Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2012[edit]

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 11:55, 25 December 2012 [1].

Afroyim v. Rusk[edit]

Nominator(s): — Richwales 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Afroyim v. Rusk is a landmark Supreme Court case on U.S. citizenship law. The article has been a Good Article for almost two years, has been worked on extensively since that time, and is (in my opinion) ready now to be recognized as a Featured Article. — Richwales 19:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

  • 1 OTRS, 3 USGov, 1 PD-US-not renewed. Sources and authors provided.
  • did a bit of cleanup on some summaries and improved tagging. GermanJoe (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(moved comments by Ed! (on issued that have been resolved) to talk page)

Support Exceptional work. All of my questions have been addressed, and I think the article has everything it needs. —Ed!(talk) 14:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(moved lengthy comments by Wehwalt and SandyGeorgia (on issues that have been resolved) to talk page)

Who is moving and striking commentary by others? That is best left to either the delegates or reviewers entering the commentary. No problem in this case, just saying. My comments were neither lengthy nor needed striking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was me. I moved the resolved, struck-out comments to the talk page to make it clearer what was left. I moved your comments along with Wehwalt's because they were a followup to the exchange I had with Wehwalt (where I had used templates without realizing the implications). Sorry if I misstepped here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem, I just came back to continue reviewing and found I was gone and struck, and wanted to make sure you know that only reviewers should strike, and you shouldn't move others' commentary without checking. No problem-- just wanted to make sure you knew. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet, so although some of my earlier comments (on pronoun usage) were moved to talk, I still have some minor cleanup issues, that I will note here where my previous commentary was:
    • Why are images placed such that they extend into the next section? WP:ACCESS#Images asks us to try to make placement easier on screen readers, and I can't tell why that can't be done here. Why can't images be moved to the top? I moved a few up, but more of them could be at the top for accessibility.
    • {{Main}} is used incorrectly as a hatnote. The main template is used when this article uses summary style to excerpt a summary portion of that article. That is not always the case here. Most of the articles hatnoted are already linked in the text, and in some cases, that is all that is needed. Unless WP:SS and truly "main" is going on, if the links are really needed as hatnotes, they might be Seealso or Further. Need review.
    • Naturalization is used in lead, linked later in the article; please check that all terms are linked on first occurrence. Do we really need three links to Israel-- a place most readers are familiar with? Do we need to link artist to painting? What is intended there? See WP:OVERLINK; why not just say he was a painter? Please doublecheck all linking.
    • Please doublecheck acronyms... INS is not defined on first occurrence, and per the above, it is linked twice.
    • More of same: dual citizenship is used in the lead but not linked, then it's linked twice in the text. Link on first occurrence.
    • Citations are not consistent, example: ^ Temple University Faculty page for Peter J. Spiro. Retrieved November 23, 2012. does not identify publisher in same format as other citations. Is this the full title of the article? "Citizenship ... expatriation". ABA Journal 53: 752. August 1967. That is, are the ellipsis the actual article title?
    • Please review throughout for correct use of WP:ENDASH, example, ... favor in a 5-4 decision issued ... that should be an endash.

These are trivialities, but trivialities that should be cleaned up before the star is awarded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll work on these things in the next 6–12 hours. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, looking at the prose, please see also my comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Washington v. Texas/archive1. As a layperson, I completely understand the lead here. I do see some prose issues:

  • A series of treaties in place between the United States and other nations (the Bancroft Treaties), which had sought to limit dual citizenship following naturalization, were eventually abandoned after the Carter administration concluded that Afroyim and other Supreme Court decisions had rendered them unenforceable.
    • Why not:
      • The Bancroft treaties (a series of treaties between the United States and other nations) limited dual citizenship following naturalization, but were eventually abandoned after the Carter administration concluded that Afroyim and other Supreme Court decisions had rendered them unenforceable.
  • I don't think we should ever obligate a reader to click out of the lead to understand the text. As a layperson, I am mystified when I see a link to a word that I think is a common word, and discover is a legal term (distinguished). I'm not sure how this can be fixed, but it does confuse the layperson. I have to click on a common word to figure out why the link is there. No idea how to fix that, but it just hit me weird.
  • " ... born abroad ... distinguished from ... born or naturalized in the US ... did have the authority to revoke citizenship in such cases." Which cases (of the two)? I'm able to figure it out by using my brain, but I had to go over the sentence and its numerous clauses several times before I got there ... try to make this more direct. I think the entire sentence can probably be recast to be more direct.
  • The "however" before the emdashes is completely throwing me; I can't see why it's needed.

I'm not opposing here as at Washington v. Texas because I do understand the lead: I just shouldn't have to work so hard to get it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the above. I've reworked the lead section so (I believe) it's more readily comprehensible to the average reader; for example, I am no longer using "holding" or any of its derivative forms in the lead at all, since there would simply not be any way to use that word without wikilinking to a definition (something you objected to in the lead).
Regarding wikilinks, I do note that WP:OVERLINK allows for the possibility of a repetition of a wikilink "at the first occurrence after the lead". Even so, I removed the wikilink on "naturalization" in the "Background" section (even though I still think it should be there, I don't want to get into a fight over it).
Regarding image placement, I did some movement of images, but I understand that WP:IMAGELOCATION discourages placing a left-justified image at the very start of a section; I really felt it would improve overall appearance to alternate between right- and left-justified images (and this is acceptable AFAIK), but that means that some images simply cannot be put at the top of a section. I would have preferred to put the Hugo Black photo in the "Opinion of the Court" section, and if it turns out to be simply mandatory to place that photo there, then I guess I'll have no choice but to abandon my idea of alternating sides.
I changed the "main" hatnote to use the "further" template instead. It's possible that this entire hatnote is really not necessary at all; I want to think about it a bit more (and am open to suggestions).
Regarding "artist" / "painter", there's a problem because English doesn't have a commonly used term specifically referring to an artist who works in the medium of paint. I did use "painter" a while ago, but someone objected that they were confused about whether Afroyim was an artist or a house painter. I decided that calling him an "artist", while soon thereafter describing portraits he had painted, would be sufficiently clear, and I believe wikilinking the word "artist" to Painting is appropriate in this context. But I'm certainly open to contrary arguments on this.
Regarding wikilinking on "dual citizenship", I did have a wikilink on "multiple citizenship", but apparently you didn't see the connection between "multiple" citizenship and "dual" citizenship (and thus felt uncomfortable with the absence of a wikilink on "dual citizenship"). I've rephrased the lead now to say "dual (or multiple) