track that takes them to the central part of the straight," It's a strait, not a straight, was what I was trying to say :) and I think you mean "or", not "of"--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Woops again! :P You said right; I read wrong earlier. Fixed it now.Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"which might be due to the frequent flapping flights " I'm not sure what is meant by this.
I didn't write that but it relates to the fact that black storks are not as heavily reliant on gliding (which requires thermals and is better done on land) as white storks, ad hence some fly across the Mediterranean to Tunisia. It was not worded well. But as the explanation occurs up the paragraph I have removed the second mention.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Pesticide use has threatened birdlife in Doñana.[37]" In the park? If outside I might toss a "nearby" in.
"A wary species, the black stork avoids contact with people.[16] It is generally found alone or in pairs, or in flocks of up to a 100 birds when migrating,[38] or over winter.[16]" Possibly better to substitute "hundred" for "100" here.
"Adults will do so when angered or as part of mating ritual. The young clatter their bills when aroused.[39]" the "aroused" might be interpreted as "sexually" given the "mating ritual" so close by.
..except that they are young that do not mate...but I see your point. Unfortunately I can't think of a tidy synonym so best I can do is swap the mating and anger in the previous sentence to distance it a little more.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Here a stork positions its body horizontally and quickly bobs its head up from down-facing to around 30 degrees above horizontal and back again, and displaying the white segments of its plumage prominently, and this is repeated several times. " I might say "while displaying" rather than "and displaying"
Tweaked.
"It may feed on amphibians, small reptiles, crabs, mammals and birds, and invertebrates such as snails,[1] molluscs,[43][42] earthworms, and insects such as water beetles and their larvae.[43][42]" I might try to avoid the multiple "such as".
"The storks chose the largest trees in an area, generally on steeper ground and near streams. Trees chosen were on average over 90 years old.[45] In the Iberian peninsula it nests in pine and cork oak" an example of the switch from plural to singular.
Tweaked.
", the black stork may occupy ... and commonly reuse them in successive years." Should this be "reuses"?
"The young start flying by the end of July.[43] Fledging takes 60 to 71 days," As you've mentioned hatching at the end of May, is there a slight amount of redundancy here?
Hmm...I think the extra highlighting of a time of year is not a bad thing...sometimes these things don't awalys follow.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to say why they are hunted. Meat? Eggs?
The impression I get is it is for sport, but the source doesn't spell it out. I guess it's like duck shooting. they sometimes eat them but often not...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have. I can't say I'm familiar with the bird, but I shall look out or it henceforth.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you guys ping me when the article's ready for another look? Much obliged.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would ping you once your comments have been addressed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
O-kay @Wehwalt: we've at least tried to answer every point as of now..so we're ready for another lookover.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks to be as you said. Only suggestion on second look is an awful lot of paragraphs begin with "The black stork", if you can find ways to mix it up a bit, it might be good, but that's really stylistic.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is no more need to ping you. :P Lighting speed by Cas, as always! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I might ordinarily have reviewed, but if you'd rather I didn't do a full review either because all three of us are Wikicup participants, or because this has received enough scrutiny already, let me know. It would take me a few days to get to it in any case. Vanamonde (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not fussed either way really. I don't think the wikicup is an issue, just see if it is still around when you're going to review it and if it's still here its still here and if not then not. I'll be grateful for all inputCas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the Beringian wolf (Canis lupus), an extinct type of wolf that lived during the Ice Age. It inhabited what is now modern-day eastern Alaska, the Yukon, and northern Wyoming but is morphologically and genetically different to the wolves that inhabit North America today. It existed at the same time as the more famous dire wolf that lived south of the glaciers. The Beringian wolf article has recently achieved GA listing and has been reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors. Please enjoy. William Harris •(talk) • 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see this finally up. I will add comments as I read along, so I might take some time to finish. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for initiating the comments. This page is not transcluding to the Talk:Beringian wolf page for some reason.
That is only supposed to happen automatically with GANs. It can be done manually for FACs, though. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, from reading the intro and skimming the article, I'm not really sure whether anyone is proposing this is a distinct taxon or not? Could we get a clearer statement on this in the intro?
Addressed; no subspecies classification has been applied. The wolves are similar in morphology to C. l. spelaeus (cave wolf) in Western Europe and C. l. brevis in Eastern Europe. Baryshnikov 2009 proposes that spelaeus and brevis may be the same species, and there are similarities with the Beringian wolf. Until further work is done clarifying a single wolf subspecies - or not - no name has been applied.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the wolves in the diorama photo seem so lifelike that it makes me, and probably others, wonder how this was made. Some readers may even inaccurately believe it is actual, stuffed Beringian wolves, so may be good to somehow clarify it. Is it rogue taxidermy? Made from extant wolf skins, or just models with fake fur?
Addressed. Models created by paleoartists; how they did it might be beyond the scope of the article.
Yes, what you wrote is what I was thinking of. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the gif map could need a caption, to explain how it relates to the subject of the article. Seems a bit diffuse now, and you could explain what the numbers mean.
Addressed, perhaps. Your assessment?
Much better with context. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise with the photo of the bison hunt. How does it relate to the subject of the article? Is the Beringian wolf thought to have had similar prey?
Addressed. All of the Late Pleistocene wolves across the mammoth steppe loved bison and horse! Regards, William Harris •(talk) • 06:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"From the 1930s a representative of the American Museum of Natural History" Name?
More than one representative after checking the reference.
"The historic population was found to possess twice the genetic diversity of modern wolves." Perhaps state in parenthesis why this was? I assume due to hunting? Would also explain this sentence: "However, much of their diversity was later lost during the twentieth century."
Addressed - extirpated.
"The replacement in North America of a basal population of wolves by a more recent one supports the findings of earlier studies." Rather than "support" wouldn't it be "is consistent with"? I'm not sure if something that is hypothetical can support anything. Or perhaps it is not that hypothetical after all.
Addressed - that sounds better.
You have a section called "two types of grey wolf", yet the cladogram shows wolves outside these categories. So there are more than two? So what does the title allude to?
I had originally named this section "Two gray wolf haplogroups" but that seemed a bit heavy going for the reader. A recent study found the Himalayan wolf to be more associated with the African golden wolf than with the holarctic gray wolf (Werhahn 2017). Perhaps I should remove it and the Indian grey wolf (the next one to be seriously studied) from the cladogram?
Could be, if it only confuses the reader. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Title of that section changed to "Different genetic types of gray wolf" as that is what we are addressing. Let me know if you have doubts.
There is some quoted description in the taxonomy section, but I think this should be summarised in the description section, where anatomical features are to be discussed in detail. Now the description section only says it was "robust", which is too vague to mean much.
When I can find a holotype with a formal description, I include that under taxonomy. It is by this description that a taxonomist would tell a Beringian wolf from other types of wolves. In this case, I am more interested in Olsen's designation as C. lupus - despite the weirdness - than I am in the description. However, I am not fussed - your call. William Harris •(talk) • 11:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it doesn't have to be on expense of the quote, rather in addition to. We need to know which details that set them apart from other wolves in the description section too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relocated.
"Adaptation is the evolutionary process by which an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats." Isn't this definition a bit narrow? As you state later, it also involves other species and so on. Perhaps say environment/ecosystem instead of just habitat?,
Amended. NOTE: I have added a new sentence after this one, further highlighting the link between the wolf and its habitat.
"The term ecomorph is used to describe a habitat specialist." The way I understand the term, it is a distinct morphology/behaviour that is adapted for a specific ecology/purpose? So it does not itself mean a habitat specialist, but what may make a species a habitat specialist.
When you include behaviour, I believe you have just described an "ecotype", with "ecomorph" including morphology only (it is in the name). However, I have sourced a superior definition; let me know if it is not sufficient.
"his Beringian refugium, eastern Beringia's vegetation included isolated refugia of" Seems a bit redundant the second time?
Amended
" and was well-adapted to the cold" In what way? Doesn't seem to be specified anywhere.
"cold, megafauna-rich environment" is using the adjective "cold" to describe the environment, not the wolf. However, we have said that the environment was cold elsewhere, so it is removed here.
"twice the percentage of tooth crowding" Which is what?
Now included. 18% v 9%. Interestingly, the domestic dog was only 5%. (That an increased level of tooth crowding separates a dog specimen from a wolf specimen and demonstrates "domestication" is not supported by this study, and calls to question many of the ancient "dog" findings.)
Oh, I meant what is meant by the term tooth crowding? FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, amended with explanation.
What is the "Rancho La Brea wolf"? Canis lupus?
Amended, they are lupus.
Any sources that explain why the Beringian wolf hasn't been named as a distinct taxon? Have researchers consciously refrained from doing so?
No sources available. (Pers. Comms. J. Leonard - the relationship between these and the other megafaunally adapted wolves across the northern holarctic during the Late Pleistocene is unclear and further research is required.)
"The Beringian carnivores included the Beringian wolf (Canis lupus)" Since the article is already about the wolf, I would say "In addition to the Beringina wolf, other Beringian carnivores include".
Amended.
"A study of Canis dentition shows" You give dates for most other studies, but not this one.
Amended.
Who coined the name "Beringian wolf" and when?
Amended. (As always, there is a team behind this, this one under the guidance of Bob Wayne.)
"This type of wolf has been referred to as the Megafaunal wolf." Needs source. And your text implies the megafaunal wolf is the same as the cave wolf?
Provided. As above, we do not know if this is the same subspecies across the northern holarctic during the Late Pleistocene. (I understand that this is being worked on now, and we should have an answer sometime in the next 12 months.)
" and if the study is correct then it suggests that the wolves were able to migrate south between 23,800 and 23,000 YBP but were then unable to return north due to the closure of the corridor." Needs a source.
I have removed this section altogether. A corridor that is impassable to bison may not be impassable to wolves.
"presenting new competition for large game." No source. May seem like common sense, but do we have a source that specifically says this?
Amended to what we know the humans ate; the reader can follow what this means.
"Beringia was once an area of land that spanned the Chukchi Sea and the Bering Sea, joining Eurasia to North America. Eastern Beringia included what is today Alaska and the Yukon." Needs a source.
Cited.
I'm not sure what the second paragraph in the "range" section has to do with the subject's range? Rather seems to be about relatives in other parts of the world?
Relocated the text to "Differenct genetic types of gray wolf", which now adds to further support that narrative.
"Ancient DNA and radiocarbon data indicate that local genetic populations were replaced by others from within the same species or by others of the same genus." This would of course only be true for those animals that ave modern representatives, which should be clarified. There are no elephants in America, of course.
Amended.
"Phenotype is extinct" I think you need to define phenotype somewhere in the section, I wouldn't think casual readers necessary know what this means.
Amended.
"The study did not support two wolf haplogroups that had been proposed by earlier studies." This should probably be noted in the section titled "Two types of gray wolf"?
Are we to say this twice in the text or leave the disagreement within the section that indicates a new study has found ancient lineages still existing in remote places today?
As is, it is kind of like one section supports one interpretation, while the next supports another. I am tempted to say it should be mentioned both places, but I don't really have a strong opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amended. It does not detract from the key evolutionary scenario in the next paragraph that is supported by other studies: "A scenario consistent with the phylogenetic..."
The title "Haplotype is not extinct" does not seem to be consistent with the fact that the text only says "One ancient haplotype... was similar to that of modern wolves"?
Amended - the same haplotype was shared with them.
"The Beringian wolf (Canis lupus) is an extinct type of wolf" This should rather be: "The Beringian wolf is an extinct type of wolf (Canis lupus)", as the name of course isn't specific to the Beringian type. I seem to have missed this when you asked about it earlier...
Amended.
"The Beringian wolf is the first ecomorph of the gray wolf to be identified and comprehensively studied" This is only stated in the intro with no source. It should be mentioned and sourced in the article body as well.
The source was unclear on this, so amended.
Support - everything looks good to me now, and I think it is clearer for the average reader in places. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time and the intensity of your reading for this review. William Harris •(talk) • 10:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Beringian_wolves_diorama.jpg: what is the copyright status of the diorama? See references here. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A fascinating case. However, the copyright status of the diorama is not relevant as at no time is that called into question. I believe the copyright status of the photo is the issue here, and we have that well covered. Regards, William Harris •(talk) • 22:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're taking a photo of something for use on Commons, either freedom of panorama must apply or the thing being photographed must be freely licensed / public domain. Absent FOP, a photograph of a non-free thing is a derivative work. The status of the diorama is relevant if you want to have it pictured here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian government works are not public domain by default, but sounds like a FOP tag would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the image on Commons with FOB/Canada in the "Licensing section"; please let me know if anything else is required. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and for your review of the Beringian wolf. (Another thing to bear in mind in the future!) Regards, William Harris •(talk) • 04:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, plus we have the other citation supporting that statement.
Current ref 17 - all other books sources are "last name, first name" but this one isn't it's "Sam Turvey" ... needs fixing to be consistent
Amended, one always slips through.....
Current ref 42 (Elias, etc) per the MOS, we don't do all caps even if the original does, needs fixing.
Amended
Current ref 43 - you give the location here for this book source, but don't on others... pick one system and be consistent (either include locations or don't include locations)
Locations removed. They don't add a lot of value and have become meaningless in this age of global publishers.
Current ref 61 has the author as "first-name last-name" which needs fixing to the more commonly used here "last name, first name" system
Amended, so two slipped through.....
I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
You taught me how to run earwig over articles and it was a valuable lesson.
In 2016 a genetic study showed that some of the wolves now living in remote corners of China and Mongolia are genetically identical to one 28,000-year-old eastern Beringian wolf specimen - if possible, avoid two "genetic(ally) in one sentence
Amended; now looks more elegant.
Should add rationale for status (i.e. why not subsp.)
Please see editor Funkmonk's 17th and 21st dot point above.
Yeah I figured - but it needs to spell it out succinctly, once in the lead and again under taxonomy. This is important as it is part of what defines (or currently fails to define) a taxon. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some explanation but I have no citation to support it. Intuitively it fits, as does the link to the cave wolf.
Yeah, I understand it's a tricky one. I think that's about as good as we can get it without veering into OR. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully things will be clarified within the next 12 months and with it some media interest. This is one of the reasons why I wanted to get this article at FA standard - once people come looking for further quality information, Wikipedia can provide it.
In 2016 a genetic study showed that some of the wolves now living in remote corners of China and Mongolia are genetically identical to one 28,000-year-old eastern Beringian wolf specimen, indicating that both types of wolves share a common maternal ancestor. If they are genetically identical, why are the Beringian wolves considered extinct? Alternatively, does this refer specifically to mitochondrial DNA as hinted by the maternal ancestry?
Good point. I would like to avoid saying "shares the same haplotype" this early in the article, as we define a haplotype later and that would be more tidy. I have amended it to read "share a common maternal ancestor with one 28,000-year-old eastern Beringian wolf specimen."
Better for the lead, as everyone will understand. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 11:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Phenotype is extinct:
Phenotype is defined right at the end of the section. If it is necessary to define (I think it is useful), it should be described earlier so the definition is more useful to the reader.
Agreed, let's move it to the start of that section.
The earlier definition given for haplotype implies that there are several. The section states that one of them not extinct. Is this connected with the statement in the lead mentioned above?
If you are referring to the "four modern European mDNA haplotypes", these are "phylogenetically associated" but the Beringians were not ancestral, i.e. more like "auntie" than "mother". I once had in the article the phrase "but the Beringian wolf was not ancestral...." Perhaps I need to reinstate that phrase? Or "close on the phylogenetic tree" rather than phylogenetically associated? Regards, William Harris •(talk) • 10:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rewrite of the lead clears this up sufficiently for me. • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as intelligible and interesting to a person with a moderate amateur background in evolutionary biology (no formal training). • • • Peter (Southwood)(talk): 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have just described the person who wrote it! :-) Thanks for your time and comments. William Harris •(talk) • 11:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Dnllnd (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Canadian Indian residential school system which involved the active removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities with the aim of assimilating them into Canadian culture. The 2015 Executive Summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) concluded that the system and it's legacy amounted to cultural genocide. The final reports of the TRC included calls to action with a focus on education and awareness about the system - this page is a step toward that goal. With Canada's 150 anniversary taking place this July, all aspects of the country's history should be highlighted including this one.Dnllnd (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments by Finetooth on prose and comprehensiveness
This is most interesting; the prose is of professional quality, and the topic worthy. I began to fade a bit in the lowermost sections, where I think some abbreviating and some minor revisions would make the going a bit easier. Here are my questions and suggestions:
Subheads
Section heads and subheads should not refer redundantly to the article title or echo one another. My suggestion would be to remove "residential schools" from the section heads 2 and 7 and to remove the word "apologies" or "apology" from subheads 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.
Indigenous and aboriginal are usually lowercase, but in this article they begin with an uppercase letter. I would recommend lowercase unless there is some special reason for uppercase.
That's a perfectly good special reason. Might I suggest adding a note about these preferences that includes a link to the style guide, as above. The Canadian style guide on these matters is interesting and relevant, and referring to it might head off future "fixes" of things that don't need fixing.Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I have added in a Notes section and a note next to the first instance of 'Indigenous' explaining the capitalization. Rephrasing suggestions, if required, would be appreciated. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I struck this one but trimmed the data in the source ref for Note 1. Please re-add anything you think is really needed. Finetooth (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The trimming was very much needed - thank you for taking care of it!--Dnllnd (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article includes many direct quotations. Each needs a citation placed in the text directly after the quotation; in some cases that means that the paragraph containing the direct quotation will have more than one citation even if the whole paragraph relies on the same source; i.e., citation for direct quote and somewhere later, citation or citations for the other stuff. For example, the third paragraph of Financial compensation has three direct quotations. Each needs its own citation; you should add two more, one for Fontaine and one for Cotler even though all three share the same source.
I have gone through and added refs immediately after direct quotes. Quotation adherence was flagged by another editor, below, which I have also tried to address. Since there are so many quotes through out the page I expect I likely missed some, so let me know if any outstanding instances jump out.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you got most of them. I saw only one more on my most recent pass-through. It is in the Mortality rates section: At Sarcee Boarding School near Calgary, all 33 students were "much below even a passable standard of health" and "[a]ll but four were infected with tuberculosis." I would add a citation with a page number after "tuberculosis." Finetooth (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Got it. Curly "JFC" Turkey helpfully flagged other quotations that were in need of (clearer) attribution or citations. --Dnllnd (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful to spell out and abbreviate Truth and Reconciliation Commission on first use in the main text and then use TRC from then on. It appears often in the lower sections, which seem a bit more populated by government-speak and less lucid to me than the early sections. Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a big mouthful each time.
I have replaced all full references to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with TRC after the first mention in the lead.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any organized non-indigenous resistance in Canada to the TRC or, more generally, to do anything at all to make amends? If so, it should be mentioned somewhere if only in a note.
Not that I know of. The most recent news event that may speak to your question is Senator Lynn Beyak insisting that a focus on the negative aspects of the system (like deaths, forced removal of children, and inter-generational trauma) has overshadowed the 'good' of the system. I don't believe that including her views adds substantive value to the page as it serves only to undermine what has been legally recognized as systematically abusive and harmful legacy. I am, though, open to other views on this point.--Dnllnd (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the issue, since it revolves around only one person, does not deserve much weight. Since she's a Senator, and since the controversy forms part of the Lynn Beyak article in Wikipedia, might a good compromise involve a brief note attached to the end of the first paragraph of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee section? It might say, "Lynn Beyak, a Conservative member of the Senate Committee of Aboriginal Peoples, voiced disapproval of the TRC report, saying that it had omitted anything positive that could be said about the schools. In response, the Conservative Party leadership removed her from the Senate committee." This is just a suggestion, not a mandate. Finetooth (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting and nicely done. Finetooth (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
"The system had its origins in laws enacted before Confederation..." – Link to Canadian Confederation?
Yep! Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
History
"is the result of Imperial colonialism" – Lowercase "i"?
"resisted by Indigenous communities who were unwilling to leave their children for extended periods of time" – Delete "of time" since "periods" already says it?
"and foundling colonial children limited Church resources..." – Lowercase "church"?
Government involvement
The direct quotation at the end of the first paragraph of this section is supported by a citation to a PDF file that is more than 1,000 pages long. To be useful, the citation needs to include a specific page number. Ditto for any other long works cited in the article.
Agreed. Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Parental resistance and compulsory attendance
Should the "baby bonus" be explained either in the main text or a brief note?
I've added a wiki link to a page explaining the term wrt Canada.--Dnllnd (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conditions in residential schools
"The Executive Summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission..." – Better as "executive summary of the TRC"?
This is the official name of the document, so using the capitalization is most appropriate. I will, though, clean up how often it appears by making use of the TRC acronym, as you suggested in another comment.--Dnllnd (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"would imply a difficult to prove legal responsibility" – Perhaps hyphenate "difficult-to-prove"?
Mortality rates
"Indian population of Canada has a mortality rate of more than double that of the whole population, and in some provinces more than three times." – Generally, the supporting citation for a direct quote should be inserted immediately after the end of the quotation.
"In 1920 and 1922, Dr. A. Corbett was commissioned..." – It's preferable to use a brief description than an academic title like "Dr.". Something like "A. Corbett, professor of otolaryngology at the University of X Medical School" if you have the information necessary.
Agreed. Unfortunately there isn't much info about Corbett, but I have added text indicating that he was a physician from Regina. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through and added similar text to others named without any context.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Missing children and unmarked graves
"later 'razed' by priests or built over" – Is "priests" the right word? It seems to point to a subset of the church schools.
Text revised and refs cleaned up. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self-governance and school closure
"after being run by the Oblates" – Should "Oblates" be linked to something?
It's still unlinked and unexplained. Am I missing something? Finetooth (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference to oblates, which appears in the Government involvement section, is linked to the Oblate page in keeping with WP:BTW. Do you think it's necessary to link all occurrences? --Dnllnd (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no. My mistake. I missed the first instance. Finetooth (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reconciliation attempts
"Coined by media outlets as the Oka Crisis..." – "Coined" seems not quite right. Would "Called 'the Okra Crisis' by media outlets,"?
Revised to "Referred to by media outlets as the Oka Crisis.." --Dnllnd (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Coined by media outlets as the Oka Crisis, the land dispute sparked a critical discussion about the Canadian government's complacency regarding relations with Indigenous communities and responses to their concerns prompting then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to underscore four government responsibilities: 'resolving land claims; improving the economic and social conditions on reserves; defining a new relationship between aboriginal peoples and governments; and addressing the concerns of Canada's aboriginal peoples in contemporary Canadian life.' " – Too complex. Suggestion: break it in two with a terminal period after "communities". Delete "and" and proceed with "Responses to their concerns prompted...".
Lowercase "settlement agreement" throughout? Too many things with big letters reduce the overall effect of big letters.
It's a diminutive of the official name, but it was also given an acronym (which was inconsistently used!), so I've subbed that in as much of the refs happen within one section.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Former AHF executive director Mike DeGagne has identified the Indigenous-led mental health and healing infrastructure provided by the AHF as a gap in how current mental health crises being experienced by Indigenous communities, like the suicides occurring in the Attawapiskat First Nation, are being addressed." – The infrastructure isn't the gap. Suggestion: "Former AHF executive director Mike DeGagne has said that the loss of AHF support has created a gap in dealing with mental health crises such as suicides in the Attawapiskat First Nation."
I took liberties with this one and made the change. Please revert if you disagree. Finetooth (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Following an illegal process, including an examination of the Settlement Agreement by the courts of the provinces and territories of Canada, an "opt-out" period occurred." – I don't understand this. Should "illegal" here be "legal"?
Typo! Fixed. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reconciliation projects
The first two paragraphs repeat the word "healing" six times. How about substituting "services that assist former residential school students and their families in recovering" in the first paragraph and "to sustain their active participation in these recovery efforts" in the second?
Paragraph has been removed and remaining text in section has been collapsed into other sections of the article. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"with the publication of a multi-volume, 4,000-plus-page report..." – Do we need to mention the length again since it's in the lede and once more in the text already?
I changed the text in the lead so that the 4,000 info only appears once, withing the section dedicated to the TRC later in the article.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Healing
I would consider deleting the first paragraph of this section since it seems to echo what's already been said in the Reconciliation projects section, and I would prefer "Recovery" to "Healing", which is overused.
I removed the first paragraph and merged the remaining section into TRC section that appeared in what was formally the Reconciliation attempts section. Reconciliation attempts has been revised and restructured with edits to text and sub-headings in an attempt to cut down on the repetitive nature of the last third of the page. The TRC now appears within it's own section. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to support on prose and comprehensiveness, as noted above. Your decision about the Beyak matter will have no bearing on my support. Impressive article on a difficult subject. Finetooth (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging this. I believe that I have addressed most of the instances that failed to meet the MOS guidelines. Specific instances of any I may have missed would be appreciated.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that I missed several. I should have employed a Find all search! Thanks for taking care of what I missed.--Dnllnd (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you'll reconsider the use of {{rp}}—they're such an eyesore and disrupt the text. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 11:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the contentious nature of this topic, acknowledgement of which has been a hard fought battle for Indigenous communities impacted by the system, the rp references are an important part of the page as they facilitate the location of information that people have made a habit of dismissing. This is particularly relevant in regards to the TRC reports - they each span several hundred pages.--Dnllnd (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles specify page numbers, but do so in the reflist, not inline. For example:
<ref>Turkey (2017) pp. 23–24</ref>
or
{{sfn|Turkey|2017|pp=23–24}}
and there are other formats. Take a peak at some other FAs and see how they're handled, so as to make the article more reader-friendly. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 23:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid approach for referencing the same resource multiple times. I'm not clear on why the citation format for the entire article needs to be redone when this one is applied clearly and consistently throughout the article. Is this really a deal breaker for FA status or a personal preference? --Dnllnd (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not clear on why the citation format for the entire article needs to be redone"—it doesn't. I'm offering advice to make the article more readable and accessible. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 01:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Thank you! --Dnllnd (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that when you provide a quotation, it must be given attribution in the text itself and not just a citation—"has been described"-type wordings are not acceptable.
"and paid $3,100,000,000 in compensation"—this is probably more readable as "$3.1 billion", which is the format you use elsewhere. If the number is so long that readers have to count the zeros to figure out how to read it, chances are it'd be best to spell it out. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 23:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The assimilation of Indigenous peoples is the result of imperial colonialism"—this makes it sound as if assimilation were a done deal. All Indigenous people have been assimiliated? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 23:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"In Canada, the Indian (Aboriginal) residential schools"—I assume (Aboriginal) is a gloss of "Indian", but by presenting it this way, it appears that "Indian (Aboriginal) residential schools" is what they were called. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Removed. This is another hold over from a much earlier version of the page. --Dnllnd (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the French is needed in the lead here; we would add it for something that was originally in French, or in Canada's case for official names or whatever, but the French are not official names in that sense—they're merely two ways of referring to the system in French. The doesn't even give an English gloss. I'd drop it, or at least move it to an endnote or something, as it only clutters up the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! This is a hold over from a much earlier version of the page. I've removed it. --Dnllnd (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
counteracting the "civilizing" of Indigenous children, to convert Indigenous children to Christianity and to "civilize" them—MOS:SCAREQUOTES should be considered carefully, as it's not always clear what they should mean: an actual quotation? Referring to a word-as-a-word? Ironic distancing? You should consider a more straightforward, unambiguous wording that avoids scarequotes. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This language gets used repeatedly my multiple people, but I completely agree that the inconsistent and unclear presence of "" throughout the article is confusing. I've removed unnecessary quotation marks and have revised text in the Family visitation section to introduce more logical use of both terms. Thanks for flagging it.--Dnllnd (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
statements from residential school survivors—"survivors" is a loaded, emotional term. Is there nothing more clearly neutral? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Survivor is accurate terminology used in the reports of the TRC (where it is capitalized), government publications and media outlets. It is also a term used by Indigenous peoples to self-identify as school attendees. Would a foot note like the one used for the capitalization of Indigenous address your concern? --Dnllnd (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not encyclopaedic contexts; the media and the government have different goals than an encyclopaedia. It's not a matter I'm going to push, but if any term is open to debate, then it's not an ideal term for an encycloaedia. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The school system was found to amount to cultural genocide in which sexual and physical abuse was both rampant and, since that time, extensively documented. The system was, as outlined in multiple TRC, legal and government documents, designed to eradicate Indigenous culture, peoples and communities. When considered in reference to the definition for survive, the term is apt. While I appreciate the point regarding encyclopaedic contexts, I disagree that this is a case in which it is being undermined. The term will remain. I have added a note too the first instance making reference to its use in TRC outputs and official government of Canada apology.--Dnllnd (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'm not going to push it, but the fact that you so vigorously won't even consider another, more clearly neutral term more or less makes my point. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 23:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume you have no additional comment about the note that was added as a compromise. Thanks.--Dnllnd (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in the executive summary of the TRC's final report—this is the firrst time the TRC is mentioned in the body, so it should be spellt out and contextualized. Remember, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, and the two should be thought of as somewhat independent—the reader shouldn't be expected to have gotten this stuff from the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears for the first time in the lead, where it is spelled out and accompanied by the acronym.--Dnllnd (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You respond to "the reader shouldn't be expected to have gotten this stuff from the lead" with "It appears for the first time in the lead"? Please re-read what I've written—the lead is based on the content of the body, not vice-versa. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 23:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I missed the distinction you were making between the lead and rest of the article. DIA and TRC have both been spelled out in full when they first appear in the body of the page.--Dnllnd (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mix of -ize and -ise spellings throughout the article. Both are acceptable in Canadian WP:ENGVAR, but you'll have to choose one consistently for the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 04:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to a specific example? I a did a find all search and found no instances of -ise.--Dnllnd (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"With no requirement for specialised training"
Changed to -ized.--Dnllnd (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced/removed. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are 131 footnotes in the article - and I've already done a good bit of time checking them all, could you kindly tell me what it was replaced with? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed as a ref from the sentence: "Responsible for separating children from their families and communities, this process was found by the TRC to be cultural genocide because its aim was "killing the Indian in the child." It was the third ref for an already supported sentence.
It previously appeared in the Religious involvement section wrt to the Mohawk Institute. That particular section has been reworked and relies predominantly on refs that were already being used (TRC reports, Milloy book, CBC article, etc.)
It was removed as a ref from the sentence: "Approximately 150,000 children are believed to have attended a residential school over the course of their existence." It was the third ref for an already supported sentence.
It was removed as a ref from the sentence: "Students in residential school systems were faced with a multitude of abuses from teachers and administrators." The statement is supported by the remained for the paragraph/section.--Dnllnd (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 2 - why is the umanitoba.ca there when it's not for any other university publication?
Not entirely clear on what the issue being flagged, but I believe it should now be addressed. I've done a ref review to add an entry to the website field, where appropriate, where one was missing. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is consistentcy in the references - if similar type references don't use the same format, the references aren't consistent. Yes, it's picky. Yes, it's a bit anal-retentive, but it's all part of being "finest work". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done another pass on of the cite web templates with the aim of ensuring consistency. Please let me know if any issues jump out.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent on whether you link to publishers in the references - mostly you don't but occasionally you do - for example - why is "University of Manitoba" linked in ref 20 (Milloy) but none of the other universities before ref 20 are linked?
Removed. Section reworked. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in either using or not using "Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada" as the author for things published by it. Currently refs 4 doesn't have it as the author, but ref 29 does. There are probably others
Although Breach is an independent journal, this particular article was adapted from an MA thesis and includes a list of fully cited references ranging from scholarly publications to major Canadian news publications. The section where it appears has been cleaned up to improve clarity and citation alignment.--Dnllnd (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow up, I add that this ref also centers Indigenous action regarding, and reclamation of, residential school system history. Centering Indigenous peoples, their work, and their experiences is a central part of the reconciliation process and it makes sense to have that type of narrative included, where appropriate, in the page.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia article: "On Friday, August 6, 1993, at the National Native Convocation in Minaki, Ontario, Archbishop Michael Peers offered an apology to all the survivors of the Indian residential schools on behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada." Source: "On Friday, August 6, 1993 at the National Native Convocation in Minaki, Ontario, Archbishop Michael Peers offered an apology to all the survivors of the Indian residential schools."
Wikipedia article: "the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity" source: "the Vatican issued a press release stating that “the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity.”"
The first is a direct quotation from a Vatican communique, which is appropriately cited. The second is a quote from that same communique. Red herring.--Dnllnd (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia article: "compensation and psychological support for former students of residential schools who were physically or sexually abused" source: "compensation and psychological support for former students, who were physically or sexually abused"
Other possibles need checking from Earwig's report.
Sorry about missing that quotation - but the other possibles probably need checking from someone else. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed anything with a rating higher than 25% and almost all of them amount to the use of official titles, organization names or direct quotations from official apologies or reports. Those not falling under that umbrella are common turns of phrase or legalese that can only be restated so many ways before the intention of specific words is lost or watered down. I spotted checked the remaining entries and the same applies. I do, though, welcome another set of eyes. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shocking article. Topic worthy of FA quality article. But it’s not quite there yet in my humble opinion. Some structural issues I think. My comments:
Lead: Over the course of the system's existence, -> would be good to say here how long this practice was in existence for
Added 'more than hundred year existence'. Government run schools began in the early 1880s, but some of the schools, including the Mohawk institute, were opened earlier, leaving the exact number of years up for debate. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: The last federally operated residential school closed in 1996. -> Bit odd: we go from 1876 to 1996 to 1884. Better to move the sentence about last one closing further down I think
Moved to end of paragraph. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: were intentionally located at distances -> great distances perhaps?
Changed to substantial distances, since 'greater distances' is used in in the next sentence. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: he thought counteracted the school's -> maybe plural schools’ ? Or maybe just remove schools altogether: he thought counteracted the efforts
Dropped schools altogether. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Canadian -> this whole paragraph seems really out of place
This section, as a whole, is meant to give a a high-level overview of the how settlers and Indigenous relations. Can you expand on why this particular paragraph seems out of place? Would it be more appropriate in another section of the page? Is the information presented not relevant? Getting more info will help me address your concerns. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear. I meant to say that the last 3 paragraphs in this section go from 17th to 19th and 20th to 19th. Would it not be better chronologically, that is, swap the last 2 paragraphs? Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, thank you for the clarification. I have flipped the paragraphs, which definitely improves things and have rephrased references to the turn of the century to '1800s', etc. I've also linked to the wiki page for the 17th century to clarify intended era. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
particularly after the War of 1812 -> 1812 and turn of the 19th century are generations apart. Seems odd.
The turn of the 19th century would have been 1800. Can you expand on what you think is odd? --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the threat of invasion minimized, -> Who is threatening to invade whom? You lost me in this sentence
Agreed, this is a clarity issue. Added 'American forces' - link to War of 1812 provides additional context. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
25.25% seems unnecessarily accurate. No need for any decimals I’d say
These are numbers taken directly from the report. I'm open to dropping the decimals but wonder if doing so would open the sentence up to critique about not accurately reflecting source material? What do you think? --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline says "The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context " and "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason."Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you! I'm less fluent in the numerical style guide points than others. I've kicked out the percentages altogether - the number counts convey things adequately. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After a failure to assimilate Indigenous children by early .. -> This makes much more sense as the 2nd paragraph in the previous section
I collapsed the Religious involvement section into the History section and rearranged the paragraphs/photos accordingly. Please let me know if you have any additional suggestions regarding the flow of information. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Residential schools were funded under the Indian Act -> link Indian Act
By the 1930s government officials -> seems to skip things? We get reports and then what? Did the government act upon these recommendations? When? How? How much money? How many? Etc.
Text revisions made to indicate support of report findings by church official and when government funding was first approved. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional info about the 1920s and acquisition of schools by the government from church officials. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the 1950s the expansion of the residential school system had plateaued, -> how many? And when did numbers start going down? All we have is plateau and 1996 last one. And why?
I've referred back to the TRC reports and other related publications and it seems to be either be a hold over from text revisions or a conflation with enrollment numbers and/or the shift from residential to day schools. Reference to a plateau has been removed as a result - not necessary for set up to remainder of paragraph. Thanks for flagging it. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that roughly 11,132 -> that looks like a very precise number, not rough at all. I think you can drop roughly, given that the verb is estimated
Dropped 'roughly'. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reached its peak in the early 1930s -> but expansion plateaued in 1950s? How can that be?
Reference to 1950s plateau has been removed - see above. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
80 schools -> Would it be possible to have a graph with either number of schools over the decades, and/or number of students? In addition, showing the schools on the map would be very good
I'm not able to make a graph myself and don't know of any public domain options that could be pulled in. Do you have any experience with creating graphs for use on Wikipedia pages? Or perhaps able to point me to information about how they should can can be incorporated? --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either. Do you have at least the data? A table would be okay too.Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon:The data I'm most familiar with appears in the TRC report or government produced documents and it's often a synopsis as opposed to hard numbers. So, for example, there may be a list of schools along with their location, but there aren't student enrollment numbers included - my understanding is that this is in part due to poor reporting from school administrators. I have to admit that I'm stumped about how to integrate a table. I could attempt to replicate a table that appears in one of the reports, but the nuance of schools/enrollments over time is beyond what my basic table skills are capable of and the summarization of available data makes it difficult to do something unique. More importantly, working with numbers isn't one of my strengths..! Here are some examples of what's available for your reference: [25],[26],[27](p.67) and List of Indian residential schools in Canada. Page 682 of this report has the text and table I used to clean up the number of schools by religious order. Does anything stand out as a possible way forward? --Dnllnd (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a multitude of abuses -> Previous paragraph also about abuse. Merge?
The executive summary of the TRC concluded that the assimilation amounted to cultural genocide -> This is way more important than you make it look structurally in the article. It deserves its own paragraph at least. It does not sit well under the header Conditions.
Many graduates were unable to easily return home -> But returning home to the reserve wasn’t the goal. Better would be something along the lines of: many were unable to land a job … Such employment he can get at home." But even going back home was not easy, as many graduates were unfamiliar …
until 1922, when Bryce, -> Somehow I think, maybe, this info should live in the earlier section of the rise and fall. When did critical voices start? 1922 is earlier than I expected, given what I’ve read so far
For most communities, though, the existence of buildings that formerly housed residential schools are a traumatic reminder, and there is much discussion about demolition, heritage status, and how to incorporate sites into the healing process -> I don’t really get why this sentence is in this paragraph
Agreed, it's a poor fit. I've removed the sentence and have integrated a revised version into the first paragragh of the Educational initiatives section.
Although encouragement to keep Indigenous languages alive was present in some schools, -> Seems better as a modifier of the opening sentence of this paragraph
The stigma created … the list of endangered languages in Canada. -> Sorry,don’t get this one. Stigma? Does this refer to the ugly and dirty? But that is mentioned only by some
In this case stigma is was used to reproach - the system resulted in the transmission of Indigenous culture being a bad and frowned upon act. As a result, traditional languages weren't spoke or passed on to children. Would it help to rephrase that first sentence? I'm not sure what your "But that is only mentioned by some" is in reference to. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli veered -> spell out what acronym stands for. And poor Zaccardelli is the only person not mentioned by full name
Yep! Section cleaned up, additional ref added, Zaccardelli named in full with link to Wiki page. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
he intended to issue a formal apology -> and did he?
Removed paragraph altogether. To date nothing has been issued and it doesn't immediately address the section topic. Thanks for flagging it. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
caption: Mohawk Institute Residential School should be a link
Opposed Comment: There is no history of those who worked to bring the whole issue to the public. Or, tried to bring the issue forward. For example, there is no mention of the signficant cover story in MacLeans magazine <http://www.macleans.ca/society/the-lonely-death-of-chanie-wenjack/> in 1967. From the '60s to the '90s in the settler community, church community, and in the Indigenous community there were numerous 'heads up' in various media about the problem. The article mentions none of this. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wassupwestcoast: The final paragraph in the Conditions section that begins with "Details of the mistreatment.." makes reference to abuse reporting and Indigenous led activism to have it publicly recognized. There are also references to Indigenous led resistance worked into the remainder of the page - two examples are resistance from parents as in regards to forced attendance and another is the passage regarding the protests in Oka. There is also coverage dedicated to self-government of schools and reconciliation efforts involving Indigenous communities. Is your concern that there is not a dedicated section on the topic? Or, perhaps, that this specific article hasn't been included? --Dnllnd (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnllnd: A bit of both. In part, it wasn't just Indigenous activism. And, in part, the example I give of the Macleans cover story in 1967 was very significant in getting the story out to the settler community. From late 1950s onwards, there was growing discomfort in the church communities regarding residential schools. By the '60s, some church communities had relinquished the residential schools to the sole care of the federal government. My point is that there was activism on a number of fronts and over a period of about two generations. The article doesn't reflect this. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
b) A CBC TV report from 04 Aug 1967: "Expodition: Expo 67’s Indians of Canada" (http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/expodition-expo-67s-indians-of-canada) ....'But inside, the Indians of Canada pavilion at Expo 67 tells a different story: one of poverty, unfulfilled treaties, forced religion and the unhappy experiences of children in residential schools. As a young hostess conducts a tour, a reporter from Expodition remarks on a tone of bitterness in the pavilion's exhibits. "
c) the former United Church of Canada Reverend Kevin D. Annett who in 1995 brought to public attention the deaths in residential schools from research he had conducted over years.
Anyway, there were many voices against the residential schools...even at Expo 67! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the whole thing is nuanced. I'm completely aware that churches still had involvement in the some schools after '69. For example, ... "By 1969 the Government of Canada took over all other church-run residential schools and the Anglican Church was no longer officially involved in the school system. That said, in practice, Anglican clergy continued to be appointed as principals of the school until it closed in 1979."(http://vancouver.anglican.ca/diocesan-ministries/indigenous-justice/pages/indian-residential-schools-full-article) So my point is that there was this long term muddle about what to with the 'legacy of systemic racism and damage to First Nations peoples.' Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wassupwestcoast:Okay, thank you for the clarification (and the links!). I'll have a closer look at what you've provided, along with the references that have already been used, and see where some of this can be worked into the page.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added mention of Maclean's article and Indians of Canada Pavilion to page.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment: Wassupwestcoast, do you have anything further to add; I'd like to clarify that your oppose stands. Also, Edwininlondon, do you plan to revisit this? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support on prose. I am not really able to judge comprehensiveness, I'm afraid. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still opposed. While it sounds picky, I'd really like to see the MacLean's article appear. Way too often, I hear people say something like "I knew nothing until a couple of years ago." And, yet the serious problems with the residential school system made it to the cover of a major news magazine in the 1960s. And, that is just one example of many. The info was in the media main stream. The settler population really can't say that they knew nothing. And, it's also not true that nothing was done. Part of the article captures this, but not enough. The TRC was and is neither the beginning nor the end of the issue. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)à[reply]
@Wassupwestcoast:The Maclean's article and a reference to the Expo 67 exhibit were both added based on your feedback - see my comment above. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wassupwestcoast: Given that these comments may have been addressed, are there any other grounds on which you oppose? If not, the oppose will be considered unactionable. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further request: Before this is promoted, I'd like someone other than the nominator to go through the issues raised by Ealdgyth about the Earwig tool. She also raised a few other points about sourcing that the nominator responded to that would be worth rechecking. Also, as this is would be the nominator's first FA, I'd like the usual spot-check of the sources for accurate use and close paraphrasing (unless I missed one earlier; the Earwig tool check would not count as a full spot check). All these things can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. To be clear, is the additional resource review something I should request myself at the top of WT:FAC? --Dnllnd (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the best way, yes. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support great read.....vast improvements over the past few months.--Moxy (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why does source 15 list "Anglican Church of Canada." twice? same with "University nuhelot’įne thaiyots’į nistameyimâkanak Blue Quills. University nuhelot’įne thaiyots’į nistameyimâkanak Blue Quills" in source 59? 73? 74? 75? 76? 97? 102? 105? 106? 109? 110? 111? 114? 126? 128? 129? 130? 134?
Spot checks for five random sentences in the article only yielded mirrors.
Earwig's review provides a few close paraphrases that are concerning and should be fixed:
On Friday, August 6, 1993 at the National Native Convocation in Minaki, Ontario, Archbishop Michael Peers offered an apology to all the survivors of the Indian residential schools. vs. "Archbishop Michael Peers apologized to residential school survivors, on behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada, on August 6, 1993, at the National Native Convocation in Minaki, Ontario." in the article.
Not changed - see comments below or McLellan and Harper. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
""We have made good on our shared resolve to deliver what I firmly believe will be a fair and lasting resolution of the Indian school legacy," Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said at a news conference in Ottawa." vs. "At a news conference in Ottawa, Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said: "We have made good on our shared resolve to deliver what I firmly believe will be a fair and lasting resolution of the Indian school legacy." in the article
Minor rephrasing done. Her name, position and the location of the event are what they are, which doesn't leave much to play around with. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Justice Minister Irwin Cotler also hailed the package, calling the decision to house young Canadians in church-run native residential schools "the single most harmful, disgraceful and racist act in our history." vs. "Justice Minister Irwin Cotler called the decision to house young Canadians in church-run residential schools "the single most harmful, disgraceful and racist act in our history".[104]"
Agreed. Rephrased. --Dnllnd (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"On June 11, 2008, the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, made a Statement of Apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools, on behalf of the Government of Canada." vs. "Statement of apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools issued by Stephen Harper on behalf of the Government of Canada in 2008" in the article. This one is less obvious but still too close for my comfort.
Not changed - similar to my comment about about Anne McLellan, there's only so many ways to phrase this given that Harper, Statement of Apology, the date and the Government of Canada are all proper/official names. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Indigenous culture from one generation to the next" vs. "Our Elders, Traditional Teachers, ceremonies, political protocols and traditional philosophies are beginning to show themselves after more than a century and a half of being secretly passed down from one generation to the next"
Minor rephrase done. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"and in 1998 apologized specifically for its role in Indian residential schools." vs. "In 1998, the church apologized specifically for its role in Indian Residential Schools,"
Rephrased. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: I find the closeness of some of these a bit concerning, so it might be worth it to ask someone who has more expertise with copyright to give the article another look. Maybe we should reach out to Ealdgyth or Nikkimaria? ceranthor 22:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Ceranthor. Ealdgyth has already undertaken a review above so that might make Nikkimaria our best bet -- but perhaps we should give Dnllnd a chance to respond to and/or action the above first? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the disclaimer that I'm a major contributor to this article... several of those are direct quotes, and to me the third is the only one that is truly problematic. But under the circumstances a different opinion might be appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As long as you think they're fine, I trust your judgment. ceranthor 14:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnllnd: As soon as some of the closer paraphrases are fixed (ie. 3, the underlined portion of 5, and 6), I'll be happy with the sources. ceranthor 13:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor:Thanks for your time and comments. I've just completed the ref work and have reviewed the paraphrasing issues. I was in agreement with Nikkimaria that a few of the issues were less of a problem than others, but made minor changes in most cases that I hope satisfy your concern. Let me know if anything else stands out as a problem.--Dnllnd (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnllnd: I think my concerns are fixed. Support - I think this is ready to be promoted! ceranthor 14:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last question: I think we are ready to promote now. I wasn't quite clear from the above source review if spot-checks of the sources (rather than the article) had been done, so I did a few myself, and these seemed fine. I'd just like to clarify, looking over the whole review, whether Finetooth did a full image review, or if we still need someone to take a look at the images? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I didn't do a full image review, just commented on the alt text. I've stopped using the ambiguous Image subhead in my reviews, but this one pre-dates my realization that the subhead was confusing. I would be willing to attempt an image review, except that but I know nothing about Canadian copyright law. Finetooth (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Fur traders in canada 1777.jpg: Where was this first published? The tag's fine if it was US published, but anyplace else you should have another tag.
The image is cropped from a map that was originally produced in London, as per this LOC record. I'm not up to speed about the image tags you are referring to - are you able to clarify or point me to the relevant info/an example to follow in order to add the missing tag? --Dnllnd (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Peter H. Bryce.jpg Needs a Canadian copyright tag.
See my comment above. (Thanks!)--Dnllnd (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You use both "circa" and "ca." in the captions. I suggest consistency.
Flipped everything to ca. and made a series of general edits to tighten up extent of alt tags. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: I've added some tags to the above images which should answer Wehwalt's point. Given that this has been open so long, I think we can close it now. If there are any other issues, they can be raised on the talk page. There might be one or two duplinks worth looking at, but they are not worth holding up the article over. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
John Cabell Breckinridge was an American statesman who served as vice president in the administration of James Buchanan. Though he had previously taken a moderate view on slavery, Breckinridge eventually came to believe that the Kansas Territory should legalize it before becoming a state. He was nominated by the Southern wing of the Democratic Party for president in 1860. He lost to Lincoln. He eventually ended up serving as a Confederate major general and as the Confederacy's final secretary of war. Display name 99 (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:John_C_Breckinridge-04775-restored.jpg: when/where was this first published?
According to the LOC, it was "created/published" between 1865 and 1880. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The problem with that is, if it was only created and not published at that time, the current tag does not apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, wouldn't the slash indicate that both took place during that time period? Also, this is a Brady/Handy portrait. I think that most of Brady's photographs were published during his lifetime. Display name 99 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, having looked at LOC images before, I can say that the slash means "and/or" not "and". If you can find a publication during his lifetime, that would support the use of the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Brady's biography on Civil War Trust includes the following sentence: "In 1850 he published "The Gallery of Illustrious Americans," which sold for $15, equivalent to about $400 today." It also states that in 1875 he sold his collection of photographs to the U.S. Government. Display name 99 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this image was "created/published" between 1865 and 1880, it can't have been included in the 1850 publication, and may or may not have been sold in 1875. Any way to narrow this down a bit? And do we know whether the rights were included in the 1875 sale, or just the physical photos (or negatives?)? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, it seemed to me that, in your previous response, you said that if I could prove that if some of Brady's photographs were published at any point in his life, there would be some justification for using that tag. Per the Library of Congress [29], Brady photographs are considered to be in the public domain. Also, the source of the Breckinridge photograph is the Library of Congress. That, along with the fact that all sources that I've seen referring to the 1875 sale indicate that Brady sold all of his major works, makes it practically certain that the Breckinridge photograph was among those sold to the U.S. Congress in 1875. Display name 99 (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Confederate_States_of_America_General-collar.svg should include an explicit tag indicating that the design is out of copyright
File:John-C.-Breckinridge-bust-by-James-Paxton-Voorhees.jpg: since the Licensing section is split, the tag in the Permissions field should be moved to the appropriate section. This was done but apparently incorrectly for File:John_C._Breckinridge_statue_Lexington_KY.jpg, and for that image to use the life+100 tag we need an author date of death
I've done the first part. However, the Wikipedia article for the Breckinridge statue in Lexington does not provide the name of a specific author. It merely states that the work was done by the "Henry-Bonnard Bronze Company" and that it was built in 1887. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:JDavis.png (in template) needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. But I couldn't find that image in the article anywhere. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's in {{CSCabinet}}, and to use the tag you've added we need a pre-1923 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag. In my search to find a publication date using the URLS given in the file I eventually ended up here. Display name 99 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...which unfortunately doesn't tell us much in regards to whether we can use it! Again, if we can find an early publication we're good. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything, and thus replaced it with a cropped version of a Brady portrait, which appears to include the appropriate tags. Display name 99 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be reviewing this article. Preliminarily, I'm not sure that you can say he was convicted of treason by the Senate. The Senate's only significant right of trial that I'm aware of is impeachment. Looking ahead in the article, I see he was expelled by a resolution that called him a traitor, but that's not a conviction of treason. I would say "found to have committed treason".--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source, Breckinridge's "Dictionary of America Biography" claims that he was indicted for treason in a Federal court. But it was not by the Senate, so I removed that sentence from the lead. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox: Princeton University was Princeton College throughout his life.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, you might want to put Princeton in parens or something. I fear my being pedantic conceals info from the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is five paragraphs, and the limit is four. Just reading the lede, I see a number of sentences that are probably information that does not need to be in the lede. Consider some cutting. Examples of matters that do not need to be in the lede are who he was the son and grandson of (they are more obscure than he), what the sectional wings of the Democratic Party favored. That's not intended as a complete list. The description of the nominations of Breckinridge and Douglas could probably be boiled down to a long sentence. For the lede, it's generally sufficient to say what he did, and leave the context for the body of the article.
I knew it was a bit too long, but didn't want to shorten it without having first received proper advice. I took some of the advice that you gave, but decided to combine the last two paragraphs. Breckinridge's term as vice president and his presidential candidacy are both more historically significant than anything that he did after joining the Confederacy, so I felt it was best to leave that part in tact and shorten the aftermath. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would use "doughface" as a noun, rather than an adjective.
"which supported popular sovereignty for determining slave-holding status" I might say "which supported allowing local residents to decide if a new state should be slave or free". It's the "slave-holding status" that's getting me, as it seems an indirect way of putting it.
"while anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln" I don't think Lincoln was actually anti-slavery in 1860. He was certainly against its spread, but he had not publicly called for slavery's immediate end.
I added the word "more." He was definitely anti-slavery as far as southerners were concerned. But compared to some northerners, not quite so much. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" Kentucky's neutrality was breached." I might tell the reader a bit more, and so substitute "Confederate forces moved into Kentucky"
"The fourth of six children born to Joseph "Cabell" and Mary Clay (Smith) Breckinridge, he was their only son." I would add another Breckinridge after "Cabell".
"In February, the family moved with Governor John Adair to the Governor's Mansion in Frankfort, Kentucky." Since it's long since you mentioned the year in question, I would either add it or say it happened the month after JCB's birth. It's also a bit obscure why they moved into the governor's mansion with the governor. Also, you could lose the word "Kentucky" here, it occurs three times in two sentences, and the other two seem needed to avoid ambiguity.
Done. I added that the move was done "so that his father could better attend to his duties as Secretary of State." Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"While in Lexington, Breckinridge attended Pisgah Academy in Woodford County.[7] His grandmother also taught him the political philosophies of her late husband, John Breckinridge, who served in the U.S. Senate ..." I'd lose the word "also" as not really needed.
"Breckinridge's uncle, William Breckinridge, was also on the faculty there, prompting him to enroll in November 1834." Was this the "decider" as it sounds? I mean, he's living in the house of the college president and doesn't have money to go away to school, wouldn't he have already been planning to attend Centre?
The sentence uses the word "also," indicating that more than one thing prompted him to attend. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"After earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in September 1838, he spent the winter of 1838–1839 as a "resident graduate" ..." to avoid the repetition, I would change, "winter of 1838–1839" to "following winter".
"he and former classmate Thomas W. Bullock resolved to relocate to Iowa Territory in October 1841." Ambiguous. Did the resolution take place then or did they plan the move for then? And when did they actually leave?
"he decided to remain for the summer rather than returning to Iowa's colder climate" This sort of sounds like you are saying Iowa has cold summers.
That's what the source says. I think that the summers are at least colder than those in Kentucky. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"After several men became ill at Vera Cruz," this may not make clear enough that disease was as deadly as the Mexicans, if not more so, in that campaign. The reader may not get the sense of alarm.
Done. I also added that the disease was yellow fever. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"they participated in no military action" I would boil down to "they saw no fighting"
"Breckinridge's nominal military service" I'm not sure that does him enough credit for a difficult and dangerous task. I would rephrase as "Although he saw no combat, Breckinridge's military service"
"Breckinridge campaigned for Democratic presidential nominee James K. Polk during the 1844 campaign." I would change "campaigned" to "made speeches" or some such, to avoid the near repetition.
"Some local Democrats encouraged him to seek the Eighth District's congressional seat in 1845," The "in 1845" feels tacked on, I would move the phrase to the front of the sentence if I am interpreting the year correctly as saying when the encouragement (rather than the election) took place.
"In August 1849, Kentuckians elected delegates to a state constitutional convention in addition to representatives and senators.[40]" I imagine that this is a reference to state legislators, as they wouldn't have elected a US senator.
Added the word "state" before representatives. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" Frank H. Heck wrote that Breckinridge was the leader of the House Democratic caucus during the session, but most of the measures considered were "local or personal ... and in any case, petty"." I don't see where there is a contrast justifying the "but".
" a traditionally Whig stance" I might phrase this "a core Whig position" or similar. They agreed on this as much as Whigs ever agreed on anything.
I think that the word "traditionally" better conveys the irony of Breckinridge supporting it. The main purpose of this article is, of course, to discuss Breckinridge. Using the word "core" could even momentarily confuse the reader into thinking Breckinridge was a Whig. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Three days before the end of the session, Breckinridge took a leave of absence to care for his son, John Milton, who had become ill; he died on March 18, 1850." You may want to supply a couple of dates in the discussion of the session here and previously.
"The attacks came from the pages of George Nicholas Sanders's Democratic Review, and on the House floor from Florida's Edward Carrington Cabell, fellow Kentuckian Humphrey Marshall, Illinois' William A. Richardson, and California's Edward C. Marshall, who was Breckinridge's cousin, nearly all of whom supported Stephen Douglas for the nomination.[63] Their attacks, however, ultimately hurt Douglas's chances for the nomination and Breckinridge's defense of Butler enhanced his own reputation." is the list of conspirators necessary? This seems of importance only because it boosted Breckenridge.
I removed all mention of them specifically except for Marshall, because he was Breckinridge's cousin. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At one of the mentions of Henry Clay, I would mention he was a senator. You don't seem to quite get there.
"suggested that nominating Breckinridge for vice-president would balance Buchanan's ticket and placate disgruntled supporters of Douglas or Pierce." I would substitute "the" for "Buchanan's" and "and" for "or".
Possibly something could be said about the limited role of 19th century vice presidents, with specific reference to Breckinridge.
I couldn't find anything. Breckinridge isn't considered one of the most notable VPs in history, for better or worse, based on what he did in office. I did, however, expand the paragraph on the speech that he gave in the Old Senate Chamber on January 4, 1859. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Breckinridge endorsed the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford – which upheld the legality of slavery" That wasn't really the holding of Dred Scott, more that Congress couldn't restrict it in the territories.
"Among Breckinridge's supporters ... " since all of the gentlemen listed were Kentuckians, I see no need to use the name of the state twice. Also, by this time Powell was a senator. (you later mention his becoming a senator in the 1861 description, so you could cut that)
"To avoid detainment, " I might use the more common "detention".
To "detain" is a fairly widely-used word. I see no real advantage here. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"capturing several Union prisoners, destroying their supplies, and driving them from the city." this can be read he did all this to the Union prisoners.
"if [the attack] should result in disaster and I be among the killed, I want you to justice to my memory" It seems like there should be a word "do" before justice. If it's not in the quote, a bracketed word might be worth it.
I added "do" without the brackets. I couldn't access the source for this, but it definitely seemed left out. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"arguing that Kentucky's decision to stay in the Union denied Breckinridge the notion of states' rights to justify his siding with the Confederacy." maybe "suggesting that Breckinridge had been a hypocrite for supporting states' rights, then abandoning his home state when it chose to remain in the Union." Some such, anyway. As it is, it's a bit opaque.
"Breckinridge would later set another example of this" maybe "Breckenridge would also show these skills"
Changed to "Breckinridge would draw more comparisons..." Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" Lee ordered them to clear the Union forces from the Shenandoah Valley, then cross into Maryland and probed the defenses of Washington, D.C." likely "probe" for "probed".
"In the process, he ensured that the Confederate archives, both government and military, were captured intact by the Union forces.[130] By so doing, he ensured that a full account of the Confederate war effort would be preserved for history." I'm not sure you should use such introductory phrases, commenting on the same thing, in two consecutive sentences.
It might be worthwhile to mention how Breckinridge traveled as he fled in April 1865. Horseback?
Added that he rode into Abbeville on April 28. That was all I could find. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" Sherman later praised Breckinridge's negotiating skills, and the surrender terms agreed to were later criticized by Sherman's colleagues as too generous." They were actually refused by Washington, who ordered the surrender done without all the political trimmings, as I recall.
"Learning of Davis's capture, which left him as the highest-ranking former Confederate official still at large" Benjamin outranked him, so to speak, I believe.
What were Breckenridge's means of support while in exile?
Davis (2010) doesn't say much. I did add that he lived in hotels and a rented house. People gave him stuff for free in Cuba, as the article mentions. That could have been the case elsewhere. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Washington College (now Washington and Lee University) offered him a professorship, but he declined." Was this offered through Lee's influence?
Probably. But I could only find that he was urged to accept it by former Confederate Colonel William Preston Johnston, and added that into the article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can anything be said about how Breckenridge is viewed by history? Being Buchanan's VP and a Confederate probably doesn't get you rave reviews.
I had difficulty finding sources on this. As I said before, nothing that Breckinridge did through his office of vice president stands out very much, in either a good or bad way. He's most famous for running for president in 1860. But people discussing the election seldom focus on Breckinridge the man. Instead they talk about the breakup of the Democratic Party and Lincoln and Douglas. Breckinridge had a very respectable career in the Confederacy, but he didn't become a legend the same way that Lee or Jackson did. The best I could do was insert a brief laudatory assessment of Breckinridge as a military commander, and another brief quote assessing his impact on the war.Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have. Very nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I have finished responding to the review. Thank you for your assistance. As always, it is appreciated. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support you're welcome. I have no objection if you collapse addressed comments, or move them to talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All references appear of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited with the following notes:
Ref 7, the Congressional Biographical The reader should be led to a link in some manner there. It is linked both in biblio and as an EL, which I think is a no-no.
I don't think we reproduce the all caps in newspaper headlines.
Most of today's newspapers don't use all caps, but ones back then did quite frequently. Newspapers from the 19th century don't seem to be cited too often on WP. Personally I do it in order to be as accurate as possible. I don't see it as a big deal. If you can point to any specific policy I would have no problem changing it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look too good. I replaced it with a Maysville newspaper from 1887. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the biblio, the place name for the location of Eicher's publisher appears incorrect.
Stanford University Press does apparently publish in California. I added "California" to the citation for clarification. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No such place as "Standord".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"was a lawyer, politician, and soldier from the U.S. state of Kentucky". Surely better to say "was an American laywer was a lawyer, politician, and soldier", with Kentucky then being introduced in the second paragraph? That would be in keeping with most FAs, in my experience. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you don't mind, but I've made some tweaks to the lede paragraphs to this effect. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is a little lengthy. Do you think it could be pruned here and then? It is for instance a few lines longer than FAs on other senior politicians, like Vladimir Lenin or Nelson Mandela. For instance "In 1859, he was elected to succeed U.S. Senator John J. Crittenden at the end of Crittenden's term in 1861." could easily be trimmed into "In 1861, he succeeded U.S. Senator John J. Crittenden." "As vice president, Breckinridge joined with Buchanan" could easily be "As vice president, Breckinridge joined Buchanan" etc. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Breckinridge was elected to succeed Crittenden two years before the term is significant. I left that alone. I have, however, tried to shorten the lead by implementing other suggestions that you have made. Display name 99 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"and he died on May 17, 1875." - we already have that date elsewhere in the lede, I do not think that we really need it again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "he died in 1875." He did die without reaching old age, so I think that it's worth mentioning his death. However, I agree that we don't need to give the exact date. Display name 99 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have nothing on Breckinridge's reception or legacy in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" after Breckinridge had previously supported both President Franklin Pierce and Douglas for the nomination" probably is unnecessary in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" doughfaced Northerner Buchanan," - I would scrap "doughfaced". We do not need to describe the personality of figures other than Brechinridge himself in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a little concerned about the general length and structure of the lede. There is great disparity in the length of the second, third, and fourth paragraphs. The lede is also considerably longer than those of other FA-rated political biographies such as Vladimir Lenin or Nelson Mandela, who were more important than Breckinridge on the world stage. Personally, I would therefore like to see the lede trimmed down further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a valid point. I did some work trimming the lead, mostly in the 2nd and 4th paragraphs. Those are still the longest, but the disparity is not as bad as before. It also makes sense for those to be longer, because while the 3rd paragraph covers only a single election season, the other two cover years. The first paragraph isn't supposed to be more than just a few sentences at most. Display name 99 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"his father had been appointed Kentucky's Secretary of State just prior to his son's birth" - this could generate confusion, with the "his son" being interpreted as meaning John C. Breckinridge's son rather than John C. Breckinridge himself. I would suggest a rewording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"both he and his wife fell ill; he died, but she survived" - similar situation. Maybe the latter "he" would work better as "Cabell"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl, I'm not sure why you consistently fail to respond to pings, but I have responded to your points and await the continuation of the review. Display name 99 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just busy with other things. When I have the time to return to the Breckinridge article, I will. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is fairly long and it's on the urgents list, so I thought it best to get comments started now so the coords don't close it while I'm reading. Just a couple of initial comments about the end sections:
See also: Two of the listed links, Fort Breckinridge, Arizona and Camp Grant, Arizona, link to the same article, which is also linked in the main body. Not sure either of these are needed, but surely we don't need both.
Good point. I hadn't been paying much attention to that list. I removed both. Display name 99 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: I did not review the sources as a whole, but the use of a quote in note 121 caught my attention. Is there a reason for the quote? Also, it appears that this is cited to a website selling old copies of the New York Times, rather than to the paper itself, which also seems quite odd. If you don't have more direct access to this, I do, and would be happy to update the source, unless you have some reason to keep it the way it is.
The website that I used made it slightly difficult to find the appropriate heading. You've got to click on "Show Images List," and then scroll down. That source was the closest I could get to the paper. If you can get a better version, please add it right in to the article. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Back with more in the next few days. --RL0919 (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your replies above. I've updated the source for fn 121 as discussed, and here are a few more comments/questions:
First term (1851–1853):
Is there a reason that "heir apparent" is in italics?
The long sentence about attacks on William Butler by Breckinridge's cousin and others was a bit difficult. I took a shot at splitting it up, but if you've got a better idea, feel free to take another pass at it.
Retirement from the House: "an attempt by Breckinridge's fellow investors to secure approval of a railroad" -- should I infer from this that Breckinridge was not personally involved, just his fellow investors? It's not clear from the current wording.
He was not involved in the actions which led to the plan being thwarted. Added clarification in parenthesis. Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vice Presidency: "Although Crittenden's Senate term did not expire until 1861" -- After re-reading, I realized this meant John J. Crittenden, but the first time through I was confused. Breckinridge was involved with both the John and Thomas Crittenden, and after several intervening sections I had forgotten about John's briefly-mentioned senatorial status. It's not a must, but it might be appropriate at this point to refer to him by his full name again for clarity.
Presidential campaign of 1860: "He endorsed Crittenden's proposed compromise" -- I had to follow the link to know what this was. A brief description would be helpful. Maybe "He endorsed a package of constitutional amendments and Congressional resolutions proposed by Crittenden as a compromise" or something along those lines.
Done. I added something to this effect. Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Service in the Western Theater: "commanding the Army of the Army of Mississippi" -- Should this just be "the Army of Mississippi"?
Escape and exile: "and his son Cabell" -- isn't this the same son who was captured earlier? If so, it seems odd for him to be back at his father's side with no mention that he had been freed.
I don't see where the article says that he had been captured. Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the last paragraph under "Service in the Western Theater". --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy: I moved some sentences around in an attempt to improve flow. I think the mention of the movie sticks out. If there is no other content to include about how he is represented in popular media, I'm not sure that a single, little-noticed film should even be mentioned. It seems more like trivia.
It's common practice, in sections such as this concerning historical figures, to include mention of notable films or other media in which they have been portrayed. If there are too many to list in the main article, we create a separate article. I don't see why there only being one movie made should prevent us from mentioning that film. Display name 99 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems quite thorough and generally well written, so those are all the comments I have at this point. --RL0919 (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with all the updates and replies except the one bit about his son's capture. See additional comment about that above. That should be addressed, but by itself it isn't critical, so I support this article for promotion based on prose. --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RL0919, thank you for your helpful review and declaration of support. Regrettably, I could not find anything on his son being released from captivity. The source that is cited there is not available on Google Books, and I have no hard copy to reference. I checked the other sources, but none seem to say anything about it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found a mention in one of the other sources that he was freed in a prisoner exchange, so I added a sentence to that effect. --RL0919 (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about halfway through the article, and have made a couple of minor copyedits; so far the prose looks to be in excellent shape. I'll add notes below as I go through. I hope to be able to do a source spotcheck too.
The article is very long, and I see there's a subarticle on his political career. Shouldn't some of the detail be moved to that article? Particularly prior to his vice-presidency I think we get a lot of detail that would be fine to trim, so long as it's in the subarticle.
I don't see this as a major issue. The article on Breckinridge's political career is shorter than his main biography (86,495 characters compared to 112,498), but this is mainly because the former, in keeping with its title, completely omits areas of detail for other areas of Breckinridge's life. The part about his career in politics is already much more detailed. Other articles on U.S. vice presidents are longer (John C. Calhoun is about 6,00 characters longer, and many articles on more recent VPs, some featured, are much longer than that). It seems to be that sections are divided and organized appropriately. If you disagree, please say so. But I don't see an issue with overall length. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not too long in itself, but given that the subarticle exists I would prefer to see it shortened as most of the details are present in the subarticle -- that's what summary style is for, after all. I am not going to oppose over this, but I do think more could be compressed here since it's in the subarticle. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After his vice-presidency ends he is immediately in the Senate again, but unless I missed it there is no mention of the election that placed him there.
I can actually answer your second item without waiting on the nominator: His "election" (appointment by the state legislature in the 19th century) as senator is discussed in the last paragraph of the Vice Presidency section. --RL0919 (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Breckinridge received a plurality of votes for Speaker, but fell at least eight votes short of a majority on each of the first three ballots": The source only supports the "eight votes" comment for the first of these three votes.
The source (Klotter p. 104) says that he received more votes than anybody else, but 8 short of a majority. More than anyone else but not a majority equals a plurality. Display name 99 (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source says he received 8 more than anyone else on the first ballot; it doesn't say anything about the second or third ballot except that there was a deadlock in prospect. I think it's likely that the vote was unchanged, but I don't think we can say that with just the statement in Klotter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked half a dozen other citations and see no issues with paraphrasing or accuracy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would like to see more material moved to the subarticle on his political career, but I won't hold up support for that as I think it's a matter of opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: I notice a few duplinks but as this is quite long, it could be argued that these are not too bad. I also notice that the images are missing alt text. While not a FA requirement, I always think that FAs should demonstrate best practice and it would be good if someone could add this in. Neither of these issues is enough to hold up promotion any further. If Midnightblueowl has anything further to add, I'm sure this could be discussed at the article talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about Louise Bryant, an early 20th-century journalist, feminist, and political activist, who with her second husband John Reed reported on the Russian Revolution from Moscow. In the movie Reds, Diane Keaton plays the fictionalized role of Bryant during her life with Reed. After Reed's death in 1920, Bryant covered events in Russia, Central Asia, Europe, and the Middle East and interviewed such notables as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Benito Mussolini for the Hearst newspaper chain. Her life included a childhood in rural Nevada, a rise to fame in mid-life, and a bleak ending after the collapse of her career, her health, and her third marriage. Finetooth (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bryant is listed in Category:American anarchists, but on skim, I don't see such political beliefs elaborated in prose (more her husband's and that she wrote about radicals). If she didn't identify as an anarchist, the category should be removed as a non-defining trait czar 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. I removed the anarchist category and the two Communist categories since, unlike Reed, she did not became a Communist party member. "Marxist feminist" seems more accurate. Finetooth (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Bryant, a feminist, married in 1916 to the more famous writer John Reed". I really don't like this at all. I suggest changing the WP:BEGINNING to "Louise Bryant (December 5, 1885 – January 6, 1936) was an American feminist, political activist, and journalist best known for..." (Note links)
Thanks. I had put this one off for the very reason you mention. The details of the intervention were something I needed to study before attempting to change the wording. Your solution looks good to me. Finetooth (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"A rare and painful disorder" Let the reader know what it is. (MOS:DONTTEASE)
Early life, Portland, Greenwich Village and Cape Cod
Did she legally change her surname to Bryant?
Gelb says she did not. Added this info. Finetooth (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Dearborn says that "the Mohan children had taken their stepfather's name...". However, when she married Reed, she gave her name as Ann Louise Mohan, according to Gardner. I will keep looking. Finetooth (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"which became the University of Nevada, Reno" In 1969. But it became the University of Nevada in 1906, while she was there. Suggest "(which became the University of Nevada in 1906)"
True, but that interim name is less important than the name by which people now recognize it. The University of Nevada system now has a campus in Las Vegas. Changed to "and college at Nevada State University (now known as the University of Nevada, Reno)" Finetooth (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. No confusion there. Hawkeye7(talk) 22:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"(the historic names of which also include Saint Petersburg and Leningrad)" Actually (1) that's the lot and (2) why are we using italics? It was formerly Saint Petersburg, and layter became Leningrad (and then Saint Petersburg again.) I'd drop the whole parenthetical phrase, but get rid of the italics at least.
Dropped the whole parenthetical. Finetooth (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"General Kornilov" -> "Major General Lvar Kornilov". (MOS:FULLNAME)
"huskings" "A meeting of neighbours or friends to assist in husking maize." What?
Ha, ha. The error this time was in the Gardner text, which I quoted correctly but mistook huskings for hustings. Fixed by rewriting to eliminate the need for a [sic], a link, or an explanation. Finetooth (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"during which she was arrested and jailed for three days" For any particular reason? (I realise that in the US you can be arrested without charge)
Interesting question. I added a fair bit about the burning of Wilson in effigy, a hunger strike, and the charges, including "attempting to make disorderly speeches." Gasp! Finetooth (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Link Constantinople (Why is this the only city where you don't mention its more common name?)
Linked. Since I removed the other names for Petrograd, I thought I'd leave this one alone as well. Finetooth (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Turkish strongman". Ataturk is a national hero, and calling him a "strongman" violates WP:NPOV
Repaired. Added that he was the first president of the Republic of Turkey. Finetooth (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Bryant gave birth to her only child, Anne, in February 1924" Link Anne Moen Bullitt, give her full name, and you can give her full date of birth as WP:BLP doesn't apply because she's dead.
Linked. Moved the supporting citation from the infobox to here. Made more clear that the birth came two months after the marriage. I don't think the exact day of the month is important enough to include. Finetooth (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I tend to use exact dates whenever possible, to help out people trying to paraphrase me. This comes from years of having to work with the Australian Dictionary of Biography which is frequently necessarily vague. No problem here though. Hawkeye7(talk) 22:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"she was involved in a lesbian relationship with Gwen Le Gallienne". In view of this, should the article be tagged under WP:WikiProject LGBT studies?
Thanks Hawkeye7. I've started these, but it's getting late. I'll come back tomorrow when I'm fresh. Finetooth (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've responded to all of these, adopting your suggestions in almost every case. The open question about Bryant's legal name is unresolved; I'll try to resolve it, but off-wiki life is calling me away again, probably until tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insightful and helpful review and for your support. This morning I found and inserted the answer to the legal name-change question. Finetooth (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Underwood-PD tag covers that, I think. It says, "Images submitted for copyright by Underwood & Underwood are in the public domain in the United States due to expiration or lack of renewal." Finetooth (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows a couple of spots where the prose is probably a little close and could be tweaked a bit.
Looks good. It wasn't a big problem, but better to avoid the issue of some drive-by person bringing it up later... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Recusing on this one as it's too interesting to miss out on! Looking good, having read to the end of the Greenwich Village section. Just a few nit-picks so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"she became society editor of the Portland, Oregon, Spectator": This is a little awkward, although correct. Could be rephrase this to avoid the comma overload?
"The 1981 film Reds tells the story of Bryant's time with Reed.": I'm not sure we need this in the lead, but if we do I'm not sure it's best placed where it is, discussing 1920.
Removed from the lead. Finetooth (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Socially popular": Do we need to specify socially?
"and wore clothes considered by some to be "flashy"" Considered by who? As written, this could refer to her boyfriends.
Good question. According to Gardner, it was the Oregon Monthly editor as well as the dean of women at the university. I added this info and links to articles about the editor and the dean. Finetooth (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Seeking employment, she landed a temporary job designing a stained-glass window for the Povey Brothers,[11] did some freelance reporting for The Oregonian,[12] and found work as an illustrator and society editor for the Portland Spectator.": There's something about this sentence that doesn't quite work for me; do we need "seeking employment" at all? Or do we change it to say "Needing to find employment because..."? I'm not too keen on "landed" and "did" is a little lacking in elegance; could we not rephrase this as "among her jobs, she designed a stained-glass window for the Povey Brothers, worked as a freelance reporter for The Oregonian and became an illustrator and society editor for the Portland Spectator." Or maybe it's just me...!
Rephrased using your suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, can we say more about the Spectator? It might be useful to know what kind of publication it was.
Added that it was a local magazine. Added RS in support of this addition. Finetooth (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"she met and married Paul Trullinger, a handsome dentist": Is his attractiveness important?
"...and enjoyed uninhibited parties": I've got to ask... uninhibited how?
I took a stab at fleshing this out. The drinking and ether-inhaling are specific examples. He was mildly rebellious for a while. Finetooth (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"as part of what Max Eastman, editor of The Masses, called a "gypsy compact"": When did he say this, and in what context? Also, what did he mean by a "gypsy compact"? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He said it on page 213 of his book Heroes I Have Known (1942). Dearborn uses "gypsy compact" as the title of one of her book sections and attributes it to Eastman, whom she quotes at length. Eastman says in part, "[Reed's] companionship with Louise Bryant was based on a joint determination to smash through the hulls of custom and tradition and all polite and proper forms of behavior, and touch at all times and all over the earth the raw current of life. It was a companionship in what philistines call adventure, a kind of gypsy compact." Eastman and Dearborn were being poetic, I think, and the "gypsy compact" analogy is unnecessary. I removed it but left the rest of the sentence intact. Finetooth (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review this. I know you are busy. I'm traveling and stuck with a bad internet connection. I'll work on these suggestions and any others that you or others may have when I get home in about three days. Cheers. Finetooth (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Home again. I think I've responded to all of your suggestions. Looking forward to the next batch. Finetooth (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay; I've been away for a few days. Should get to this later today or tomorrow. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More: I made a few minor copy-edits, and after a few questions, I'll be delighted to support. Sorry for the delay, a very interesting woman and a good read. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"where Villagers including Eastman": Any reason why we are capitalising villagers here?
Yes. It's short for Greenwich Villagers. I used Villagers here and in other places in the article to distinguish them from generic villagers. Finetooth (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"When he returned from Baltimore in mid-December, the couple retreated full-time to Croton-on-Hudson to recuperate and to focus on writing": While it's pretty obvious that this refers to Bryant and Reed, the last sentence refers to "Bryant's ongoing relationship with O'Neill", this may cause a little confusion.
Quite right. Changed to Reed and Bryant. Finetooth (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"After securing press credentials for Bryant, Reed moved to the Harvard Club, and Bryant, setting sail in June, went to France to cover the war for the Bell Syndicate": The number of "Bryant and Reed"s in this section is a little tricky. I'm wondering could this be reworded to flow a little better, something like: "Reed secured press credentials for Bryant and moved to the Harvard Club; she set sail for France in June to cover the war for the Bell Syndicate"
Reworded using your suggestion. Finetooth (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as they had been struggling financially, and he was something of a persona non grata, how was he able to get her work for the Bell Syndicate?
Good question. I'm hunting for an answer. Will reply again when I find one. Finetooth (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added some new material about this, including a paragraph about what Bryant did in Europe on this initial trip. It's not clear who paid for the voyage or what exactly Bryant's financial arrangement was with Wheeler. The press pass would have cost nothing. Finetooth (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"they arrived in the Russian capital city (then Petrograd, later Moscow)": As written, this looks like the city's name changed from Petrograd to Moscow rather than the capital city changed location.
I recast, dropping the mention of Moscow altogether. Finetooth (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we attribute the long Gardner quotes in text? And maybe say at this point who Gardner is, rather than later.
Attributed Gardner in text for the two blockquotes and said who she is on first mention. Finetooth (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"for conspiracy to obstruct the draft": Can we clarify this a little; obstruct how? Which draft?
Added material about the specific charges; linked to an article about conscription in the United States. Please let me know if this is still not clear. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we say a little more about Bullit? He just appears at the moment, then marries her. Who was he? If there isn't much to say except it's a bit of a mystery why they married, would it make sense to move the quote from the next section from "Louise Bryant grows old"? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can add more about Bullit. It may take me until tomorrow to decide what to add about him and also to address the Bell Syndicate question. Finetooth (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some new material about the Bell Syndicate, including Gelb's statement that Reed paid for Bryant's ship passage. On the other hand, I'm not finding anything interesting to add about Bullitt. He was the richest of Bryant's list of lovers but not the most famous and not the last. Finetooth (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Stansell quote is best left where it is to maintain the chronological sequence of events. I'm not sure where you are proposing to move it, so my reply here might not make perfect sense. Finetooth (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, whatever you think best. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A very interesting article, very nicely put together. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words and support and for your insightful review. Despite my earlier reluctance, I have now added more about Bullitt. I was concerned about adding too many details about anybody but Bryant, but the more I thought about it, the more it seemed to me that you were right. Finetooth (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like a lot, but not "1918. In 1919". If so close, it could be "a year later", - or less close?
Moved to make less close. Finetooth (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Leaving her first husband in 1915 to follow Reed" comes a bit as a surprise ;)
Yes. Her husband was not entirely happy about this. Finetooth (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I see what you mean by "surprise". I added "her second husband" after the first mention of Reed in the lead. Finetooth (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
jail and lovers make for another surprise, the lovers sentence needs some punctuation.
Split the sentence with a terminal period instead of a semicolon. Finetooth (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After having read the lead, I don't know where the name Bryant comes from, and if it should be used when speaking about the divorce, and her death.
I've tried to clarify by adding "As a young girl, Bryant, born Anna Louise Mohan, began using the last name of her stepfather, Sheridan Bryant, instead of her father's name" to the second paragraph of the lead. I have not been able to find what exactly the divorce papers called her, but she retained "Louise Bryant" as her professional name even after her marriage to Bullitt, and that is the name she is best known by. She was described in newspaper obituaries as Louise Bryant. Finetooth (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once introduced, I think it's fine to use the name Bryant throughout. What do think of this: "Born Anna Louise Mohan, she began as a young girl using the last name of her stepfather, Sheridan Bryant, instead of her father's name."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Yours is better; mine had too many things set off in commas. I tweaked yours just a little to read: "Born Anna Louise Mohan, as a young girl she began using the last name of her stepfather, Sheridan Bryant, instead of her father's name." Finetooth (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Early ...
"The new marriage produced two children", - not my favourite wording ;)
Changed to "The couple had two children...". Finetooth (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Depressed after the death of Say" - I had to search who Say was.
Changed to "stepfather". Finetooth (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But Say was the step-grandfather? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"That spring", - better serve someone who jumps to the section by TOC, and repeat which spring.
Good point. Added the specific year, 1909.
Greenwich ...
italics for staged works? Perhaps say just "O'Neill", as a reminder that he was mentioned (and linked) before?
Added italics to the three play names. I'm reluctant to shorten and unlink O'Neill since he is not linked before this in the main text, only in the lead. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the mentioning with the plays, which is the second under the same header, not linked, but with given name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else to do with it. Her image on my screen is directly across from mention of her in the text. I understand the desire to place an image as close as possible to its subject's mention in the text, but sometimes I think layout considerations are more important. For example, I don't really object to moving the sorority image down a bit as you did in the "Early life" section, but on my screen it displaces the "Portland" head. I've been advised by other editors not to displace heads with images; the problem is that now that we have entered the age of handheld screens, I don't know what everything looks like to everybody else or even if a general layout solution is possible. Finetooth (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my smaller screen, the "Portland" header is not displaced, but you are probably right about the many, - how about moving that early image up again, but right? I rarely have left images, and never directly under a header, - a missed friend's rule, not to displace the text ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved sorority pix to the right. That's a good solution. Finetooth (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could move it up too, as you suggest. Which do you think is better? Finetooth (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't move it all the way up, because she wasn't yet Bryant. You could split the first section, for the two husbands of her mother, and put the image with the second. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New York
same
Yes. Same reply as above. Moving the Strong image down would spoil the layout by creating a text sandwich since the Overman image is bumped against the Overman paragraph.
link World War I here which was not linked before?
Linked it now in the lead and also on first mention in the "Croton-on-Hudson" section, where I have now inserted it to make it more clear what "war" refers to. Finetooth (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for meeting an interesting woman and her world! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for action! Support! Keep thinking about the images. Perhaps we don't need the senator? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words, your insights, and your support. I have removed the Overman image and moved all the others to the right. Fortunately, none is staring out of the page, which is another layout consideration. Finetooth (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the article, but I was not able to find any issues. Support. Was an interesting and engaging read. - @Robtalk 08:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't hold up promotion over it but I think I'd prefer to see citations for the statements in the second/last para of Bibliography prior to "Below is a partial list of her published work" -- unless all of that info is cited in the main body of the article, which it may well be. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Second attempt at a FA nomination, now with a new title. This article is about the championship game in 1998 NFL season to determine the NFC representative for the Super Bowl, a famous game in NFL lore due to the Falcons' upset victory. Helltopay-27 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about American football, but this nomination has waited a long time for its first comments, and I hope that these few remarks might kickstart some more general interest.
Despite my ignorance I found the article interesting, but I kind of got the impression I was reading a sports page, rather than an encyclopedia article. The essence of the encyclopedia is neutrality in tone; here, in the lead alone, we have an overdose of superlatives: "one of the best conference championship games in NFL history", "the proudest moment in Falcons history", and "devastating" twice in two lines. I'm not saying you should drain all life out of the prose, but care has to be taken not to go into overdrive.
There's quite a lot of verbatim quotes in the article, and here again one needs to take care to preserve a semblance of encyclopedic detachment. While some spontaneous reaction is OK, I question the need to include: "You fucked up, Gary! You fucking blew history, Gary!" – particularly as this comment came "years later".
Not knowing how football scoring works, I got rather tangled up when reading the match account. I wasn't helped by the frequent switchings of the teams' names – "Falcons" or "Atlanta", "Vikings" or "Minnesota" – and I found it difficult sometimes to relate the given scores to the play I was reading about. In particular I would like to have known what the points score was at the time of Anderson's kick, and also what the points score was at the end of regulation time.
Subject to these reservations, I think the article and its accompanying tables are well presented, and although I haven't checked the references in detail, there doesn't appear to be any obvious problem there. I'd be interested to hear what other reviewers have to say. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the "best conference championship game" per Cas Liber's suggestion below, and removed the first instance of "devastating." (Also suggested by Cas.) Beyond that, I await more feedback on the issue; Wikipedia allows such superlatives as long as they are sourced, (which these are) and I believe that it properly contextualizes the sentiment of the game among NFL fans/writers. In the instances in the lead, these sentiments are expanded upon with direct sources later in the article.
I've removed the specific quote in question, as I agree, it doesn't really add to the article. As for other verbatim quotes, I again await more feedback. I modeled my article off of Heidi Game, a current featured article that uses a similar amount of verbatim quotes, which eliminates some subjectivity by providing the reader with the person's actual words.
I've added scores and consistency to the naming conventions. I fear that it may have made the prose clunky, so any feedback in that regard would be appreciated.
Try "most exciting" rather than "best" in the first sentence of 2nd para as more exact.
You use "devastating" twice in last segment of last para of lead. Just remove the first and meaning is preserved as second mention explains "effect" just before.
despite tremendous talent --> "despite his talent" explains context adequately
had initiated a complete roster overhaul - err, no, if it was then 53 of 53 players would be new. Just say "overhauled the roster"
All players should be linked at first instance in body of text and then not again. also use full name on first mention only then just surname (unless there are two of the same name such as Anderson)
Engaging read though and doesn't need too much work. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Removed.
Revised.
Revised.
I've edited the article to this guideline within reason; I've shortened "Gary Anderson" to "Anderson" in the paragraphs that established Gary Anderson is the subject. (Without referring to any other Andersons/sens.)Helltopay-27 (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay cool. I can't see any other outstanding prose-clangers, and for mine it strikes a good balance between neutral encyclopedic dryness and enthusiastic effusiveness. A nice read. And looks comprehensive..Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the 1998–99 NFL playoffs, it was played between the Minnesota Vikings - Reads kind of awkwardly; think this might be better without passive voice
for the chance to play in Super Bowl XXXIII. - repeating play again after it was used within the same sentence
Due to the circumstances surrounding the kick, Anderson's missed field goal has since become the focal point of the loss.[9] - circumstances is kind of a vague choice for a noun here, could you tweak this a bit?
The Falcons went on to lose 34–19 to the Denver Broncos two weeks later in the Super Bowl - not a fan of the use of "went on to X"; might be better as The falcons subsequently lost or something along those lines
Although the game long stood as the proudest moment in Falcons history, - for the franchise or the team?
Randy Moss, who, despite his talent, was passed by several teams, - is passed the correct verb here? Not sure
Combined with a defense that finished fourth overall in points allowed, the Falcons won the - Not sure what's being combined here; I'd suggest a more precise verb than combined and clarification of what you're comparing
Cunningham drew on his religious faith to persevere through the loss, believing that God had a reason for everything to happen. - I don't think it's necessary to link faith or God
the 1998 Vikings would have been considered the best NFL team of their generation had they went on to win the Super Bowl,[10 - had they won the Super Bowl, not went on win
Falcons linebacker Jessie Tuggle agreed, noting that "Dan has really inspired us all. [...] He walked in the meeting room four days after having had surgery, and you could have heard a pin drop. We wanted to hear every last word he had to say." - citation?
Chandler was noted as the offensive hero of the game, despite the attention that the Vikings' offense received during the season. - citation?
Elway was quoted as saying, "These last three years have been hell. I know I would not have been back here if Dan Reeves had been here. It wasn't worth it to me. I didn't enjoy it. It wasn't any fun, and I got tired of working with him." - citation?
Reeves responded by saying, "Just tell him it wasn't exactly heaven for me either. One of these days I hope he grows up. Maybe he'll mature sometime." - citation?
General suggestion: maybe another image to break up the text?
Overall, good work, but the prose needs some fine-tuning. I may go over it again with more suggestions and perhaps do some more copyediting. ceranthor 02:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The beginning of the first paragraph has been revised.
See above.
Revised.
Changed to simply "The Falcons lost"
The franchise. Revised.
Yes, it's terminology used in the context of a team not choosing a player in the draft.[34][35][36]
I'm of the opinion that direct quotations should be immediately cited when they're provided. There should be no confusion when someone else reads an article where your quotations came from. ceranthor 00:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... I think this might come down to personal preference. I couldn't find anything in the Wikipedia policies that specifically addresses the issue. Plus, I know there are users out there who prefer that a source is used to encompass all relevant information until another source is used. I was told as much during for my previous featured article nomination. Regardless, the sources are there; I hope that this won't hold up opinions to support promoting the article. Helltopay-27 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source spotchecks check out (randomly checked three sources).
Earwig's copyvio tool also checks out.
Unsure whether Sports Reference LLC can be considered a reliable source. Any evidence to justify that it is? ceranthor 02:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SportsGrid is the sports division of Complex magazine. Per Wikipedia's reliability policy: "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." I believe Complex falls under that description.
Sports Reference LLC is the parent company/publisher of the website pro-football-reference.com, which is the the source of the information. Wikipedia has found it reliable enough in the past to create a template to cite the website. Helltopay-27 (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, okay then. I'm happy with the sources. ceranthor 12:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comprehensive and well-structured. I copyedited a bit; please revert if I messed anything up. Prose is clean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a bird that inhabits a wide range across northern Europe and Asia. It also can be found in parts of Alaska. Anyways, hope you find the article interesting. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are four five images in the article (three four images and one range map). No issues, and everything is great! I think that this image could be used too. It pictures the young, and we also have lot of space, so would not be an issue, I guess. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did that. I also staggered the images a bit. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great one! An awesome article. Everything is good to go from the image review. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just some starter ones from my first pass through before I have breakfast:
The adult black-throated loon is 58 to 77 cm (23 to 30 in) in length with a 100 to 130 cm (39 to 51 in) wingspan, shaped like a smaller, sleeker version of the common loon is an "and is" needed to link the measurements to the bit starting "shaped like" cause this scans weirdly
The sexes are alike, and the subspecies viridigularis is differentiated from the nominate by the former's green throat patch, compared to the latter's black throat patch. This might be more elegantly stated as The sexes are alike, and the subspecies viridigularis is very similar to the nominate except that it has a green throat patch, instead of black.
Done, except that I replaced "it" with "the former", to make it clear which has the green throat patch. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The juvenile is similar to the nominate non-breeding adult the subspecies are differentiated by their breeding plumage so the nominate is not needed in this sentence
Oops, seems to have only gotten it in the lead. Done now. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The black-throated loon has a large range, with breeding taking place across northern Europe, Asia,[1] and the Seward Peninsula[8] I would clarify that the seward pen is in Alaska, as most people wouldn't know this.
it can be found to habitate inshore waters habitate as a synonym for inhabit is pretty archaic, obscure and unclear, not in many dictionaries, just use simple English. it can be found in inshore waters , or its habitat is. The same comment applies later when using that word
inshore waters along sheltered coasts, and sometimes those that are inland what is those referring to, waters or coasts?
Clarified. It actually nests inland. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When it is not breeding, this bird is less social, with typical flocks consisting of about eight individuals,[9] compared to flocks averaging 50 birds for migration. Less social than what? It's breeding sociality is not defined. And migration is not breeding so that comparison is weird.
I suppose that I will remove it, then. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.1 square kilometres (0.039 sq mi) I would put a zero before the decimal place (the way the conversion template did)
Families of black-throated loons usually move their nest from the original nest ponds they inhabited to wetlands nearby after the chicks reach two weeks of age. They inhabited is redundant and I think you mean they move their broods? I doubt they drag old nests around.
I added "site" after nest. Does that make it more clear? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the female adopts a posture where the neck is shorter and thicker than it would be in a resting state maybe the female hunches her neck?
Done, except I changed "her" to "its" for consistency. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
During copulation, the male, coming ashore, mounts the female, occasionally making flapping sounds. I'd say "occasionally flaps its wings loudly
Good change—immaturity would be on the rise if we let that one stand :P RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
with the female spending the most time out of the sexes incubating, again, redundancy - no need for "out of the sexes", its enough to say the female bears more of the responsibility.
I think "out of the sexes" is better, because it could sound like the females spends most of her time incubating. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nesting success, whether or not at least one chick will hatch from any given nest, is variable, with the rate of success ranging from just under 30% to just over 90% this doesn't make sense. Variable how - from year to year? Geographic area to area? Nesting success is an average, so if there is variation in averages, or more than one average, you must explain what is different about them.
The interval between when the egg is turned is very irregular, ranging from one minute to about six hours. I would introduce egg turning as a concept before talking about its frequency.
This is influenced by the density of fish in the breeding lake; a lake more dense with fish will usually reduce the chances that a pair will fledge a chick, even though this loon feeds mainly on fish This needs clarification - why is this so (from memory fish are predators of small chicks?) Also, a lake more dense with fish? Lakes with higher densities of fish or lakes with more fish sounds better.
Done. The explanation(s) (is|are) pretty interesting. The first explanation is that less fish equals more insects, an alternative food source for chicks. The second is that less fish means less pike, a predator of small fish. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On average, a single pair will usually fledge a chick about 25% of the time per year At the start of this paragraph nesting success was (on average) 30-90%, this new figure falls outside even that huge range.
Yeah. Well, for one, the success rate has to be below 50 no matter what, as only one chick survives. Then, if you say that chick survives about half the time, then you get 25% for the success. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've double checked the source and the statistic is for just Scottish birds. This is not clear in this article, and it seems that success is highly variable (and for example varies by microhabitat) so to summarise the overall breeding success of the family based on a single study seems way off. Especially when that study is on the extreme of other areas. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 06:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I reworded it to make it clear that it is for Scottish birds. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be moved up with the other nesting success info and the discrepancy should be addressed. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 19:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it up there, and hopefully addressed the discrepancy. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's been moved, but the figure quoted still falls outside the other range given. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 20:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that matter? The range and the number given are for two different things; the range is for whether or not at least one chick will hatch, while the number is for whether or not at least one chick will fledge per pair per year. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It dives from the surface into the water, How else would it dive?
I reworded to "It dives from the water", to make it clear that it dives from the water, and not from the ground or anything. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most dives are successful, there must be some numbers to back up this statement
The lead seems very long. Could it be summaries a bit more?
I don't really think I could. Is there anything specific you think I should try and cut down on? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Examples in the lead could be:
Habitat (lakes ) mentioned twice
This loon was first described by Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae.This loon was described by Carl Linnaeus in 1758.
Everything from It was previously considered to be the same species as the could be condensed down to the black-throated loon was found to be sister to a clade consisting of the Pacific loon, common loon and yellow-billed loon.
The timing of this is variable; in the southern part of its range, this loon starts breeding in April, whereas in the northern portion, it waits until after the spring thaw. It breeds in spring.
It just needs a cut down in words as it is supposed to be a short summary. The actual detail isn't being lost. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 18:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did the first and second. I didn't do the third as the traditional representation is still supported by some evidence, so it would violate NPOV to condense it to that. I also didn't do the fourth, as "spring" would be incorrect for those reading in the southern hemisphere. I also condensed some other parts of the lead a bit. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In description, the text refers to The nominate subspecies in its alternate plumage has a grey head and hindneck, but the caption talks about breeding plumage. I'd be consisten about which you use as the primary term, but also introduce both in the first instance (especially as alternate plumage is kind of jargonish.
he non-breeding adult differs from if you mention alternate plumage above, use the technical term (basic plumage) here too. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 06:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just will use the non-technical term. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there are some earlier comments needing follow up. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 18:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat Could you provide some specifics about the wintering distribution? For example the map suggests it winters off Japan, Bay of Biscay, Caspian Sea, Black Sea, the Med, so this is worth mentioning?
I suppose I'll include some examples. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The black-throated loon usually forages by itself or in pairs, rarely feeding in groups with multiple species. Do we know which species? Sadly, BNA was no help (I had a look).
Mammalian predators are likely the cause of about 40% of clutch losses. Again, do we know the species? Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 05:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be images on Commons that show the bird better than the taxobox image:[38][39] This image may also be interesting because it shows the wings:[40] This photo is interesting because it shows winter plumage:[41] This image shows it running on water, which I definitely think should be included:[42]FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I don't know about the last one, as the loon running on water is never mentioned. Also, its on flikr, and I don't know how to port it over to commons. I also found this video that shows it foraging, which I will put in the feeding section. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an oversight that the running on water thing isn't mentioned in the article then, a quick Google search indicates this is a feature common to loons in general. Images are easy to transfer to Commons with this[43], but I can do it for you. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any reference to it searching through on Google Scholar, and if its common to all loons, then it should be in the loon article, not here, unless there is a detailed description of it and how this behaviour differs between it and other loons. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article itself already states it, just in other words: "it waits until the spring thaw,[3] when there is adequate water for it to take off in." Anyhow, here are some other sources specifically about this species that mention it needs a long "runway" or "take off" to get airborne.[44][45] And here's a source stating it for loons in general:[46] I'm not buying this should only be mentioned if it differs from other loons (do you only mention species of fish this species eats that others don't?), but whether you add this or not, the image could be included, as we have now demonstrated this is indeed part of the behaviour of this bird. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll add it, since there are differences between it and other species. I would like to take your offer to do it for me—thank you very much. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The intro seems overly long and detailed compared to the length of the article body. See[48]
I will try and trim it down a bit more. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the range map could need a source on Commons. And why use the binomial in the caption?
Changed the binomial to the common name in the range map caption. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It was previously considered conspecific with the North American Pacific loon, but they have now been split into two species" Give a date for when this changed. And on what grounds?
I couldn't find why, but I could find when and by who. I will include that. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It was previously considered conspecific with the North American Pacific loon, but they have now been split into two species." This sentence is out of place where it is now, beteen a sentence about it's naming, and the meaning of said name.
"stems from the place of this bird in the loon family" Not sure what this means. If you're just saying it's called a loon because it's a loon, then it is pretty redundant.
I'm not sure why the predators/parasites section is under status. These threats are natural, whereas status sections are usually about unnatural threats.
"those that are successful are usually shorter than those that are unsuccessful, with an average of 17 seconds for each successful dive, and 27 seconds for each unsuccessful dive" and "those that are more profitable are usually more than 40 seconds" seem to contradict each other?
I will reword it to clarify this. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"feeds away from the nest, foraging either at the end of the breeding lake away from the nest" Say "opposite end" instead of repeating the same words.
"they are still fed, and in large numbers, invertebrates." Why not just "fed invertebrates in large numbers? The present wording seems unnecessarily complicated.
I think it would be a good idea to submit articles for GAN before FAC in the future (like most of us do); there are a few too many errors in wording that should have been weeded out before FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - everything looks nice now, but the article could have been sent to the copy-editors before nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not explain why the species was split from the Pacific loon.
I could not, unfortunately, find why. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 13:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look tomorrow. gotta sleep now...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, this bases its decision on Kistchinski, 1978, Birds of the Koryak Highlands, pp. 24-27...except the goddamn book is only in Russian...still looking. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this 1975 paper is important as it shows that there are differences in the anatomy of air sacs between arctica and pacifica and the author (Kadosaki) proposed they were likely separate species. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's mentioned on page 6 of Sprengelmeyer. So added now. Still I think the other material is important to add - I'd do it but I need to sleep! Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How did you the books that it said it was based on?! I looked for those, but I couldn't find them at all. Really good job there. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to specify how green the throat patch of subspecies viridigularis is.
It has two subspecies including the nominate. - What's a nominate? Can you link or explain? If it's the same as the later link, it should be linked at its first mention
When it is not breeding, the black patch on the throat is absent, replaced with white, in addition to most of the black lines on the throat, except those on the bottom sides. - Second half of this sentence is unclear... are the black lines on the throat missing? Are they also replaced with white? Be more precise
The genus name Gavia comes from the Latin for "sea mew", as used by ancient Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder.[4] - I think there should be an article "the" before ancient
Acidification and heavy-metal pollution of the body of water this species breeds in is a possible threat to it - very clunky arrangement to this sentence; would probably be helped by avoiding the passive voice here
On Chrome, the image of the loon with its chick in feeding is creeping into the next section - it might help to move it up a bit within the text, though that might just be a Chrome issue.
I don't know, but I'd prefer not to move it up, as that would mean moving the video up, which would not look too good, as you would have the header, then the video, and then the text next to the video and to the right of the header. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 10:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article's in great shape, so I'll be happy to support once my issues are fixed. ceranthor 03:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Jim I fixed an obvious typo. You might want to link "iris/irides" and with regard to there was no evidence of the two interbreeding in areas where they occurred together, perhaps you could clarify where that occurs? Otherwise, good stuff Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Yet another WP:BIRD, this one a jewel of an Australian species. I never even really planned to write it but I photocopied the wrong pages at the library. Oh well, turned out to be a great mistake as its lovely. It's been picked over at GAN so should be good to go. Enjoy! Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 09:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are three four images (two three bird images and a range map). All the three are properly licensed and also have a description template. No issues, good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The photos dont show the legs and the tail well, perhaps this photo of a study skin could be added:[50] Or even this low res photo of a live specimen:[51]
Put the skin up, the low res one was taken out at GAN because the original website it was posted on went dead (we really need a way of fixing that problem). Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 02:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, might want to left-align the skin, the two images now clutter a bit under the taxobox. As for the broken link, it is fairly easy to find archived versions[52] with the Wayback Machine. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does Pitta mean?
I personally think it's sufficient that it's covered at Pitta, but I can put it in if you insist. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 02:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary as such, but I was asked about the meaning of the genus name during the Guadeloupe amazon FAC, so others might wonder. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"per hectare." This could get a conversion.
"Females weigh slightly more, 67 g (2.4 oz), on average than males, 62 g (2.2 oz)." This is confusingly structured. Why not just say something like "Females weigh X, which is slightly more than males, which weigh Y.
Shouldn't the subspecies be listed in the taxobox?
It's not compulsory and I'm against it personally. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 02:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to push this, but I wonder why? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too much gets crammed into taxoboxes (synonyms, range maps, child taxa) and it really pushes down images and messes up the page layout when you look at the page on a large screen. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 05:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The tail is olive-green with a black base and the uppertail coverts and sometimes has a" Something seems to be mssing.
"and is the only species of pitta endemic to Australia, from sea-level to 380 m (1,250 ft)." The part about elevation seems a bit tacked on (in a condusing way), and unrelated to the rest of the sentence. Could it be placed elsewhere in the section, or made into its own section?
" It can be difficult to detect during the post-breeding season, as it is silent during the annual moult, and generally shy throughout the year." What does this have to do with distribution?
I fixed this by explaining how that shyness means its movements are hard to understand. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 04:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"insects taken include cockroaches, beetles, ants, caterpillars and grasshoppers, and arthropods include centipedes, spiders and millipedes" You should say "and other arthropods include", since insects are arthropods as well.
"as the breeding season seems to be correlated with the availability of earthworms, a major part of the diet of both nestlings and adults during the breeding season." Perhaps say "during this time" inetad of the second "breeding season".
"four glossy cream eggs" This is only mentioned in the intro.
Removed from lead, wasn't really supported by my sources. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 05:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only see two unaddressed issues (conversion of hectare and left alignment of stuffed specimen), then I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I need to work out how that hectrae conversion works. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 09:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see anything else prose or comprehensiveness-wise, so supporting now Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Jim. I made one minor MoS edit, otherwise nothing significant to fix Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about one of the most devastating hurricanes in U.S. history. Since the failed nominations in 2012 and 2013, I have worked on addressing the issues brought up during those FACs. Additionally, practically every section has been revised to provide a better and more comprehensive summary of preparations, meteorological aspects, impacts, and aftermath related to the hurricane. I have also garnered information from a wider variety of sources, including several academic journal articles (a major issue raised in a previous FAC). The aftermath now includes info on topics barely or not at all mentioned previously. These are just a few examples of many improvements I've made to the article. I hope to have this article as TFA on August 24, the 25th anniversary of Hurricane Andrew's landfall in Florida.12george1 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support
The watches and warnings could be summarized for the Gulf Coast. Also, given that the preps mention Alabama first and progress westward, shouldn't the other preps do the same? After mentioning watches/warnings, you could have Mississippi, then the Louisiana paragraph, then Texas.
You mention/link both "Eleuthera" and "North Eleuthera" in the Bahamas section. Given the hurricane-force winds reported at the latter, I'm guessing it was also the location of landfall?
Yes. The TCR does specify that it was North Eleuthera--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Much of the northwestern Bahamas received damage,[46] with estimates reaching $250 million." - the $ figure is explained weirdly, and should be something like: "with estimated monetary losses of $250 million"
Poor intro to the Florida impact section. Move the 4th paragraph to be the first, as it feels like more of an intro.
Done. I wasn't sure if I should put it at the beginning or end, but at least it wasn't awkwardly in the middle like before--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Tides were generally between only 4 to 6 ft (1.2 to 1.8 m) above normal in the Biscayne Bay area" - this feels odd. There is no justification for the "only"
"Storm surge on the west coast was widespread, but mostly light, with a peak height of 6 ft (1.8 m), measured at both Everglades City and Goodland. The storm surge was reported as far north as Homosassa. " - feels like this could be condensed a bit.
Done. I left you a message on FB about why I'm removing the Homosassa part--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"At some locations, the instruments measuring wind speeds failed before the highest winds occurred." - since this follows the peak wind gust, perhaps this should be "At other locations" instead?
Actually, that instrument failed too (destroyed). So I'll have to come up with something else--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you mention "National Hurricane Center", it is the first time that it is implied that the agency is in Florida. Perhaps "At the National Hurricane Center building in Miami"?
"Additionally, 90% of mobile homes in the county were destroyed, while the destruction of 99% of mobile homes occurred in Homestead." - you should rewrite for active voice so you can trim it a bit.
At the Homestead Air Force Base, re-opened two years later as Homestead Air Reserve Base, most of the 2,000 buildings on the base became "severely damaged or unusable" - why the quotes? And you should make it clearer that the hurricane basically destroyed the base. The article for the base says as much.
Removed the quotes. I guess I could add more but I detailed rebuilding the base in the aftermath--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Nearby, the small town of Florida City suffered also heavily. Over 120 homes were demolished, while 700 others were damaged. City hall was damaged beyond repairs, with the roof being torn off and some walls collapsing." - three sentences for a small town? Make it one and summarize, since there is already a sub-article. And isn't "hall" usually capitalized?
"Due to poor construction, damage to homes in communities such as Country Walk and Saga Bay resembled that of an F3 tornado" - this implies the locations were part of Florida City. And find a different way of saying "poor construction" and better explain the F3 bit.
Rewrote. There's not much more specific details on the bit about the F3-level damage, though than that those communities likely didn't experience winds of that intensity (158-206 mph). Then again, the report could also be basing it on Andrew having been classified as a Category 4 at the time it was written--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Crop damage in the county totaled about $509 million." - you don't mention "county" once here.
What do you mean? I mentioned the county in the second sentence of the paragraph. I'll just switch with the sentence after that.--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"About 500 trees were downed in Deerfield Beach, while several roofs were damaged during the storm." - not sure this is needed, given the sentence two prior. Also, is this needed in this article? "Waves inflicted structural impacts on an incomplete fishing pier. "
You should specify whether counties were north of south of the storm, for better flow. Like, "In Collier County to the north of the path"
I fixed that. But technically, everywhere but Miami-Dade and Monroe (the hurricane crossed the mainland part) were north of the storm's path--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's it through the end of Florida section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review (so far?).--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better already!
Throughout the parish, 477 homes and 890 mobile homes were demolished; 1,394 homes and 634 mobile homes were severely damaged; and 3,970 homes, 652 mobile homes, and 148 apartments were impacted to a minor degree. - seems just like a lot of statistics. I feel like the distinction between home and mobile home isn't terribly necessary, especially since you have the same breakdown a few sentences later, and you have a state breakdown in the next paragraph. It's just a lot of text without giving a lot of information.
I'm guessing you just want me to say like "...1,367 dwellings were destroyed, 2,028 others were severely damaged,..."--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One company reported 13 platforms destroyed, 104 structures damaged, and 5 drilling wells blown off course. - which company?
At the Columbus Metropolitan Airport in Muscogee County, a building and several billboards and signs sustained moderate damage. - feels like the writing could be stronger.
A tornado in Howard County damaged several homes, some extensively; tossed and demolished a recreational vehicle and its trailer; downed numerous trees; and flattened some cornfields. - bit of a run-on
Despite swift structural rebuilding in some areas and Bahamas Director General of Tourism Baltron Bethel stating "the physical devastation affected about 2 percent of our rooms, cottages and apartments.", officials expected a 10%–20% decline in tourism. - poor sentence format. I'd split this into two sentence. First have the quote from Bethel, and the 2nd sentence could start with "Despite..."
I made a minor adjustment before adding Bethel's quote. I hope you're ok with it--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"After the United States House of Representatives appropriated aid to victims of Hurricane Iniki in Hawaii and Typhoon Omar in Guam, the cost was later increased to $11.1 billion. " - was $11.1 billion just for Andrew?
No. Unfortunately I cannot find the specifics allotted for each storm, but Florida alone received $9 billion--12george1 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Governor Chiles considered asking the Florida State Legislature to raise taxes, stating that "No matter how much Congress appropriates to repair damage from Hurricane Andrew, the state will face a substantial cleanup bill"." - did he?
It appears he did not. There was reserve fund set up instead--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"set up six tent cities, five in Florida City and Homestead, with an additional one later opened at the Miccosukee Indian Reservation." - so why not just say "set up seven tent cities"? Or was it 5 between Florida City and Homestead and the 6th was Miccosukee?
There were six. Five combined in Florida City and Homestead and the other at Miccosukee. I'll see if I can find a better way to write that--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the United States Department of Defense eventually expended an initial amount of over $100 million for repairs. - weird wording
"Due to damage to the Homestead Sports Complex and fearing the relocation of their middle-class and affluent fans, the Cleveland Indians moved their spring training location to Chain of Lakes Park in Winter Haven." - this is different than most of the preceding paragraph. Maybe find elsewhere to put it?
I think I'll put it with the rebuilding stuff, because the Indians left even though the sports complex was being repaired--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Andrew began as a tropical depression over the eastern Atlantic Ocean on August 16. " why is such a major body of water linked? YEPacificHurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
". A barometric pressure of 922 mbar (27.23 inHg) in the mainland Florida landfall made Andrew the fourth most intense hurricane to strike the United States." this reads as if the pressure itself made landfall. Could "With a barometric pressure of 922 mbar (27.23 inHg) at the time of landfall in Florida, Andrew is the fourth most intense hurricane to strike the United States." work? YEPacificHurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Several hours later, the hurricane emerged over the Gulf of Mexico at Category 4 strength, with the Gulf Coast of the United States in its path. After additional weakening, Andrew moved ashore near Morgan City, Louisiana, as a low-end Category 3 storm." mind noting the storm turned north somewhere. In general, I feel direction changes should be noted in the lead. YEPacificHurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"it is currently the fifth costliest hurricane in Atlantic hurricane history, behind only hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Ike, and Wilma, and the fourth costliest hurricane in the United States, behind Katrina, Sandy, and Ike." link to List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes. YEPacificHurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"and on August 15, meteorologists began classifying the system with the Dvorak technique. " link meteorologists. YEPacificHurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"which was upgraded to 155 mph (250 km/h) in a post-analysis after the season ended.[1]" "post-analysis"? so it was randomly upgraded after an analysis? Generally the term used here is "post-storm analysis". YEPacificHurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Major airports such as the Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood,[25] Key West,[26] Miami,[15] and Palm Beach international airports closed.[25]" a little nitpicky but is there a way you could avoid saying "airports" twice in a sentence; it's kinda annoying given that there a. YEPacificHurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I should do that. Actually I set up that sentence to avoid saying "airport" like five times (and "international airport" three times, might I add)--12george1 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The Red Cross assisted with opening a shelter " which Red Cross? YEPacificHurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to switch it after Hink suggested reordering the states--12george1 (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Port Arthur linked on first useage and not second? YEPacificHurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant the other way around?--12george1 (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Approximately 20 million cubic yards" convert to cubic km here? YEPacificHurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The template page suggested cubic meters, so I went with that instead--12george1 (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The storm damaged 241 oil and gas facilities and toppled 33 platform off the coast of Louisiana,[75] causing significant disrutions in production." "platform" to "platforms". YEPacificHurricane
" Much of Mississippi reported 3 to 5 in (76 to 127 mm) of rain, while areas near the southwest corner of the state observed over 7 in (180 mm) of precipitation,[80] " a state doesn't "report" rain? Maybe try "received?" YEPacificHurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found a little bit from Canada, but not much else--12george1 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add stuff from ReliefWeb. I didn't use Relief Web in my older articles back in the day so I didn't bring this up in past FAC's. YEPacificHurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good ALT text. As it appears to be typical for such articles, many images come from the US government. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken action on all of the images requiring changes. Thank you for reviewing the images!--12george1 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review—no issues with the reliability of the sources used. Turning toward formatting and consistency:
A few footnotes are using "Month DD, YYYY" formatting for dates while most of the rest are using "YYYY-MM-DD" where appropriate. They should be harmonized. (Personally, I prefer using the former format instead of the ISO-style latter format because you can't properly handle a publication date of "November 2004" in the ISO-style.)
Fixed with the former--12george1 (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In n. 10, you have separate authors listed as "National Hurricane Center; Hurricane Research Division". Is the latter a subunit of the former? If so, the semicolon should not be there. You could either have |publisher= National Hurricane Center|author=Hurricane Research Division or just |author= National Hurricane Center Hurricane Research Division and use |publisher= National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (United States is really superfluous unless there is another "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" in another country.)
That and n. 11 are both part of a template. Should I still fix both of them?--12george1 (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the situation needs to be fixed. Reiterating, if they're separate authors, nothing needs to be changed. If, however, the one is a subunit of the other, then you need to fix this to avoid implying they're completely separate. Imzadi 1979→ 21:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In n. 15, UPI is a publisher, not a published work. It should not be rendered in italics. This would also apply to Knight-Ridder and the Associated Press, which are other wire services.
In n. 17, The Washington Post is not the publisher of The Tech, a separate newspaper/online publication several states away.
I have it as the agency. If that's not acceptable, how else can I include both?--12george1 (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't need to include both. It's not needed for a reader to locate the article, and it's not really needed for attribution. Imzadi 1979→ 21:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In n. 20, "Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc." is the author of that source, not the published work.
In n. 23, the Detroit Free Press is not published in Miami, Florida, unless there is a different paper with that same title. Miami may be the dateline for the article, but it is not the place of publication. Please audit other footnotes for similar misuse of the |location= parameter.
In n. 25, where is the Sun-Sentinel published? When a newspaper name omits its city of publication, it's traditional to give that city separately. That's the purpose of |location= in the citation template. (It's a form of disambiguation because there are multiple papers in the world named just The Times, for example.)
In n. 89, you've included an access date for a source lacking a URL. That flags an error message, so either a URL needs to be added, or the access date needs to be commented out or removed. Ditto n. 103.
In n. 113, it appears that all of the authors were placed in the same |author= parameter, which actually corrupts the metadata generated by the citation template. They should be placed in separate |author1=, |author2=, etc parameters.
You should also audit the citations for the distinction between a publisher and a published work.
A publisher is the name of an organization, company or government agency. This would also be the call letters of a radio or TV station or the name of a TV network. (TV stations/networks publish individual TV series as works, such as 60 Minutes broadcast by CBS; an individual segment on that show would be analogous to an article in a magazine.) This is what goes in |publisher= and is rendered in roman text.
A published work is the name of a newspaper, a magazine, a news website (when not the same as the publisher), etc. This is what goes in |work= (or an alias like |newspaper=) and is rendered in italics. Not all websites have distinct names; Upper Michigan's Source is published by WLUC-TV, yet its competitor WBUP-TV lacks a distinct name for its local news website.
A republisher, like an archive site or Newspapers.com, goes in |via= to indicate that you consulted a republished copy.
Just to single out one, look at n. 45. I'm reading the original publisher's name rendered in italics while the website that is republishing the source is listed where I expect to see the original publisher. Also, I disagree with using {{cite report}} and how it handles formatting the names of reports that should, as long-form documents of their own analogous to books, be rendered in italics. If you were to switch up the template and parameters, you could have:
{{cite book |url = http://reliefweb.int/node/34555 |title = Bahamas and U.S.A. – Hurricane Andrew Aug 1992 UN DHA Information Reports 1-3 |publisher = United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs |type = Report |location= New York |via = ReliefWeb |date = 1992-08-26 |access-date = 2012-06-20}}
It's up to you if you want to repeat the UN agency name as the author of the report in the absence of a specific person or subunit of the agency credited as the author.
You can simplify some of these publishers, but you need to fix how some are named to eliminate the possessive case. "United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service" is not proper. That can be either "United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service" or just "National Weather Service" because the agency is known well enough on its own. (Especially if you wikilink the first mention in a footnote.)
I'm gonna do the former without the United States part because earlier you suggested omitting that. The remaining two are part of a template--12george1 (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to credit Newspapers.com for republishing content, why are you not crediting Google News?
Please audit for consistency regarding newspaper names that start with "The". You have dropped it from The New York Times and included it in The Washington Post, among others. Not every paper has it, so you'll need to check if you aren't sure.
If you're only citing Provenzo once, why not just list the full citation in the footnote instead of listing it separately below? It looks like all four of those sources listed below are cited just once, so I'd merge them into the footnotes for simplicity.
One last suggestion: it would give the overall citations an extra bit of polish if you were to harmonize the capitalization of the various titles. If one were to consult the APA style guide, he'd note that it says to render all article titles in sentence case (only the first first and proper names capitalized) regardless of how the source capitalized its own titles. Other style guides would say to render them all in title case (first word, last word, all nouns and verbs, etc capitalized but not shorter prepositions and articles under 5 letters, etc).
Overall, I'm not faulting the sources used, just the formatting for their presentation. I would not support promotion of the article until things are handled more consistently, and more importantly, more correctly. Imzadi 1979→ 21:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed or responded to everything except for the first two bulletins under "You should also audit the citations...". Are you just putting that information there or are there specific examples of what I need to fix in regards to those comments?--12george1 (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You still have work to do yet. If I noted above that you should audit the article for something, it's because the issue is prevalent in multiple locations. I highlighted the first example and asked you to look through the rest for that same issue. Otherwise, I can list several dozen citations that need the same fixes, but that would make this source review rather lengthy and tedious.
Looking at just the last 6 footnotes, "New Haven, Connecticut" does not need to be listed; it's implied by the name of the paper (n. 128). FEMA is the name of the author, not the published work in n. 129, so it should not be in italics. The archive could be the published work, and FEMA would again be the publisher (no need to use DHS there). In n. 130, I'm sure the residents of a notable town in Pennsylvania would be shocked to learn that The Gettysburg Times is actually published in Louisiana, although the paper may have run an article with Morgan City as the dateline. Likewise, I'm sure Kansas residents will be glad to know that The Salina Journal is really published in New Orleans (n. 131). As for the last two, you knew you needed to list a city for the Telegraph Herald, but that' published in Dubuque, Iowa, but you left out the city for The Daily News. Imzadi 1979→ 21:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the locations and the FEMA references. But I'm still quite not sure what you're asking me to do with those two comments I didn't reply to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the first comment, I think you're asking me to reformat the references if my source is a TV segment, but I'm not citing a segment. As for the second comment, you're asking me to find the distinct website name for news website (e.g. Upper Michigan's Source and WLUC-TV), right? I think you're going to have to show me a few examples in the article because I can't find the references to news websites where the names differ--12george1 (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll attempt to do so later tonight after today's events at WikiConference North America/Wikimania, Ian Rose and 12george1. Imzadi 1979→ 14:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
Just a couple of consistency issues and some other minor stuff.
"It produced hurricane-force winds along its path through Louisiana, leaving about 230,000 people without electricity" – clarify how by changing to "... through Louisiana, damaging large stretches of power lines and thus leaving about 230,000 people without electricity"
"winds of 35 mph (56 km/h) extending out only about 90 mi (140 km) from the center" – I'm pretty sure the source states 150 km unless there's some conversion error.
The conversion templates sometimes get it wrong. I manually entered the correct conversion--12george1 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the storm emerged into the Gulf of Mexico with winds of 135 mph (215 km/h)" – shouldn't the conversion from 115 knots give 130 mph?
"reformed their chief emergency agency, known as the National Emergency and Management Agency" – was this renamed or something? Wording is a tad awkward.
Last paragraph of Hurricane_Andrew#Florida_3 – third sentence should be in past tense? Also I think the last sentence could be shortened seeing as it's not particularly relevant to Andrew 20 years later.
Otherwise this is a really comprehensive article with commendable effort put into it. Nice work. ~ KN2731 {talk} 14:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing!--12george1 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now. ~ KN2731 {talk} 13:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
"The storm was also ranked as the costliest hurricane in United States history until being surpassed by Katrina in 2005." - Do we need the "being" here? Makes the sentence awkward to me.
"The hurricane left 65 people dead along its trail of destruction, as well as $26.5 billion (1992 USD) in damage across the battered areas." - You already said "along its trail of destruction," so I'd axe "across the battered areas."
"The hurricane destroyed 63,000 homes and damaged more than 101,000 others throughout Florida" - You say in the first paragraph is damaged 101,000 in Miami-Dade alone. Did it not damage anymore throughout the entire state?
Good catch. Turns out that actually those were the overall numbers throughout the state, though the vast majority of destroyed and damaged homes were in Miami-Dade County. I fixed this later in the article as well--12george1 (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"With a barometric pressure of 922 mbar (27.23 inHg) at the time of landfall in Florida, Andrew is the fourth most intense hurricane to strike the United States." - Always specify on record.
What are you asking me to do?--12george1 (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Hurricane Andrew first inflicted structural damage as it moved through the Bahamas, especially in Cat Cays, lashing the islands with storm surge, hurricane-force winds, and tornadoes." - You linked hurricane-force winds and tornadoes, which most people understand, but not storm surge, which is complicated? :P
"The hurricane caused the deaths of 17 people in the state, six of whom drowned offshore." - You're supposed to spell out numbers under 10, but only if there isn't a larger number in the sentence. In this case, six should be 6.
"Bahamas Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, who took office while the storm was active, urged residents to "take this hurricane seriously". - Periods go inside quotation marks.
"At the Homestead Air Force Base, most of the 2,000 buildings on the base were severely damaged or became unusable." - Eh, I'd recommend "rendered" over "became."
"to about Miami Beach": I changed that to the "Miami Beach area", but better would be "north of", "south of", etc., or just "Miami Beach", if that's better.
"Almost immediately, President Bush promised, "Help is on the way," and mobile kitchens, food, and tents, along with over 20,000 units from the Florida Army National Guard (124th Infantry Regiment from Florida); the 24th Infantry Division from Fort Wainwright, the 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, and the 10th Mountain Division from Fort Drum.": Not a sentence. Also, "almost immediately" is an oxymoron and usually ambiguous. It's not a helpful phrase in cases where something is being done in response to something else; depending on context, people will assume that one thing came not long after the other.
@WP:FAC coordinators: : There's a request on Mike Christie's talk page to try to get Andrew up at TFA in August for its 25th anniversary. Mike is mostly away for about two weeks, but I can help with this request. I'm not good at judging whether there are problems that hold up a FAC nomination, but if this one is close, it would be nice to make that deadline. Is there anything I can do? - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: There are a few issues outstanding with the source review by Imzadi1979. I'm not quite sure where we stand with that, but if you want to take a look at it, that is the only thing holding this up. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing stopping me is a lack of competence. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let that stop you! It has never stopped me yet! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
12george1, Imzadi1979 ... thanks to both of you for your work on this, how close are we to wrapping this up? - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: This has been open a very long time now, and only the source review has been holding it up. While I appreciate the depth of review given here, I am not sure that all of the issues raised are directly related to WP:WIAFA. I have taken a look, and can see nothing obvious that would prevent this article from meeting 2c in terms of consistency. Also, there has been no response from Imzadi for some considerable time, which I can only assume to mean that the major issues have been addressed. If there are any remaining issues, these can be taken up on the article talk page after this has been promoted. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about one of the most influential works of fantasy, compared frequently to the works of Tolkien and CS Lewis. I've dug quite deep with the sources, and I'd be surprised to see anything significant missing. All comments are welcome. As of this nomination, I am a participant in the Wikicup. Vanamonde (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Map of Earthsea.jpg in the pubic domain? How does redrawing it make it less of a derivative work?
@Wehwalt: That's a good point; I guess I had assumed the Davis map was PD in the first place, but I'm actually unable to find much evidence for that; the best is this, which just baldly states the map is PD. And honestly if it was adapted from Le Guin's map I'm not even sure it could be PD...my apologies, images are not my strong suit. If that Guardian link is insufficient, I'm thinking it's best to remove the image. Vanamonde (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I'm forced to remove the map, I'm wondering if we can legitimately use Le Guin's original map from her website under NFCC; at least there the sourcing is clear, but I'm not certain if it would qualify. Likewise, for this image, for the adaptations section. Vanamonde (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is based on a map in the book, I think it's not PD. Does the reader really need the map to understand the article? This would make three fair use images, and I think there should be strong justification for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've removed the map. I guess that probably also means that the poster (which would also be fair use) should be avoided. Thanks for the review. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I did with The Phantom Tollbooth was use quote boxes to supplement the (limited) images, quotes that I thought were particularly profound or funny.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. I've already placed a couple of the best in the themes; I'll see if there's good ones for elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text would be nice.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'll be able to do a full review, but here's a drive-by comment as a placeholder. When I saw this FAC I recalled that when Tehanu came out it was clear that Le Guin was doing a feminist re-evaluation of Earthsea. Digging through my books I was surprised to discover that the source I was remembering for this was me. In my copy of Tehanu there's a typescript of a review I wrote in 1990 for Foundation: The Review of Science Fiction; see this. This would be more relevant to an article on Tehanu, of course, but I think it should be mentioned somewhere that Le Guin's view of Earthsea changed in later years. In the review I cite Dancing at the Edge of the World, but only for general evidence of the growth of her interest in feminism. I thought I remembered that Le Guin discusses this directly somewhere, but I could be wrong. Anyway, pointing at articles I can't get you copies of isn't very helpful, but I would like to see some mention of the later evolution of her thinking, and a citation to her own writing about it, if that can be found. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Thanks: that's an excellent point, and one I was aware of (especially after recently rewriting Tombs of Atuan) but which I hadn't conveyed. I've added some material. I've a couple of questions, though: I've added it under "style and structure" as of now because that was where it seemed to fit best (it was really a discussion, even among the critics, about points of view, after all, than criticism/praise, I think). If you disagree, though, please let me know. Also, I'm wondering if, and how, I should work this into the lead. I think a brief mention is warranted, but I'm trying to figure out how to do it smoothly. Vanamonde (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits look good. I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned in the lead; it's more relevant to Tehanu than to this book. If you want to add it, I'd say slip in a clause after the listing of books 2-6 at the end of the lead, saying something like "though in the long gap between books 3 and 4 Le Guin's interest in feminism increased, and the later books, in particular Tehanu, are less traditional fantasy works as a result".
On sources, have you been able to track down any of the reviews listed near the bottom of this page? Some will be impossible to find, but the Moorcock and Pringle should be easy and several others should be available via WP:RX. I recall Nicholls & Clute describing the Earthsea trilogy as Le Guin's "most perfect work" in the Encyclopedia of SF; that might be a quote worth using. I also have somewhere in a box a book length study of Le Guin by Barbara Bucknall; I'll see if I can find it and see if it says anything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've had poor luck with most of the magazine sources, because unless you have a collection of the print copies I don't think there's an easy way to get hold of them; and I don't. I've added stuff from the encyclopedias and Pringle's book, though. Also, given the glut of sources, I'd much rather stick to scholarly material where available, than magazine reviews...does it look better now? Reception has been beefed up a little bit. Vanamonde (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a couple of them, but I don't think I can lay my hands on them quickly. I take your point about preferring scholarly material, though I think for contemporary reviews it's worth looking at how the book was received within the field. I'll let you know if I can ferret out the Ted White and the Lester del Rey, which are the two I should have somewhere. Your additions look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More review comments; I'm copyediting as I go, so please revert if I screw anything up. Not sure if I'll finish this evening.
"Widely" is used twice in the second sentence.
Removed the first.
There seems to be a contradiction between "Le Guin had no previous experience specifically with the genre of young adult literature" and the suggestion a couple of sentences later that "her choice of fantasy as a medium, and of the theme of coming of age, was a product of her writing for adolescents". I see that latter is sourced to Le Guin herself, but can we explain that apparent conflict between the statements? It's baffling as written.
That's just poor phrasing on my part. White is talking about her previous work, while Le Guin/Cummins is referring to Wizard itself: in writing it she was "writing for adolescents", so she made those choices. I've rephrased.
"Le Guin's belief in Taoism": does the source actually say "belief"? My very limited understanding of Taoism is that it's primarily a philosophy, at least as engaged with in the West, and I would be surprised if Le Guin believed in those aspects of it which are actually religious.
True. I've reworded it to "Influence of Taoist thought" which is fair to say, given the soruces.
You mention the second and third books at the end of the "Background" section; of course the first three books are regarded as a fairly tightly bound trilogy, but I think it would seem odd to an uninitiated reader that we don't mention the later three books at this point, since we're listing her follow ups to Wizard.
I've moved that entire sentence into the publication section, where the other books are mentioned in more detail.
"has remained in print for more than three decades" seems odd, since it's now almost five decades; looking at the source I see a Buffalo library page that says nothing about prior printings. Am I looking at the wrong thing?
Possibly? The link I have is [56], which the original link automatically redirects to, and which has this precise statement in the "Summary" section. That said, it's an odd fragment, so if you want me to remove it I will do so: it won't hurt much. The book's been printed so often, in so many places, and in so many languages, that really nobody knows whether it's been "in print" or how many editions have been issued.
That's weird. For the "Summary" section I see this: "Summary: A boy grows to manhood while attempting to subdue the evil he unleashed on the world as an apprentice to the Master Wizard." Not sure what's going on there. I think I would just cut it, if I were you; it's now an out-of-date comment so it raises questions rather than answering them, and as you say it's not really clear how one would show it's true. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. Anyhow, removed.
The article on Le Guin in the 1995 Encyclopedia of SF is by Peter Nicholls, and I'd suggest giving him as the author in the reference and including it in the sources in that format. Up to you if you name him, rather than just saying Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, when citing him in the article text -- I probably would myself, but though he's a prominent critic in the field it's not a name many readers will know so it's up to you.
Well I did this so we wouldn't have to include two citations to the same book in the sources section. It's also messy because the "Cite encyclopedia" template would then make Clute and Nicholls editors, which they are not. I've used the specific entries in the inline citations. Nonetheless, if you think it important, I will make the switch.
I'm not going to withhold support because of this, but since the goal of a citation is to allow a reader to verify the information, I think it's worth doing. I cite this sort of thing with {{cite book}}, like so:
Clute, John (1997). "Howard, Robert Ervin". In Clute, John; Grant, John. The Encyclopedia of Fantasy. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 481–483. ISBN 0-312-15897-1.
That's from Weird Tales if you decide you want to steal the layout. I think the page numbers are helpful, but the key thing is the article title ("chapter" in cite book), since that's what leads the reader to the right place. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the chapters were in the inline citation, but I take your point. I've separated them. I'm afraid I can't add page numbers, as the electronic edition I have will not give me numbers corresponding to the actual page numbers; if you have those that would be great, but it's not critical, as you said.
Somehow I missed those chapters; I think perhaps I'm just unfamiliar with the format you were using (I don't use sfn myself). I think it's a good idea to cite the chapter by author anyway, so no harm done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The 1995 Encyclopedia of Science Fiction said that the Earthsea books had been considered the finest science fiction books for children in the post-World War II period." I don't see this in the source -- can you point me at where this is said?
In the children's fantasy section, which I have now added to the inline citation: 'Many critics regard the Earthsea books as the finest sf work for children of the postwar period."
Struck, but that's a good example of what I was saying above -- there was no realistic way for me to check that as the citation stood. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Ted Shippey": can you confirm this is correct? I know of a Tom Shippey who I believe has written about Le Guin, but I don't know a Ted Shippey.
I dunno where I came up with Ted...source says "T.A.", gone with that.
"Ged later offers Tenar the same gift" of his name; he does the same with Arren in the third book, though if the source doesn't point this out I suppose we should not.
They don't really, and I think it's because of circumstance. He has to give Arren his name; in his own words, because in the places they are going, true names have to be used. In the case of Tenar, though, it's explicitly a gift; which is the point the source makes.
-- That's it for a first pass; I'll do another read through once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Responded above. I'll do another read through some time this weekend and I expect to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'll try to find time to read this again in case I can find anything to copyedit, but I think this is FA quality as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the Publication section, the dates of the two sequels differ from the lead.
Yeah that's a typo, 1971 and 72 is correct. Fixed.
Multiple critics have noted that the Earthsea novels... - "Multiple" redundant here?
True. Also changed to "commentators" because i'm using "critical attention" later in the sentence.
Have any graphic novelizations been published?
Not that I am aware of. There's some rumors on the internet about efforts to produce such, but nothing concrete. There's the folio society edition mentioned in the publication section; I've clarified that that was an illustrated edition.
That's about all I have to complain about....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Thanks for the review, as always. I've addressed your comments. Vanamonde (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - all good. A fine read of a much underrated book. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, but with one exception (now fixed) they are linked at the first instance that a term is used in the body, in addition to a link in the lead, which is necessary and not excessive, IMO.
All great otherwise. It has a stellar prose! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Current refs 102, 103 are given as authored by "BBC" but ... there isn't a BBC author listed in the Sources. Don't assume that all readers will be able to access the fancy linking feature. This also applies to the short notes for "childcraft", "sfif" "Nebula", "TPL", "Worldcat", "Rotten Tomatoes", etc. This isn't helped by the fact that the source citations for many of these bury the year/date later in the citation .. which makes it more difficult to link them up with the short citations.
Well I'm not sure I agree with you here; if the linking function doesn't work, then all the citations are a problem; but okay. I've switched to using regular references for the author-less references.
If the linking function doesn't work - it's easy to find the correct full citation if all the full citations are given with author names - what you've done works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources give locations, some don't. Pick one style and stick with it. (example - the Esmonde citation doesn't give a location, but the Cummins one gives one complete to "Columbia, South Carolina, USA" (I'd also argue that linking locations in the source citations is overlinking - its not really going to help anyone there - a better link would be to publishers, but even that's a bit overlinkish)
Location links removed. I've added locations for all books/encyclopedias; not for journal articles, for which I do not believe they are ever provided.
"Boston Globe-Horn Book Awards" has no publisher information.
Added.
Page ranges for sources from anthologies/collections?
Added.
ISBN/OCLC for some sources are missing - you mostly give them so you should be consistent and give them for all book sources
Added for the encyclopedia of fantasy; Le Guin's 1968 edition of A Wizard of Earthsea does not, as far as I'm able to tell, have an isbn: I've added an OCLC.
No publisher information for "LeGuin "A First Response..."
From Le Guin's website: website name added.
Why the full date for "Le Guin A Wizard of Earthsea, the Harcourt edition?
No reason, removed.
I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations - the first result is a mirror of Wikipedia.
@Ealdgyth: Thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments. Vanamonde (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
After a ten-month gap, and an enforced temporary retirement, I'm returning to FAC with this composer biography. Bush, active through much of the 20th century, was an enigmatic figure who blighted his career by espousing a hardline Marxism. This turned off much of the music establishment, and the public too. Yet his music is often bright and generous, as a few visits to YouTube will quickly demonstrate. If perhaps not quite in the first ranks of modern British composers, he's surely worth an honourable place in the reserves. I'm most grateful to Tim Riley for breaking his retirement with a helpful talkpage review. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"cold-shouldered" I'm wondering at the need for informality when "ignored" serves much the same purpose.
I might put an "honorary" before "doctorates"
The London doctorate was not honorary but a "real" degree. The Durham doctorate was honorary - I think the main text makes this clear. Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"during the First World War," I advise cutting this. It slows the text and I would think few are going to be ignorant given the "Western Front" and 1917 ...
"in the Manchester Guardian" I believe a "The" was part of the title.
"He was not called up immediately, and meantime continued his musical life," "meantime" seems to be unnecessary.
"Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" italics, I think
"While in Prague in August 1947, he and the WMA performed his unaccompanied chorus Lidice at the site of the village of that name,[56][57]" as Lidice was not in Prague, I might change Prague to Czechoslovakia.
"This change was formalised as Bush responded to the 1948 decree issued by Stalin's director of cultural policy, Andrei Zhdanov, against formalism" I'd change "formalised" to "confirmed" or similar because of the "formalism" later on.
"In 1948 Bush accepted a commission from the Nottingham Co-operative Society for a symphony, as part of the city's quincentennial celebrations in 1949." I might lose the comma.
"yet following its Nottingham premiere on 27 June 1949 and its London debut on 11 December 1952 under Boult and the London Philharmonic,[59] the work has been rarely heard in Britain." consider "since" for "following". It may be an ENGVAR thing.
"The Daily Telegraph's" I believe again, there's a "The" as part of the title. Also should be linked as first usage.
"native African" I have an issue with this as regards British Guiana. They were immigrants, if not voluntary ones.
I've replaced "native" with "local" – does that resolve it? Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"real-life story" I might just say "life". Bush has worked from real life before.
"an American union activist and songwriter who was convicted of murder and executed in 1915" I might at least through a "controversially" before convicted.
"he produced the first of three late song cycles" "late" got my interest here as I don't recall hearing the phrase before.
"His first venture, Wat Tyler, was written in a form which Bush thought acceptable to the general British public;[119] it was not his choice, he wrote, that the opera and its successors all found their initial audiences in East Germany." I would split this at the semicolon.
"continued to show all the hallmarks of his postwar oeuvre: vigour, clarity of tone masterful use of counterpoint." Issue in the list.
"although there was a memorial concert at the Wigmore Hall on 1 November,[134] and a BBC broadcast of the Piano Concerto on 19 December.[135] Although quietly observed," Although/although.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. Subject to the comments I've inserted above, I've dealt with these points as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nicely done, very little to criticise. First class.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I made such comments as I wanted to make on the article talk page, and the text as it now stands seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Like all the best Wikipedia articles (or, for that matter, those of any other important encyclopaedia) it makes one interested in someone or something one had hitherto known nothing about. It seems to me that in his return to editing Brian is in his finest form. Bravo! Tim riley talk 19:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tim. This link is to your talk page review. I am grateful for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a joy to read; obviously informed by an authoritative dept of knowledge of the sources and the wider artistic/cultural context, so what follows are nick picky and optional only.
and was much involved with workers - "deeply" (or some such) rather than "much"
led to more prolonged semi-ostracisation - Spell out the concrete effects of this; "premiered in East Germany" may be opaque for some readers.
In his earlier, prewar works - earlier is redundant; also I'd switch tense - "Bush's style retained what commentators describe and an essential Englishness, strongly influenced by.." or whatever
Alice Bush had, before her marriage, attended an art school - Tense, punct - 'Alice Bush studied art before her marriage'.
I'm not really finding any nitpicks worth mentioning outside from the lead (have made some edits).
Source review - Authors used are all first rank. Spot check on online refs from this version - Refs 2, 76 and 118 all support claims. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I've dealt with the above points more or less as you've requested, although I've kept the mention of Alice's art school. I have also taken the liberty of bolding your "source review" subheading, to draw the coordinators' attention to it if necessary. I am most grateful for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All images appear to be appropriately licensed and used. I note the following.
Consider alt text.
File:Lascaux painting.jpg likely requires a license tag for the ancient painting as well as the photograph. Possibly we have a PD-PREHISTORIC.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of alt text, I have long doubted whether this has any real value, and don't normally use it, although if others wish to add it, that's fine. On the other matter, I can't locate any "prehistoric" template. The nearest appears to be PD-Art|PD-old-100, which is used on Commons in a number of ancient artwork photographic images. So I've added that licence to the Lascaux image. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: I'm a bit concerned that so many citations are to Nancy Bush's book. This strikes me as a bit too close to the subject, quite honestly. I don't have trouble with using such sources occasionally, but its being used for some opinion also (see in "1930s: emergent composer" section where it references "In April a BBC broadcast performance of his Dance Overture for Military Band, Op. 12a, received a mixed reception." and then some reactions from the audience. Another concern is the Foreman source is part of the Nancy Bush work. And we're using the Alan Bush Music Trust's website. AND we have a "tribute" to Alan Bush on his 50th birthday. How are all these works really independent of the subject?
There's always a bit of a problem when the only detailed biography of a subject is by a family member. However, most of the citations to Nancy's book relate to mundane, non-controversial facts and dates. In the "opinion" example that you give, the two quotations are not from Nancy herself; she is quoting listeners' comments from the Radio Times, 8 May 1931. I'll alter the text to make this clear.
Foreman is a distinguished music critic and historian. His account, though published as part of the biographical account, is quite a separate entity, written much later when both Bushes were dead; it is not part of a collaborative venture.
Many of the citations to the Alan Bush Music Trust website are routine confirmations of dates of composition, performance or recordings. The website also republishes articles that were originally published elsewhere, and quotes from reviews that appeared in notable newspapers and journals - these are all noted in the citations, so it should be clear when it's not the opinions of the trust that are being quoted.
The tribute book was issued by the Worker's Music Association. Of the couple of quotes taken from the book, one merely confirms that Bush and Ireland had a longstanding friendship, the other, from Murrill, is perhaps what you'd expect to find in a Legacy section, and I'd be reluctant to lose it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is something that other reviewers need to think on and take into account. I am not familiar with the prose nor with the subject of modern composers, so I can't judge easily whether this is a problem of lack of sources or if it's something deeper. I do have concerns about using a family member's biography as a main source ... even if only to source facts. And I think it would be helpful for other reviewers to weigh in on this - not just expect a "specialized reviewer" to shoulder the weight on this. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC}
Two penn'orth from me as another serial submitter to FAC of classical music Life and Works articles. Two previous composer FAs spring to mind where close relations are used as major sources: for Gustav Holst we used Imogen Holst, and for Ralph Vaughan Williams we used Ursula Vaughan Williams. As both women were, and are, recognised authorities on their relation's life and works it would be perverse not to use them. Truth to tell, if one tried to eschew direct reference to their books one would end up quoting them at second hand via musicologists and other writers who draw heavily on them. Eric Fenby was not a blood relative of Frederick Delius but was as close as any son, and he too is – in my view rightly and inevitably – relied on as a key source – many would say the key source – for that composer's featured article. In short, not only do I think it proper to use Nancy Bush as a major source, I think it would be negligent not to do so. That the present article uses Nancy only for factual material rather than qualitative assessment only strengthens the case for citing her substantially. Turning to the status of Lewis Foreman, also queried above, I would add that he is a major contributor to Grove and the other Oxford music reference suite, on composers including Arnold Bax, Frank Bridge, Percy Grainger and others. – Tim riley talk 20:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider (as a trained historian) that Nancy's account was a primary source, not a secondary source. What's her training in history, or biography? As an encyclopedia we are meant to use primary sources "at second hand via musicologists and other writers" - that's what we do - we summarize the secondary sources, and it's hard to argue that the wife of the subject is a secondary source about the subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it depends on the work itself, (and perhaps on the sources NB has used to put it together). I see in this search that her work has been used by several heavyweights as a source, although I do not know what information they have used, or to what extent.
Alan Bush: A Source Book by Professor Stewart R Craggs
Alan Bush, Modern Music, and the Cold War: The Cultural Left in Britain and the Communist Bloc by Joanna Bullivant;
Historical Dictionary of English Music: ca. 1400-1958 by Charles Edward McGuire & Steven E. Plank
Only in the Common People: The Aesthetics of Class in Post-War Britain by Paul Long
A pleasant change from politics: music and the British Labour party by Duncan Hall
The New Penguin Opera Guide by Amanda Holden
among many others. - SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would expect historians/biographers/musicologists to use her work, as it's a primary source for his life. That's not the issue. We are NOT historians/biographers/musicologists who are doing research to write histories/biographies/etc. We are encyclopedia writers who use the works that historians/biographers/musicologists write. We take those secondary accounts and summarize them. We should NOT be using primary sources much, if at all. THAT is my concern. I'm not saying whether or not Nancy's work is reliable - that's what the historians/biographers/musicologists are for - they are the people that evaluate the primary sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure we should be so prescriptive on this. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is a good thing to read, particularly when dealing with a composer from a modern niche area of classical music where the sources are so,much rarer than general history or politics, etc. – SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing this work listed above ... the table of contents and what I can see shows a lot of biographical information - perhaps this should be relied on more than a primary source? And ... I don't have a problem with using some primary sources - but personally, I think we're verging on too much. I'm not to the point of opposing, but it's not helping that my concerns are being dismissed or not understood. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, I do not think anyone is dismissing or misunderstanding your concerns (and you did ask for other reviewers to comment on this point). We are talking about what are small differences of weighting regarding the sources, that is all. Again, when the sources are so thin on the ground, it behaves us to use all we can, particularly a secondary source such as this. (I do question slightly the 'primary' classification here, although I have not seen a copy of the work, and cannot judge the sources she has used. Have you seen the sources for the work?) - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Adding: Lewis Foreman is a musicologist, and an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham. As his section in the Bush book is separate, this should be acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very hard to believe that the widow/wife of the subject can be considered a secondary source, no matter what sources she used. It is not nearly enough separation from the subject. It is only a small step from an autobiography. Would we trust Hilary Clinton to be a source for large chunks of an encyclopedia entry for Bill Clinton? It appears there IS a biography/history that is just released ... has that been consulted? Using that would resolve the problem of relying on source this close to the subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not dismissing your concerns, Ealdgyth - they are matters of proper concern, and I intend to contribute further to this discussion. However, this will have to wait for at least 24 hours, because a) it's long past my bedtime now, and b} I have a day of pleasure ahead tomorrow that will keep me well away from my laptop. Briefly, having looked at all 34 citations to Nancy's biography, I feel that at least half of them can be cited to other sources – and that's before I've been able to look at the newly-released biography/history that you mention. Much thanks to Tim and SchroCat for your contributions, but can I suggest a brief pause in this discussion, until I'm able to report back? Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in resuming here – I've been held up one way or another but will be back soon with my responses. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in the light of the above discussion I've replaced most of the citations to Nancy's book by finding other sources. In a few cases, where the information was unimportant, I've deleted the text. I hope there's not too much left to argue about.
I've also been looking at the Bullivant book. It is not a biography, although it contains some biographical details; Bullivant refers her readers to Nancy's memoir for useful biographical details. Her own book is an intensely academic study, basically a re-examination of the relationship between Bush's music and his political views, taking into account documents that have recently become available. It is quite heavy going, and of limited use in the preparation of a general encyclopaedia article. But I've added the book to the sources, and made a few citations to it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much better and less worrisome now. THank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing: I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's toolshows a couple of spots where the prose could be tweaked a bit to avoid people screaming about too close paraphrasing. It's not a real issue, but better to be safe than sorry. (Some of the flags are for quotes, but others are not)
Could you indicate the "couple of spots" where you think attention is required? Sometimes it's very difficult to rephrase basic information (date and place of birth, lists of awards, etc).
"From the age of eleven he attended" could probably be reworded to "From the time he was eleven"; "adviser, a post he held until the body" could probably be "adviser, holding the job until the body"; "In 1929 he resigned from" could be "He resigned in 1929 from.."; "Khatchaturian's Piano Concerto with Moura Lympany as soloist" could be "Khatchaturian's Piano Concerto with soloist Moura Lympany"; "helped to found the Workers' Musical Association" could be "was one of the founders of the". They aren't big changes, but will help keep people from whining too much. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll deal with these tomorrow, as you suggest. I'll also deal with the points in your first paragraph – thanks for your trouble. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. We're not in "oppose" territory, just so you don't panic. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made these minor prose changes. I hope all is well on this front now. Brianboulton (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you back, Brian, and I hope you're feeling better.
"Sonata on b minor": If that's right, perhaps a hidden comment that "on" is correct?
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. I've corrected "Sonata on" to "Sonata in" – it was a typo. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To come. I'll add a comment on the N Bush source too, in the light of Ealdgyth's comment above. It's a genuine point that needs looking at closely and careful consideration - I have had to face the same problem before. - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per my review "disclaimer" here. Only one comment, and a minor one at that: in the "Music and politics" section you say Bush "joined the Communist Party". Perhaps 'British CP' or the full name for the CBGB may be slightly better, as he was moving back and forth to Germany at the time. Your decision and I do not press the point. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fsir point, and adjusted as you suggest. Thanks for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not really my area, & I don't know I've ever heard a note of Bush. A few nit-picks:
The only phrase that jangled was the "his forte" in "In the 1920s it appeared that Bush might emerge as Britain's foremost pianist, after his studies under the leading teachers of the day, but he turned to composition as his forte". Just "concentrated on" or something?
When did he actually stop performing professionally as soloist of piano pieces by others? Roughly. Are there any such recordings?
The last instance I can find of Bush acting professionally as a pianist in a work by another composer is in 1944, when he played the piano part in the British premiere of Shostakovich's Piano Quintet. I've added this little snippet to the article. I'm not aware of any recordings of him in this role.
I note Ealdgth's comments on sources, but I imagine there is just far less on Bush than most composers of the period. He remains obscure, the article averaging 11 views pd over 2 years. There might be usable sources in German - would Gerda be able to help? Did the West Berlin press review the DDR operas?
I don't think such reviews would add much to this article; were articles on the individual works to be attempted, then these would be useful sources, but I don't see them having great value here. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see you back, Brian! Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, your support, and your good wishes. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is The Getaway, a crime movie which is about two lovers (and ruthless outlaws) on the run; a classic film! I am nominating this for the FA status because, having just passed the GA status fairly recently and copy edited from one of the experts at GOCE, I believe the article is now comprehensive, complete, free from grammar issues, and what I believe should be an interesting read for people who are curious to know about the movie. This is my first FA nomination so hopefully everything goes well. Any comments from regulars here will truly be appreciated, so have at it! Bluesphere 05:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain if the screenshot in the "Critical reception" subsection is really that necessary. Only one reviewer made note of this scene so using an image that emphasize it may qualify as giving that review undue weight in comparison to the others in the same subsection. Also, the reviewer that discussed the scene seems to have referenced it more as a part of a joke than actual commentary/criticism. Fixed
In the same subsection, you start off with "During its premiere, The Getaway got a negative reception from critics", but the second paragraph contains positive reviews of the film. Would it be more fair to say that it received a "mixed" reception, or are you trying to say that the film received more positive attention during retrospective reviews? This needs to be clarified. Fixed
I am not certain about the placement of the images in the "Cast" section as it awkwardly cuts between multiple sections. Maybe it would be better to relocate this to the "Development" subsection or the "Casting" subsection instead. Fixed
When you include the name of another film (i.e. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Last Picture Show, Junior Bonner, What's Up, Doc?, etc.), make sure to include the year in which it was released. A majority of these titles appear in the "Development" subsection and the "Casting" subsection. Fixed
Please specify what you mean by "$30,000 ($171,800 today)". I am assuming you are talking about the adjustments according to inflation, but this should be specified. Fixed
Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thanks for responding to this nomination early. I believe I've addressed these concerns you raised. How do you reckon it looks now? Bluesphere 10:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Great work with the article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at it though; hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"During production, McQueen and MacGraw began an affair." I think you should merge this with the following sentence for better reading flow. I.e "began an affair, and McQueen and Peckinpah were involved ..."
Done
The third paragraph of the lead is too short. Perhaps a specific review quote from a notable reviewer could be mentioned here. You should definitely mention that it was the second highest grossing film of the year, as a gross of $36 million in itself does not convey to the reader overwhelming success by today's standards. A brief mention of the reception of the remake would also be of interest.
Done
The terms 'minions' and 'thugs' in the plot strike me as a bit colloquial, but I won't oppose over this.
I changed 'minions' to 'henchmen'
'Shifty' seems like a redundant way to describe a con man.
Removed
I've never seen references for the cast section in a featured article. I don't think it's necessary. Having the same reference used for each person is a bit of an eyesore to be honest.
Removed
Can you give a time frame for Steve McQueen being encouraging by his publicist to become a film producer?
Added
"He was recently separated and free" she said, "and I was scared of my overwhelming attraction to him." - Can you indicate when MacGraw made this statement? Same issue with "I looked at what I had done in it..." and "The director recalled one such incident". When did he recall it?
No time frame indicated from where I got that first MacGraw quote. But the others I was able to find.
I'm guessing you couldn't find any information on the film's budget? Such information would be very interesting to know.
I've added it in the infobox
"It grossed $36,734,619 in the US alone." This statement raises questions of where else the film was released. Was it released worldwide? Can you find any indication at all of its success internationally?
I think this was released exclusively in the US. I can't find reports that this was released in other territories.
Can you find any coverage of the reception of the home media releases or any special features these releases contained?
Added
"Baldwin has later referred to it as a "bomb"." Specifying what year he referred to it as such would be better than saying 'has later'.
Added
Well done overall. It shouldn't take too much effort before I am able to support this. Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Freikorp, I've addressed the concerns you raised. Bluesphere 12:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Supporting. Freikorp (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could add that while the initial reviews were negative, contemporary ones have been more positive.
Added
Plot
Saying "in prison in Texas" doesn't sound that good. Could you replace it with an alternative like "in a Texas prison".
Fixed
Did Rudy and the veterinarian's wife have sex consentually or did he rape her?
Consensual (and adulterous)
Is "screaming Fran" really necessary?
Removed
Casting
Reepeating the word "or" twice in close proximity to one another. Write instead "with Angie Dickson and Dyan Cannon as".
Fixed
"Peckinpah got along famously with Bright and cast him as the train station con man instead" also needs to be rewritten. Maybe something along the lines of "Due to his friendship with Bright, Peckinpah cast him as the con man."
Fixed
Remake
This might just be my opinion but "its bland and equally contrived retreading of the original" feels kind of unprofessional. Could you rewrite it somehow?
*One thing I noticed, the way the "Plot" section begins. Does the film offer any more info on who Carter is and why he's in prison?PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PanagiotisZois, the movie does not provide a backstory on who Doc is other than a robber, which I already mention in the lead. However, I've added in the plot that he is sentenced 10 years for armed robbery. Bluesphere 03:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now that my comments have been adressed I can support this article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1 has no access date. Not an issue, really, because it seems the AFI film template isn't compatible with the |accessdate= value. I'm not all that familiar with movie pages: is it usual to have the AFI film template instead of a simple cite web one?
I've gone through each and every reference, and everything on the article is attributable to its cited source. All the sources seem reliable, and consistent formatting is used throughout.
Also, no copyright violation to be found: Earwig's tool flagged the movie's IMBD bio page for possible copyvio, but those are represented in the article as direct quotations, so no problem there.
Hi Homeostasis07, from what you've said above, you've checked that the cited sources support what's being said in the article -- did you also happen to check that the article contains no copying or close paraphrasing of the sources? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I used Earwig's tool to check for copyvio. There was none. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Homeostasis07: Performing a source review also requires spot-checking for close paraphrasing of content, not just merely checking on whether the source is reliable and uses consistent inline citations. If it helps, you may go to this link and perform another pass for copyvio check. A colleague gave them to me during the GAR and that's where I got most of the content - it's entitled Steve McQueen: Portrait of an American Rebel by Marshall Terrill. The other book sources were previews from Google Books; I could give 'em to you upon request. Online sources shouldn't be difficult for the spotcheck. Best, Slightlymad (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're familiar with what copyvio detector does, right? It compares the text in the article with the text of all of the online references, and then checks elsewhere. I mentioned above what the two suspected violations were—how they're presented as block quotes in the article; although I did neglect to mention that it flagged the descriptions of two YouTube videos for "possible violation", but it appears that the text there was copied directly from the Wikipedia article, and not the other way around. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I went ahead and managed to check all five of the offline book sources too. Thanks for posting the one above (was the only one not on Google Books). The other four are only used sparingly on the article, so there was no issue with previewing: I'm satisfied there's no copyright violation there. I randomly checked eight of the Terrill references too. All are adequately rephrased, the closest to possible copyvio is ref 19: "Shooting began on February 7, 1972, in Huntsville, Texas. The first few scenes were shot in the local penitentiary ["Huntsville Penitentiary" named in following paragraph] [...] The others in the scene were real-life convicts in the prison." which appears on the article as: "Principal photography commenced on February 7, 1972, in Huntsville, Texas. Peckinpah shot the opening prison scenes at the Huntsville Penitentiary, with McQueen surrounded by actual convicts." Everything has been paraphrased in a similar manner. Like I said before, source review passed ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig does not check for copyvios in sources retrieved offline (i.e. any type of publications), so obviously there won't be any issues flagged in those cases. Slightlymad (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sam Peckinpah.JPG: Use seems fine for me, license probably as well. Imma note that the fact that it's derived from another file should probably be marked with the dedicated "extracted" template, rather than to use the "source" parameter.
File:Steve McQueen 1959.jpg: License and use seem fine for me. Imma note that the fact that it's derived from another file should probably be marked with the dedicated "extracted" template, rather than to use the "source" parameter.
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've added the extracted template where it's appropriate; and yea I believe the edit war in the poster had simmered down, considering the fact that that was two months ago. :) Bluesphere 04:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this needed more opinions, as a first time nomination, and since I watched the film relatively recently, I'll take a look, and add comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"an African-American boy whom Doc had rebuked earlier for squirting him with a water gun" Is it really important to mention in a plot-summary that the boy is African American? Not to be politically correct, but I just don't see the point. If it had significance to the plot, it might have made sense, but since it doesn't, you could just as well state the ethnicity of every other character. Done
"pay the cowboy $30,000 (equivalent to $170,000 in 2016)" Again, I'm not sure why the exact modern amount is necessary to the plot. Even saying "a large amount of money" would be enough. This is even more conspicuous because you don't give modern-day conversions for any other amounts mentioned throughout the article. Done
"The Getaway did fare better with contemporary reviewers." What is meant by contemporary here? It seems you mean retrospective reviewers or such, I'd think a contemporary reviewer would be someone who reviewed it upon its release. Done
You call Beynon a "politician" in the intro, but "businessman" in the plot summary. Could be consistent. Done
"—the only nomination the film has received." Only stated in intro, which should not have unique information. Done
"exclusively in the United States." Likewise. Done
The remake is given way too much undue weight in the intro, you're almost repeating everything from the article body. Just saying it was made but got negative reviews is enough. It has its own article, after all. Done
FunkMonk, these are tentatively resolved. Can you take a look at it now? Slightlymad (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good, one last thing: "Special features contain audio commentary by Peckinpah's biographers and" Should be "include" audio commentary. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Done[reply]
Support - everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a class of dinky torpedo boats that saw service with the Austro-Hungarian Navy. It was a very successful design, and all 24 boats saw extensive active service doing a range of tasks during World War I, mainly in the Adriatic. One was torpedoed and badly damaged by a French submarine, and two sank an Italian submarine. All suggestions for improvements gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just a few comments:
Can anything be said about where the name Kaiman comes from?
The Kaiman or Caiman is a semi-aquatic lizard so I imagine that is what it came from, but none of the sources explicitly state that. Classes often take the name of the first ship.
That is what I was thinking, a very apt name for a small armed ship like this. I remember seeing a caiman scour the shoreline for prey ... pity there's no source. Oh well.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"was considered to be a very successful design, and all boats saw extensive active service during World War I" You have near identical text in the body, and in so short an article the duplication stood out.
Good point, tweaked the wording in the body.
That's it. Interesting. Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed the article at A-class (and the GAN, incidentally) and my concerns have already been addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. This is an article about an American science fictionmedical drama that aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from October 6, 1998, to July 15, 1999. With an ensemble cast led by: Joe Morton, Maria del Mar, Alexandra Wilson, Brian McNamara, Salli Richardson, Julia Pennington, Gay Thomas, Jordan Lund, and Joe Spano, the series takes place in a 23rd-century hospital space station located in deep space and revolves around its doctors and nurses. Initially focused on ethical and medical cases, the storylines gradually shifted toward focusing on the characters' personal relationships to better fit UPN's primarily teen demographic.
This is my third nomination of an article on a UPN series, following the successful promotions of Love, Inc. (TV series) and Eve (2003 TV series). I have primarily used my experiences and feedback from those two prior FACs in preparing for this. I just find something about the network’s eclectic mix of genres and shows to be fascinating. I have actually never seen this series (as it was never officially released outside of its original broadcast and only clips of it are available online), but I greatly enjoyed working on this and found the production history to be very interesting. I believe that this fulfills all aspects of the featured article criteria. Hopefully, this nomination will inspire more people to put up television-related articles in the FAC process. I look forward to everyone’s feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mention the names of the production companies twice within in intro.
I wanted to make it clear which company was being referenced as they were two of them. I restated the "Mandalay Television" company at the beginning of the second paragraph to clarify which of the two was being discussed, and add "between Mandalay Television and Columbia TriStar Television" to make it absolutely clear as I feel that saying something along the lines "between the two companies" would a little too vague/unclear. I would be more than happy to hear your suggestions on this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just remove "The series was produced by Mandalay Television and Columbia TriStar Television". You state it again in the next paragraph anyway ("deal between Mandalay Television and Columbia TriStar Television"). Mymis (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me; it has been removed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mymis: Just wanted to let you know that I responded to this point. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if UPN template is necessary at the bottom of the article.
@Mymis: Thank you for your review so far. I have addressed your above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Following its decision to expand its..." -> Two "its" is bit repetitive. Maybe replace first one with "a" or "the" (not sure which one is grammatically correct).
Makes sense to me; I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Dan Snierson reported that Mercy Point faced tough" -> maybe "noted" instead of "reported".
"While Mercy Point was envisioned as a companion to Star Trek: Voyager.." -> You mention this fact few times throughout the article. But who exactly envisioned it? The network? The creator?
Good point; not sure how I miss this either. Added that it was envision by the creator. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you talk about Joal Ryan's opinion, you could include a quote.
I am not sure if there is a really good quote from Ryan's article that would be better than paraphrasing, but I am more than happy to hear your opinion on this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments; I believe that I have addressed all of them. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Concept and development" section, it is still unclear who imagined it, especially when you have a quote (a "companion piece"). Whose quote is that?
Revised and attributed quote. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"part of a $3 million deal" -> The number should be spelled out, to be consistent with the rest of the article.
@Mymis: Thank you for your additional comments. I believe that I have addressed them. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the article. All the issues brought up were addressed. You have my support. Good luck with the nomination! Mymis (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says the show was put on hiatus after two episodes, but the air dates in the episode table show the hiatus starting after the third episode. The broadcast history section seems to support it being third. I think the hiatus was announced after two, but took effect after three. For clarity, I think the lead should be changed to say "three", and first part of the second paragraph in Broadcast history be rewritten to clarify the order of events.
Makes sense to me; not sure how I missed that. I have revised this part. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the show available through Netflix or other streaming services? That might be useful to include with the bit about it not being on DVD or Bluray.
The show is not available on Netflix or any other streaming service. I do not think that there has been much interest after all of the episodes aired, and it seems like it has been mostly forgotten over time. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits; they have improved the article a great deal. I have also addressed all of your comments above. Thank you again for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick replies. I can support this. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba. Just the lead so far. I'll get to the rest soon.
"three million dollar deal": seems similar to some of the examples requiring hyphens in MOS:HYPHEN but I'm not confident.
Good point. Added the hyphens. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Director Joe Napolitano had praised the show for its use of a complete set to allow for more intricate directing." I haven't gotten as far as the main body of the article yet, but is "had praised" correct? "Has praised" seems much more likely.
"The show suffered from low viewership, with an average of two million viewers." If it can't be helped, it can't be helped, but it sounds a bit repetitive having "viewership" and "viewers" in such close proximity. Is there possibly a way to reword the sentence to avoid the repetition?
Revised. Changed "viewership" with "ratings" as suggested below. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The final four episodes of the series were broadcast in two, two-hour blocks on Thursday nights in July 1999." Would "two 2-hour blocks" be possible to avoid awkwardness? Or maybe we don't even need the first "two"? Moisejp (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "two 2-hour blocks" works in this context. I have also revised it in the body of the article as well. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the show suffered from low ratings? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Moisejp: Thank you for your review so far. I believe that I have addressed your comments. I am looking forward to the rest of your review, and I hope you are having a great day so far. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba. I will finish this review really soon, hopefully this weekend. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your update, and no worries. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
"Even though it was picked up by Mandalay Television, the concept was eventually revised as a television project and renamed Mercy Point due to the poor commercial performance of the 1997 film Starship Troopers." The "Even though" could be confusing because it was picked up by a television network and then revised as a television project. People could be confused why it's not normal that a television network would tailor the project for television. Moisejp (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to revise the sentence to be more clear. Aoba47 (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It was never released on DVD or Blu-ray, and was never released on an online-streaming service." I don't have a strong opinion about this, but it's possible these statuses could change in the future, in which case "has never been" may be better than "never was". Moisejp (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me; I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Casting and filming
"Lund had to sit through several hours of prosthetic makeup to get into character." I think it's the application of the makeup, not the makeup itself, that he had to sit through several hours of? Also, I believe "get into character" is usually used slightly differently than how I interpret it here. Usually it means, adopts the mannerisms, etc. of the character. But I'm not confident it couldn't refer to the appearance too—I'm just not used to seeing it used that way. How about something like "The application of Lund's prosthetic makeup required several hours each day that he was filmed."
"To better connect with UPN's teen viewers, Callaway reported that he shifted the show's focus from medical and ethical cases to the characters' relationships." Please rework this sentence so that the opening phrase is not tied to "reported". Maybe the easiest solution would be just to remove "reported that he". Moisejp (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed reported that. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Due to its cancellation, Callaway viewed Mercy Point as a limited-run series." Is this noteworthy? It's unclear to me how relevant it is, but maybe I'm missing some context. Moisejp (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I originally thought it was important to mention how Callaway changed his views on the show after it was cancelled, and viewed it more as a limited-run series than a regular show. However, I do agree it does not seem as relevant anymore so I have deleted it. Aoba47 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking, this section talks about Grode's missing family, and just below the synopsis of episode one talks about Jurado's missing family. They both had missing families, and there is no confusion of subject in either instance (i.e, they're not both supposed to be about Grode, or both supposed to be about Jurado)? Moisejp (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should be Grote so I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Critical response
Is the first paragraph supposed to be all about appraisal the show got at the time of its debut (no later appraisal)? If so, I strongly suggest "Mercy Point received" instead of "Mercy Point has received". But if it's not supposed to be only at the time of its debut then "following its debut" is confusing and should be removed.
I have removed "following its debut". I was more so trying to make a paragraph on the positive reception and one on the negative. Aoba47 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"David Bianculli of The New York Daily News praised Mercy Point as an improvement over "UPN's watch-me-please gimmick shows", commending its focus on its characters and medical cases while "relegating the futuristic elements to the background"." Here "commending" modifies Bianculli but "relegating" is meant to modify Mercy Point. The reader probably expects the _ing/_ing to be a parallel structure modifying the same subject, but it doesn't, which is confusing.
Revised to hopefully make it clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Mercy Point also garnered negative reactions from television critics, with GamesRadar's Dave Golder including it on its list of the worst science fiction and fantasy television shows of all time" Should it be "his list" instead of "its list"? If it is not only Golder's list, it would be less confusing to not mention him at all. Moisejp (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "his list". Aoba47 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"he advised the audience to "change this bedpan fast". The series was heavily panned" The repetition in close proximity of "pan" / "panned" jumps out at the ear. Maybe rearrange the sentences so that these two don't direct follow each other?
Those are all of my comments. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Moisejp: Thank you for taking the time to do the review; you have helped me a lot. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments above. Aoba47 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Happy to support now. Moisejp (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issues, grammatically or otherwise, since these were all already fixed. I support this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: Wow, I really like the image in the infobox. Also, the second image is really well taken! (edit conflict) Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The title card for the series is very clever, and the photograph of Steve Johnson is actually a really good picture. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I previously commented on the FAC for Love Inc. I must say I really admire the amount of effort you put into articles on unpopular TV shows. Seriously. I took a film I was indifferent about to GA once, mainly because it was terribly written and since the film was unpopular I figured nobody else would ever improve it, but that was about as far as I wanted to go with it. It's admirable that you've been willing to put this much effort into a series that you couldn't actually watch. I find it hard enough to bring things I'm passionate about to FAC level. While I do support this, I do have a couple optional things I'd like to point out.
"According to Napolitano, Lund had to...", this isn't a controversial or outrageous statement, so personally I wouldn't feel the need to attribute it to anyone, but up to you.
Makes sense; I think that I added the attribution just in case, but I agree that it is not necessary so I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It was never released on DVD or Blu-ray" - I know it's kind of impossible to find a source that it was never released in any format, but as this statement only clarifies the formats it wasn't released in, it raises the question of where one can view it today. From your FAC intro I gather it can't be viewed anywhere; it's a shame this probably can't be sourced. Personally I'd add the information that it can't be viewed today into the prose anyway but it might be a smarter idea to wait until the FAC is closed to do that :).
Thank you for the comment, and that is a good point. I actually just found that there are several episodes available on YouTube, such as the entirety of the second episode "Opposing Views" can be seen in this video. (I am not entirely sure how I missed that during my work and expansion on this article for GAN lol). Do you think that I should make a note that the episodes are now available online and use the YouTube links as sources or would that be crossing lines of copyright as these YouTube videos are not official releases? I will have to watch at least one of these episodes to actually see all of this stuff in action and see if I actually like this show or not (at least before they are taken down lol). Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to the an un-official YouTube video would unfortunately be a copyright violation. If I were you I'd probably just expand the 'It was never released on DVD' sentence to also say it was never released on an online-streaming service either (which effectively means it is currently unavailable for official viewing; you probably don't even need a source for that). You could consider taking it one step further and explicitly saying the series is not officially available for viewing anywhere, though someone might challenge that as needing a source, especially while this is at FAC. Freikorp (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: I have added the "was never released on an online-streaming service" part. I believe that it would fall under the Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue policy as it is pretty evident given the lack of episodes officially available online. Thank you again for your help! Aoba47 (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is "advance containment"? Can you find an appropriate wikilink?
I actually had a hard time pinpointing an appropriate target for this then I originally anticipated. I linked the phrase to the "Prevention" section in the "Infection" article as it is dealing with preventing containment. I also changed "advance" to "advanced" as I think that was a typo on my part as the critic was dismissing how the show tried to pass off gloves as "advanced" medical technology. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: Thank you for your kind words. I think that there is something interesting about working on articles on unpopular shows, and I agree that it certainly feels that no one else would have improved this so it almost becomes like a personal project in a way. Hopefully, this nomination and my previous work with Love, Inc. will inspire more users to look at more overlooked/unpopular topics. Thank you for your comments; I believe that I have addressed all of them and made the appropriate corrections. I actually have found a few episodes of the show on YouTube, and put a question about that in one of my responses. I am looking forward to your input on that point. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to have the state of art hospital part replace facility on the 2nd sentence, and facility replace the state of art hospital on the fourth sentence? (reverse the phrases)
Makes sense to me; revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you intend to have it as "state-of-the-art hospital" instead of "state-of-the-art" hospital? (italics are used for clarification)
The quotation marks should be around the entire phrase "state-of-the-art hospital". Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"In their book Science Fiction Television Series, 1990–2004, Frank Garcia and Mark Phillips" I would reverse their with the author's.
I am a little uncertain about what you are commenting on here; are you referencing the comma in the quotation marks? Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"circular hub with offices and rooms radiating outward,"
I am a little uncertain about what you are commenting on here; are you referencing the comma in the quotation marks? Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
into the "Sahartic Divide" Is the phrase quoted a place or an episode title? If a place, replace into with to.
It is is a place so I added "to". Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Dru Breslaur joins the hospital as a new resident and is forced to confront her past with her older sister Haylen Breslauer, and a romance with C. J. Jurado." and a romance?
Added a verb there. Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"UPN ordered six original series" How about brought up instead of ordered?
I don't think that "brought up" would be appropriate in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused from the word ordered. Did UPN purchase the shows or something? That's what it sounds like in context. -- 1989 22:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. The sentence pretty much means that the network provided the money and time for the show to be developed, in the same sense of a movie getting the green-light. I have revised the part mentioned above to "UPN picked up six original series" so let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"television shows picked up UPN" You're missing a word.
"The series carried a TV-Y parental rating, meaning that it was judged as "unsuitable for young children"." Are you correct about that? TV-Y means it's suitable for all ages. If your right, the sentence sounds weird.
It should read as PG. Not sure how that got changed; revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"UPN's watch-me-please gimmick shows,"
I am a little uncertain about what you are commenting on here; are you referencing the comma in the quotation marks? Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you address my concerns, I'll check back. -- 1989 19:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@1989: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have responded to your comments. I hope that you have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Replies above. -- 1989 22:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@1989: Replies above; I actually corrected the commas during my first round of edits according to your comments, but I just wanted to make sure I understood your suggestion correctly. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, and I will provide comments to your FAC during the weekend if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the series was promoted as 'ER in space'..." and "'ER'-in-space mess..." Shouldn't "ER" be in italics?
Good point; I think I left it without italics because that was how it was presented in the sources, but I agree it should be in italics given that it is the name of a television series. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did not find any other mistake here. Since it is only a comment, I Support this nomination. If it's possible, could you look at my FAC? Thanks, and have a nice day.--Paparazzzi (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I have addressed it and made the appropriate revisions in the article. I would be more than happy to help with your FAC, and will most likely put comments up this weekend when I have the time to really read through the article thoroughly. I hope that is okay with you. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every single url is archived and the sources appear to be reliable. Maybe "Teevee.org" could be retitled simply "Teevee" but that's nitpicking. As a resut I think this article passes its source review. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source review. I have changed Teevee.org to Teevee as requested. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about... a most talented but temperamental artist. In a way, Pistrucci's career can be divided into two periods, one as a rising star, the second as a bitter sinecurist. Still, his brilliance lives on and is familiar through his iconic design of Saint George and the Dragon. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Filippo satisfied his father with enough academic achievement that he was allowed to take a job with a painter named Mango, - Any idea of his first name, since you mention the brother Giuseppe? I assume not, but figured it was worth asking
With the Pope and French having made peace, - I assume you meant the French here?
I thought I would save a word here. Is it really necessary to say "the"?
stabbing him in the abdomen before Pistrucci repelled the attack - How can he repel the attack after being stabbed? Wouldn't repelling it imply that he prevented it?
The wound was apparently not serious enough to incapacitate him, and he fended off further attacks. Is there a term you prefer?
Well I feel like you should clarify that he fended off further attacks then.
A little late, but I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pistrucci was willing, and after making provision for his family left Rome with Bonelli - Isn't it making provisions?
No, to make provision for someone is to see to their future needs, sometimes in a will or trust. It's properly used here.
the brothers refused to accompany Bonelli further, and after threats, the dealer departed. - Threats from whom?
but the allowance was stopped after 1830 as it had come to light that each resided aboard - Aboard? What does this mean?
Oops. Should be "abroad". They had not joined the Navy ...
I shall certainly be supporting the elevation of this article to FA, but I offer some fairly minor suggestions before I take the King's Shilling:
Lead
As the article is in BrEng I suggest 'likely best known' should be 'probably' or 'perhaps' best known. The 'likely' construction is not much used in these islands. There are two likelys in the lead and more in the main text.
Pistrucci also was hired by the British government – similarly, 'hired' strikes a slightly false note: I think 'engaged' would be the idiomatic BrE version. ('Hired', I should say, would normally be used for bricklayers, housemaids etc rather than more elevated personages such as Pistrucci.) There's another 'hired' later in the lead, and more in the main text.
Early life and career (1783—1815)
They were forced to move to Rome … due to Napoleon's invasion – younger BrE speakers will probably disagree with me, but I was taught that 'due to' is an adjective and can modify only pronouns and nouns: I think you want 'owing to' or even better 'because of' here.
Napoleon had put a price on Federico Pistrucci's head – rather a tease! Do we know why? On the face of it his day job wasn't something that Napoleon would obviously object to.
I went and took a look at Pistrucci's account and he said that his father had prosecuted some Bolognese who had fomented a revolt to facilitate Napoleon's entry. It's quite likely that he was an investigating judge. I think it to detailed to go there. Since Pistrucci Sr was a member of the papal government, that's enough in my view to motivate Napoleon.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
**Pistrucci's obvious talent made his fellow apprentices jealous – I get in a dither about the difference between jealousy and envy, but I think perhaps they were envious rather than jealous.
Rise to prominence (1815—1819)
likely caused by Bonelli's malice – another place where I’d recommend probably.
connoisseur Richard Payne Knight – again, I show myself in my colours as an old fossil, but I don't regard the false title as suitable for use in formal BrE, and I'd put a 'the' in front of of connoisseur.
Last para: you tell us twice that the advance payment allowed P to bring his family over from Italy.
Conflict at the Mint (1820—1836)
King William IV took the throne on George's death – I think I might say 'came to the throne' rather than took it, which sounds a bit like a coup d'état.
Appraisal
In the last sentence of the first para there are what look like em-dashes in the date ranges, where I think you probably want en-dashes.
A modest haul of quibbles, in all conscience. I thoroughly enjoyed this article, and I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 20:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and it's good to see you back. I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support now added. It's a pleasure to review articles as readable as this one. Tim riley talk 10:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No formatting issues. Also, no issues on coyvio. 13.6% at max, and that too with trivial things. Excellent sources. Good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through. The article crosses over from numismatics into visual arts, and am reviewing from the latter POV.
Lead
Pistrucci also was engaged by the British government - drop "also", maybe switch engaged to employed or contracted or subcontracted as appropriate
where he would live most of the rest of his life - tense -"lived for"
His skill with cameos quickly made him prominent in London - We have already established most of this this already (became prominent) (as a cameo carver), maybe "his reputation brought him to the attention of (London luminaries?)".
which debuted in 1817 - 'was issued' rather than debuted?
I refer you to the review of the esteemed Tim riley, supra.
"The Mint forbore to dismiss him" - 'forbore' is too restrained and polite imo for a lead; "declined", and maybe give brief reasons.
Early life and career
His elder brother Filippo showed artistic tendencies from a young age (the third child, Catherine, died at age 21), but Benedetto showed - Either instance of 'showed' could become 'evidenced'
had property in Bologna and Benedetto began...comma, 'where Benedetto began'
Napoleon had put a price on Federico Pistrucci's head, and the family fled Rome when the French advanced towards it, stopping in Frosinone - there is a lot here..not sure the punctuation / construction gives due to the cause and effect. But I havnt spent the last few months immersed in the sources, so highlighting, and your call. Towards it is implied.
Granted, but if I cut it, there will be ambiguity as to whether the French or family stopped in Frosinone.
Was thinking more of expansion than cutting. Ceoil (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
here, he quickly showed his artistic talent - His abilities became apparent. Not fond of "showed", as it has other implications (commercialized, sell out, though I realise the irony in that we are taking about currency design here)
were being unscrupulously sold as antiques - 'unscrupulously' carries too much moral weight for an ency; maybe 'sold as counterfeit antiques'.
and one provoked a fight with him, stabbing him in the abdomen *before* Pistrucci fended off further attacks - so he was attacked en mass by various people in a single incident? I'd make more of this if so; conspiracy, gathering, attack, aftermath, and do we know if "they" intended to wound or kill.
Pistrucci felt Morelli was seeking to profit too much from his ability - Not sure what is meant here, it could be a number of things. "Too much" implies that a point was reached, but Pistrucci's criteria are not explained
More later. Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Done or respond to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Brian has gazumped my review and provided a very comprehensive further review. I'm basically Support with one question re tense that I'm struggling to articulate but can give an eg of - "the father of the man who had adapted" - dont see the need to use the word "had" here; its an odd tense to my ears, and takes from the article's pace. Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm inclined to let it stand. It's past both for events in the article and the reader earlier was told of the incident, so "had" seems to fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never heard of Pistrucci before reading this article, and it's a fascinating story. What a hive of intrigue was the early 19th century Mint! My list of comments is lengthy, but they are mostly nitpicks, quite easily fixed.
Lead
"...the George and Dragon design was returned to the sovereign, and is still used today". I'd say "sovereign coin", to avoid confusion with the monarch. Also, "restored" rather than "returned"
MoS guidelines advise against relative time references such as "today".
My test about such things is would some one come here to change the article if the situation changed (not me, that is)? And I think it's prominent enough that it would.
Early life
"papal government" – perhaps a pipe to Papal States
"(the third child, Catherine, died at age 21)": Suggest delete. it's not relevant, and it disrupts the sentence where it's inserted.
"The family had property in Bologna and Benedetto began his schooling there, but they were forced to move to Rome in 1794 because of Napoleon's invasion of Italy, and he was enrolled in the Roman College". The sentence reads a little clunkily. Perhaps: "Benedetto began his schooling in Bologna, where the family had property, but they were forced to move to Rome in 1794 when Napoleon invaded Italy, and Benedetto was enrolled in the Roman College".
The sentence mentions only Benedetto, though the previous one refers to both sons' schooling, as does the opening sentence of the next paragraph. Do we infer that the brother was educated elsewhere in Rome?
Do we have a year for when Benedetto began to work for Mango, and are we to assume that his formal schooling ended at that point?
No date. Most accounts of PIstrucci's early life derive from his own, and he didn't use many dates.
Redlinks: you have them for Giuseppe Cerbara and Nicolo Morelli, but not Giuseppe Mango or other names.
Year in which Pistrucci won the competition to make a cameo of Elisa?
No date, I fear, per the above.
"Filippo Pistrucci had decided that Bonelli was not to be trusted" – do we have any notion as to why he decided this?
Reviewing Pistrucci's original, he says that the brother realised Bonelli was contradicting himself about England, though it isn't clear exactly what about. I don't think it worth including.
"and after threats from the dealer, he departed." The syntax doesn't seem quite right. Suggest: "and after threatening them, the dealer departed".
Maybe give a date for Waterloo. Does the six-month interval between the battle and Pistrucci's departure justify the "not until" wording, which perhaps suggests a rather longer delay?
I'm drawing that pretty straight from the source.
Rise to prominence
"the great naturalist" – well, yes, but "great" possibly breaches MOS:OPED
I'd remove the comma after "connoisseur" and place it after "came by"
"Lady Spencer showed Pistrucci a model of Saint George and the Dragon by Nathaniel Marchant and commissioned him to reproduce it in the Greek style as part of her husband's regalia as a Knight of the Garter. Comma needed after "Marchant"
"The design, with Saint George bearing a sword rather than a spear, is ordinarily seen on the sovereign, was also used for the crown from 1818" – needs an "and" after "sovereign"
"Pole most probably offered..." Would it be more accurate to say that Pistrucci "believed that he had been offered" the chief engraver's post? That appears to be the gist of the Craig quotation later in the paragraph.
I think most writers accept some sort of offer was made. I'd rather not paint PIstrucci as possibly having made it up. Craig is fairly hostile toward Pistrucci.
Perhaps reword one of the two "According to..." openers in this paragraph.
"against Napoleon" → "who had defeated Napoleon"?
Conflict at the Mint
"The King despised Pistrucci's work for its bloated expression". Is "despised" the best word, with its connotation of contempt rather than mere dislike? And I'd say "image" rather than the more general "work".
Several of the sources are pretty clear the King really didn't like it, but I don't know how much of it is later writers looking at what does seem to be an unflattering portrait.
"This version was struck from 1821 to 1825, but Pistrucci's design would be thereafter absent...": "This version" is slightly ambiguous, so for clarity I suggest "Petrucci's version was struck from 1821 to 1825, but his design would be thereafter absent..."
I've added "reverse" to remove the ambiguity. I'm saying "this" to distinguish it from the 1817-1820 version.
"Despite King George's dissatisfaction...": Perhaps it's more a case of "Aware of King George's dissatisfaction..."? We have "despite" again in the same paragraph.
"to be appointed to the post" → "for appointment to the post"
Clarify that Tierney was the incumbent Master
The Duke of York was by 1827 the King's late brother.
"that was popular in royal circles mounted in rings" Needs rewording - it wasn't the royal circles that were mounted in rings.
I've adjusted the latter. Between the Duke's death in January 1827 and the word "memorial", I think the present language can stand.
Later career and death
"Labouchere stated when questions were asked in the House of Commons..." Maybe better turned: "When questions were asked in the House of Commons, Labouchere stated..."
"claiming to have invented a new process..." That wording suggests a degree of doubt, an implication that the claim was unsubstantiated. Do we have any information as to whether the claim was justified?
" The following year, Pistrucci left for Rome to take up a position as chief engraver at the papal mint, but returned to London a few months later, deeming the salary too low." Most puzzling. Having taken up a post in Italy, surely he was not allowed to retain his London appointment at the Mint? Or to return to his old position at his convenience, without a word being said? In view of his fraught relations with his London employers, such licence seems implausible – do we have further details?
Regrettably not. Multiple sources say the same thing.
"The Master of the Mint, William Gladstone in 1844 restored Pistrucci's salary to the full £350 and offered him £400 to compete the Waterloo Medal". Better if "In 1844" leads the sentence. And I assume "compete" should be "complete"?
"and was paid the remaining balance of £1,500." I'm having difficulty reconciling the figures. From the information given, Petrucci's fee for the medal was £2,400. It seems he had been paid £1,700 of this by 1823 (there may have been further payments subsequently). In 1844 Gladstone offered him £400 to finish the job, yet five years later he's paid another £1,500. How was that balance computed?
The 400 was probably a bonus, but I agree, the figures are difficult to reconcile. I imagine some part of it was materials and expenses. No source really sheds light on this. There's probably a ledger in the Royal Mint archives that would clear this up
Appraisal
At some point, possibly before now, you should mention that the various coins mentioned in the first para of this section (sovereign, silver £20, crown) are no longer circulating coins in the British currency. The sovereign is for bullion, the Crown and £20 are commemorative.
The crown had at least some circulating function in the 1887-1902 era but I'll play with it.
"of the criticism of Pistrucci" could be shortened to "of criticism"
I think I've gotten everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to give my support when these issues have been considered. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I might have done one or two things a little differently myself, but those on are minor matters of personal choice. Very absorbing stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you indeed, very grateful. Understood.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Cameo_of_Benedetto_Pistrucci.jpg: what is the date of death of the illustrator?
File:1915-half-sov-reverse.png: what is the copyright status of the photo? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped for one of the Met's images, and I've adjusted the license there. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have two 'but's in this para. Maybe one could become a 'yet' or a 'however'?
Did the whole family relocate to Rome, or just the sons? I'm confused by the two 'they's...
"Napoleon had put a price on Federico Pistrucci's head" – what had he done to deserve that!?
"Filippo satisfied his father with enough academic achievement that he was allowed to take a job with a painter named Mango, but deprived of his brother, Benedetto..." – can we have another comma after 'but'?
I see your point but on balance I think it's better as is.
"With the Pope and French having made peace" – needs def article
Isn't "he did well" a touch informal?
"...one provoked a fight with him, stabbing him in the abdomen before Pistrucci fended off his attacker." – something about this sentence does not parse. Maybe something like "before he was able to fend off the attack/assault" would work better. I dunno.
"...daughter of a well-to-do merchant; they had nine children together" – why the semicolon? I'd try "...with whom he had nine children"
Because it opens slight uncertainty as to whether he married merchant or daughter, whereas with the semicolon there is none.
"the brothers refused to accompany Bonelli further, and after making threats, the dealer departed" – maybe another comma after 'and'?
Because I don't think the prose needs as much of a pause there as would be provided by an ", and," It's really the same thing as the ", but," above. I see this more as a writing style thing.
"With his daughters Maria Elisa and Elena, both gem engravers, Pistrucci in 1850 moved from Old Windsor to Flora Lodge, Englefield Green, near Windsor." – I don't like starting the sentence with 'with'? I'd restructure the whole thing, like "In 1850, Pistrucci moved with his daughters etc."
"After the death of Thomas Wyon Sr (the father of the man who had adapted Pistrucci's designs)" – do we have something more specific than 'the man'? Also, I'm not that fond of parentheses out in the open prose—try dashes.
Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about one of Frederick's greatest victories (according to Napoleon) Previous 2 articles I've submitted have been about his greatest defeats. This one, and the one following Battle of Rossbach, are the other side of the coin. Both have been reviewed at MilHist A class. I forgot to put Rossbach on the GAlist, so it's getting it's GA nom done now. Enjoy! I'll appreciate your comments... auntieruth(talk) 15:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another really interesting account, well-written and well-illustrated. I have a few suggestions, none very complicated.
General
Images need alt text. all done except the one in the box--does that allow an alt text?
Yes. I added an alt parameter and the word "something" to the infobox. You can replace "something" with words of your choosing. The others look fine. Finetooth (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Captionscleaned up
"At Borna, Frederick the Great and his staff develop their battle plan, by Hugo Ungewitter" – I'd add something to this to make it more clear that this is an illustration by Ungewitter and not a battle plan by Ungewitter.
Maybe Camphausen should be mentioned in the caption for the Choral von Leuthen.
The Schloss von Lissa caption is confusing. Maybe " Schloss von Lissa by Richard Knötel depicts Frederick's arrival at the castle, where he is greeted by Austrian officers (wearing white jackets)." Or something like that.
Seven Years' War
¶1 "based on the recently concluded War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748). The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war with Austria." – Repetition. Slight ambiguity. Maybe "based on the recently concluded War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748) and the subsequent Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, which ended the war."? Or something like that.cleaned up
Yep, it sure is. I missed the first instance. Time for new eyeglasses. Finetooth (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hapsburg dispositions
¶1 "He secured the Nippern..." – Delete "the"?done
¶1 The link to abati looks like a mistake. Maybe a brief definition in parentheses would work if no other link makes sense.cleaned up
¶1 "hastily erected redoubts" – Link redoubt?cleaned up
Oblique maneuver
¶1 First sentence. Unspaced em dashes rather than spaced en dashes since you use em dashes in the Prussian dispositions section?I have no idea what this means....?
It's a truly minor matter. I went ahead and changed them just now. Please revert if you think this was a mistake. Finetooth (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¶1 "Similarly, Zieten's cavalry had traversed the entire Austrian front... " – I think this is the first mention of Zieten. The full name and link should come here rather than in the Attack section below.done
¶1 "as if that was where any attack would occur" – I think this should be "as if that were" rather than "was".hmmm, ok....
Attack
¶2 "more than two hours elapsed before his cavalry reached the center of battle" – "His" seems ambiguous. Perhaps "the Austrian" rather than "his"?clarified
¶6 "40 squadrons of Hans Joachim von Zieten's cavalry awaited them Radaxdorf" – Something missing, perhaps "at" before "Radaxdorf"? Also, shorten to "Zieten's cavalry" and move the full name and link up to the "Oblique maneuver" section.
¶6 Is the Schweidnitz river the same as the Schweinitz (river)? The latter might be another editor's misspelling, not sure.I don't think so. well out of the proper place.'
¶2 "not only because losing it would cost them control of Silesia and considerable loss in prestige" – To avoid repeating "losing ... loss", maybe "not only because losing it would cost them control of Silesia and considerable prestige..."? Or something like that.
¶2 "the future of Austrian control of Breslau and the region looked grim" – Since the lede takes this one step further, better add a sentence here about the fall of Breslau.
Assessmentsi think I've addressed these...
¶1 "he should have considered the possibility of an attack" – Attach attribution? "According to X, he should have..."? Otherwise it sounds as if Wikipedia were making the judgment.It's cited to Showalter and the othersAccording to Showalter, Redman, Duffy, Blanning, Anderson, et al?
¶3 "that even his most bitter of enemies maintained for the rest of the war." – "Maintained" doesn't seem quite right. Maybe "felt" or "entertained"?continued for the rest of the war and the subsequent peace
Memorials
¶1 Flip the third, fourth, and fifth sentences from passive to active voice. Sentence three might say, "Berlin architect Friedrich August Stüler designed the monument, and Christian Daniel Rauch designed the goddess of victory."done
Looks good except a new question arises. Is "Victoria" the right word in "gilded the statue Victoria for better effect"? The voice flips (passive to active) look fine.Finetooth (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
all done {ping|Finetooth}} except for the one I didn't understand about Mdashes. auntieruth(talk) 20:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to support on prose, assuming you add the alt text to the infobox, which now has a place for it. Excellent article. Really good maps. Finetooth (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, done! I had no idea it was that simple to add alt text to a box! 21:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Modern German historians and musicologists have questioned whether the Prussian army really did sing "Nun danket alle Gott" in unison after the battle. I think that our article should reflect that this story might be more of a legend or a later propaganda invention, rather than something that actually happened. For more details please see:
Hofer, Achim. "Joseph Goldes (1802-1886) Fest-Reveille (1858) über den Choral 'Nun danket alle Gott' für Militärmusik " in Peter Moormann, Albrecht Riethmüller, Rebecca Wolf eds., Paradestück Militärmusik: Beiträge zum Wandel staatlicher Repräsentation durch Musik, Transcript Verlag (2012), pp. 217–38. ISBN978-3-8376-1655-2
Bernhard R. Kroener "'Nun danket alle Gott!': der Choral von Leuthen und Friedrich der Große als protestantischer Held; die Produktion politischer Mythen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert" in Hartmut Lehmann, Gerd Krumeich eds. Gott mit uns : Religion, Nation und Gewalt im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (2000)
"Britain aligned herself with his nephew..." - whose nephew? fixed
"could fire at least four volleys a minute" - I know that's fast, but the average reader likely will not know what the typical rate of fire in those days was - might be worth a footnote added a phrase explaining.
"gave him almost (and only) 200 men." - similarly, for most readers, the question will be "is that a lot? not a lot? instead of the 1,000 that would normally have been in his battalion.
"Leuthen was not a big village: troops were so closely packed they stood 30 to 100 ranks deep. The killing was terrible: Lamoral commented..." - the structure here is repetitive
"Commanded by Joseph Count Lucchesi d’ Averna[Note 2] hurried to take them in the flank" - I think something is missing here fixed
"Solid red lines indicate Habsburg positions; dotted lines show movement. Solid blue lines indicate Prussian positions; dotted blue lines indicate Prussian movement." - I'd add an explanation of the cavalry icons fixed
Okay, your reference system sorta makes sense but it it decidedly odd. You list the full bibliographic details twice - once on the first appearance in the footnotes and then again in the sourcess, but subsequent uses of the same source in the footnotes is a short footnote (which, I might add, is by last name, but you give the first fuller footnote with first name first, making it more difficult to figure out what is being referred to.) It works, but it really makes finding bibliographic details much more difficult than it probably should be. At the least, could we put the author's last names first in the footnotes? That would make checking to see whether every source listed in the References was actually used in the footnotes a bit easier.
Chicago Manual of Style. Unless I'm coerced into using one of those fancy templates, which I have bizillions of problems with, I do it this way, and have done so since I started writing articles anywhere. Footnotes have author's name first last. Bibliography has author's name last first. Easier to alphabetize. I'd be happy to call it "sources consulted", and combined the two sections, which I've done auntieruth(talk) 18:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I"m not going to be opposing on the system used but ... ugh. It's really clunky. It'd make a lot more sense to only have one section but if Chicago requires both the footnotes with full information (except ISBN, as far as I can tell) and then a separate section for the full-full bibliographic details ... I can't make you change per WP:CITVAR. Not sure I'll be rushing to do more source reviews though as detangling which references were used and how took me about three times as long as a more usual referencing system. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what a usual referencing system is??? I detest the one with last name (date), page number. Incredibly cumbersome. auntieruth(talk) 21:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing Duffy used in the footnotes? I combined the bibliography, and no, he's not in the footnotes. He used to be.
I'm not seeing Latimer used in the footnotes? I combined the bibliography, and no, he's not in the footnotes. He used to be.
Why is "International History Review" in footnote 2 (D.B. Horn) underlined? it is a journal
I see we're using Gaston Bodart for casualty figures - but his work is from 1916, surely there are more modern historians who give casualty figures? his work is still the authority, and the others rely on them for the basic. They then use other sources to augment his numbers, or to argue with them
So if later historians argue with his numbers, shouldn't we be covering their views also as they relate to this battle? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming in footnote 2 that all of the information is covered by both sources given - Horn and Black? If so, why not just cite to Black, the more modern work? If it's not all covered by both sources, we really need to have it made clearer what bits are from each source - given that both sources are 20 some pages. I disagree with that. Both sources cover it in detail over the 20 pages and it is hardly unreasonable to ask someone who wants to know more to read 40 pages to gain a deep understanding of the Diplomatic Revolution. Although Black is more recent, the consistency of sources reflects the continuity of historical understanding of the importance and causes of the diplomatic revolution.
You give a link for footnote 5 (New York Times) and put NYT in italics - but in the sources, you don't give a link and you underline NYT? Consistency. I generally don't link in references unless it's to a webpage.
World Cat shows the author of "War: From Ancient Egypt to Iraq" as Saul David. Idon't understand this.
It appears that the author is Saul David, not DK Publishing. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This ship was the flagship of the German fleet from 1906 to 1913, leading the fleet's training for much of the run-up to World War I. By the time of the war, Deutschland was obsolescent, but nevertheless took part in the Battle of Jutland, the largest naval action of the war. This article passed GA and Milhist A-class reviews all the way back in 2010, before being substantially overhauled with a new source a little over a month ago. It has since had a GOCE copyedit, so the prose should be in good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in great shape. I have a few quibbles, comments:
the draft in the infobox doesn't march the body
Must've been a typo - good catch
link knots at first mention
Done
is there any info about the size of her bunker?
Added coal capacity
is there any info about where the torpedo tubes were actually located?
Will have to look tonight
the mention of Dreadnought seems out of place, perhaps slot it in to the narrative of the following section in the appropriate place?
Yeah, I'm not really happy with where it is, but I don't really think it fits in the narrative either - it seems like an odd tangent to jump from the narrative on training activities and the like to the line about Dreadnought, and then back to training, etc.
perhaps mention that Skagen is in Denmark?
Done
perhaps also mention Funchal is in Portugal, Santa Cruz is in the Canary Islands and Bilbao is in Spain?
All done
it says "another periodic overhaul", but I can't see where she had an earlier one?
Fixed
consider linking dry dock
It's linked in the second para of the Construction-1908 section
I suggest that where you first introduce a British ship, you use HMS for clarity
Good idea
the ordinal designations are a bit weird, 1st Battlecruiser Squadron, but V Battle Squadron?
File:SMS_Deutschland_with_steam_up.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown, but the photo was from the Office of Naval Intelligence, and they wouldn't have been interested in the ship post its 1920 scrapping, which demonstrates it was in circulation before 1921. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article, well-written and well-illustrated. I'm a landlubber with no particular knowledge of ships; however, I have several suggestions, mainly about prose.
General
The middle three images need alt text.
Added.
Lede
¶1 "She was commissioned on 3 August 1906, only a few months before HMS Dreadnought was commissioned, the latter ship, armed with ten large-caliber guns, being the first of a revolutionary new standard of "all-big-gun" battleships that rendered Deutschland and the rest of her class obsolete." – Replace "with plus-ing construction" and trim by a few words? Maybe "She was commissioned on 3 August 1906, only a few months ahead of HMS Dreadnoughtwas commissioned. The latter ship, armed with ten large-caliber guns, was the first of a revolutionary new standard of "all-big-gun" battleships that rendered Deutschland and the rest of her class obsolete."
Good idea.
¶3 "After the battle, which highlighted the fact that pre-dreadnoughts were too vulnerable in the face of more modern battleships,..." – Tighten by a few words? Suggestion: "After the battle, in which pre-dreadnoughts proved too vulnerable against more modern battleships,"
Sounds good to me.
Design
¶2 "Steam for the engines was provided by twelve coal-fired Scotch marine boilers that were trunked into three funnels." – This slowed me down a bit. First, I'm not used to seeing "trunked" as a verb; it might be a nautical term, though I'm not sure. I assume this means "connected to". Second, I wasn't sure if only the coal smoke goes up the funnels or if maybe excess steam goes up the funnels too. A brief note explaining the mechanics in a bit more detail would be helpful to ship neophytes like me. Third, active voice would be more direct; i.e., something like "Twelve coal-fired Scotch marine boilers linked to three funnels provided steam for the engines."
How about "Twelve coal-fired Scotch marine boilers provided steam for the engines; three funnels vented smoke from burning coal in the boilers."?
¶4 "Her armored belt was 140 to 225 millimeters (5.5 to 8.9 in) thick, with the heavier armor amidships, protecting her magazines and machinery spaces, and the thinner plating at either end of the hull." – Replace "with plus -ing" construction? Maybe break up the sentence like this: "Her armored belt was 140 to 225 millimeters (5.5 to 8.9 in) thick. Heavy armor amidships protected her magazines and machinery spaces, while thinner plating covered the ends of the hull."
That works for me.
Construction through 1908
¶1 "though he served aboard the ship for just a month, being replaced by..." – Modify the verb form slightly and delete the comma? Suggestion: "though he served aboard the ship for just a month and was replaced by"?
Done
¶1 "Heinrich was new to the command..." – The first and third mentions of him call him Prince Heinrich. Should this one be the same especially since Heinrich is his first name?
Good catch
Battle of Jutland
¶3 "Soon after, Pommern was struck by at least one torpedo and exploded." – Maybe more emphatic: "Soon after, Pommern exploded after being struck by at least one torpedo."
Good idea
Final operations
¶2 "though on 10 September she was replaced by the cruiser Stettin." – Flip to active voice? "though on 10 September the cruiser Stettin replaced her."
Done
¶2 "...struck from the naval register and sold to be scrapped, which was completed by 1922." – "Scrapped" and "which" don't match. "For scrapping" would be better.
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the first season of HBO's True Detective, the anthology crime drama created by Nic Pizzolatto and starring Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their seventeen year pursuit of a serial killer, during which they must recount the histories of several unsolved cases related to said perpetrator. Since the failed nominations in the past year and after a lengthy hiatus, I've worked with Mike Christie on addressing the issues in previous FACs. He will thus be a conominator as he has made substantial improvements in the reception section, which was the main concern going forward. I believe this piece satisfies the FA criteria and hope for it to be a template for other media articles. DAP💅 17:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the sentence (The Sydney Morning Herald included the opening sequence in a list of ten of the best title sequences on television), wouldn't it be more correct to put the writer's name rather than attributing the publication as a whole as putting the opening sequence on this list? The same comment applies to the reviews in the "Reviews" subsection as they primarily attribute the reviews to the publication without naming the writer/reviewer directly.
I don't believe so. This was a subject of concern working with Mike and we believe declarative statements are more organized and heighten the reader experience rather than a summary of reviewer comments. DAP💅 13:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are the only two questions/comments I had about the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Great work with this article; it is a very interesting read. Good luck with getting it promoted this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. I am still a little confused about the treatment of the reviews as I have received notes in the past that the quotes/content should be attributed to the writer/reviewer rather than the publication as a whole, but if you both feel that is best, then I will not push the issue. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at it though; hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to give feedback for your nom. I'll glimpse through the article and comment sometime next week. Cheers! DAP💅 20:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, thanks for the review and support. Re the attribution of the content: I think the point of an inline attribution is to let the reader know the source, but if the source is a reviewer they'll never have heard of, the reader is none the wiser. Naming the publication gives the reader a better chance of evaluating the authority of the reviewer -- the New York Times is likely to carry more weight than Uproxx, for example. In some cases it might be worth giving the reviewer's name as well as the publication, for example if the reviewer is very well known -- Pauline Kael would be an example -- but I think this is rarely worth it. Eliminating the name makes the text a lot easier to read. The reader can still see the name by going to the footnotes, after all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a lot better than the first time I saw. I can't find a single by having a big look so I support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thanks for the feedback! DAP💅 20:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome plot, and a very interesting read. Prose is great too! Good work! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! store. DAP💅 14:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Woody Harrelson October 2016.jpg: License and use seem fine for me, I've renamed the file this one is extracted from as its previous name was vague.
Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo; I've added more details as requested. I checked every image and I think there is alt text for all of them; did you spot one that was missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Hart tracks down an associate of Ledoux's and forces him to name the Iron Crusaders, a biker gang out of East Texas for which Ledoux is now cooking meth." It isn't quite clear what you mean by "name". For what?
Revised for clarification. DAP💅 14:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"an abandoned lightbulb warehouse near Elmwood." I would suggest "light bulb".
"and Fort Macomb, a nineteenth-century fort outside New Orleans" I'd like to get you to get rid of the duplication of "Fort". Maybe "and nineteenth-century Fort Macomb, located outside New Orleans.
" disposable children's clothing" most children's clothing isn't disposable, disregarding the obvious. Do you mean secondhand?
That works, done. I had used "disposable" moreso to describe the quality of the clothing used, which Walsh said was pretty worn and ragged when he bought it from a thrift store. DAP💅 14:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"many of which are never reported or investigated by authorities." Possibly a "to" after "reported"
"both formats contain bonus content including interviews with McConaughey and Harrelson, Pizzolatto, and composer Burnett on the show's development; "Inside the Episode" featurettes; two audio commentaries; and deleted scenes from the season." I'm not a big fan of using semicolons in a list, especially on an American-themed article.
I hadn't realized this was a UK punctuation habit. I do it when the list contains commas that are not list separators -- in "Harrelson, Pizzolatto, and" for example. How would this be done in US style? Wouldn't it make it harder to parse if they were all commas? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would use commas. The usual rule in AmEng is one semicolon to a sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't pretend to be a fan, but very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I've responded to most points above; pinging DAP388 (talk·contribs) for the two points that require some knowledge of the show itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks good. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When my concern is resolved, I'll check back. -- 1989 18:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1989: thanks for the source review; archive links have now been added. Can you take another look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. Source review passes. -- 1989 18:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I previously reviewed, and ultimately supported, this article during its fifth nomination. A lot of my comments at the time recommended fairly substantive revisions or additions, including incorporating a major source (a print book analyzing the show's philosophical themes), adding another subsection ("Auteurism") to the Themes section, and other comments on the sourcing and text. DAP388 was responsive, cooperative, and amenable to my suggestions and, as far as I could see, the suggestions of others. Looking over the article again, nothing new jumps out at me as something to be resolved or improved. This article meets all of the FA criteria to my satisfaction.
I hope that it finally passes this time, but in the event that it doesn't please feel free ping me again if it must be renominated. I've been fairly busy irl and inactive on Wikipedia for the last few months, but I would support this again going forward. I don't really see any way that this article could somehow get worse or drop below the FA standards as I understand them. Alternately, I'm happy to let any future FAC coordinators consider my support here as a blanket support for purposes of any renominations in the near future. —BLZ · talk 20:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"As an anthology, each True Detective season possesses its own self-contained story, following a disparate set of characters in various settings." — 'possesses' → 'has'. Plain and better English. Also, isn't disparate a bit too strong a word in this context?
I agree on "possesses" and have made that change; I'd like to keep "disparate", if you don't mind -- it seems a concise term for what's intended. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Engineered as a nonlinear narrative," — 'engineered'? Really? Try 'Constructed' or 'Written'.
"... season one focuses on the lives of Louisiana State Police homicide detectives Rustin "Rust" Cohle (McConaughey) and Martin "Marty" Hart (Harrelson)" — strike 'lives of'. I'd also choose another verb than 'focuse'.
Agreed on "lives of"; done. I like "focuses"; do you have a better suggestion? I think it's the usual verb to convey this mean for a TV or film. Perhaps "concentrates on"? Though I think that's less precise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Seventeen years later, they must revisit the investigation, along with the histories of several other unsolved crimes, the perpetrator of which remains at large." — strike 'histories of'. Also, 'at large' is a bit too idiomatic/informal for my taste. 'unknown' is better.
"True Detective's first season explores themes of philosophical pessimism, masculinity, and Christianity, and critics have analyzed the show's portrayal of women, its auteurist sensibility, and the influence of comics and weird horror fiction on its narrative." — "and...and...and"
Fixed with a semicolon; I could also just split the sentence in two but I think the rhythm is better with a longer sentence here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"and won several other honors recognizing outstanding achievement in writing, cinematography, direction, and acting." — "-ing -ing"
Changed to "won several other honors for writing, cinematography, direction, and acting" since we already have "outstanding" earlier in the sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Cohle quits the police force immediately after." — love that Southern brogue, but not warranted here, alas.
"The two detectives reflect on the on-going universal battle between light and dark." — I kinda hate that purple prose. What specifically are they talking about?
"Before creating True Detective, Nic Pizzolatto had worked as a literature professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, DePauw University, and the University of Chicago." — did he function as a literature professor in both places?
Checking the source, it says he taught at all three places but doesn't give any other information about his position, so I've simplified this to "taught at". DAP388, is there another source for Pizzolatto having taught literature? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Several years later he wrote a full-length novel titled Galveston, published in 2010, and around the same time began preparing to write for television." — strike 'full-length'. Also, the sentence is too vague. To begin to prepare to write somethin' isn't noteworthy for an encyclopedia. And do we need two time markers ('several years later': 'in 2010') here?
Cut to "He published a novel, Galveston, in 2010, and began trying to write for television" -- he was speculatively writing scripts and sending them to an agent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Pizzolatto thought the narrative's shifts in time and perspective made the story more suitable for television." — strike 'story' and use a pronoun: it means the same as 'narrative'.
"The writer pitched an adaptation of Galveston to two executives, and from May to July 2010 he developed six screenplays, including an early, 90-page draft of the True Detective pilot script." — 'the writer' is Pizzolatto, I presume. Also, "to two" is clumsy, if grammatically correct.
Changed to "He pitched", and cut the mention of the executives; I agree it's clumsy. DAP388, what's the source for that pitch meeting? I couldn't find the supporting detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...thanks to the support of production company and manager Anonymous Content,[9] who ultimately produced and developed the project in-house." — Is who the right relative pronoun for such an entity?
"Because the series is an anthology, each season possesses a self-contained narrative, following a disparate set of characters in various settings." — see earlier comment
"True Detective's anthology format allowed him the freedom to employ film stars, who normally avoid television series because of their busy schedules, because the show only required actors to commit to a single season." — "because...because"
"Mathijs Peters, in a piece for Film International, argued that True Detective probes Schopenhauerian doctrine through its approach to individuality, self-denial, the battle between dark and light, and so forth." — needs an indef article before 'Schopenhauerian'
I changed "doctrine" to "philosophy". Looking at the the source, I don't think it would be accurate to add an indefinite article; the discussion is about the range of Schopenhauer's thought, not one or two specific beliefs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Theorist Edia Connole saw connections to Philip Marlowe and Le Morte d'Arthur's Lancelot with regards to True Detective's presentation of Cohle, all "knights whose duty to their liege lord is tempered with devotion to God." " — 'with regards to' → 'in'.
Oppose
I'm sorry, but this article currently fails 1 a). Gertanis (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gertanis, thanks for the review. There's one point above I've asked for input from DAP388, the other nominator, but other than that I think I've responded to all your points. Can you take another look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Fukunaga took cues from David Lynch's Twin Peaks to adapt his filming style for TV." – too vague: what is ment by 'filming style'? Gosh, it would be nice to use the French caméra-stylo or ´cinécriture...
I've changed this to "The filming schedule was not organized in the episode sequence, which made managing the logistics much more challenging", which appears to be what Fukunaga was saying in the interview in question (here). He does mention Twin Peaks, but I don't think his comment is specific enough for us to be able to use it to support this point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The entire season was shot on 35 mm film,[35] which production staff chose to achieve a nostalgic quality" – first, you need a def article for 'production staff'. Secondly, I'm not sure what is ment by 'nostalgic': 35 mm is still widely in use. I'd love to hear something more specific about the texture, grain, or light qualities of that format, which made it more attractive for the show.
Here's the entire relevant piece of the source:
Why was 35mm chosen as opposed to another format?
Cary and I are both great film lovers. It has a special texture. Our series takes place in 1995 for the most part, and film helped us achieve a slightly nostalgic aesthetic. We wanted the series to have an unaffected quality to it, and film has a wonderful ability to translate the best parts of what catches an eye into a beautiful image without pushing or tweaking it too much. Film is a very forgiving veil. We had to shoot about five minutes of screen time a day, so at times I was leaning on the format pretty hard to give me a provocative result.
As you can see, "nostalgic" is what they thought of it. Can you suggest another way to summarize this that would be more informative for the reader? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...the visual palette in comparison was sharper and had much more contrast, lending a modern aesthetic" – what is a 'modern aesthetic'?
The source (same as previous point) says: "We used (PANAVISION) Primos for the 2012 segments. These lenses are a lot sharper and have more contrast, giving the image a more modern, crisp feeling. Longer lenses helped pull the characters out from their environments to hopefully help audiences get inside their heads, and camera movement became a little faster, like there’s a ticking bomb to disarm at the end of the tale." I don't mean to ask you to do the work here, but you're evidently knowledgeable about this sort of commentary: could you suggest a better summary of this?
That's it for now. Gertanis (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gertanis: Thanks again; I've addressed one point above but have dropped in the source text for the others in the hope that you can suggest better wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No thank you, for responding so swiftly. I've gone ahead and made a rewrite suggestion, w/ a more liberal use of quotes, so the reader will understand that we're not the ones making the judgments. Gertanis (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your copyedits look good to me. I appreciate the support and the attention to detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Replaced it with the first one. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Fixed
Done
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
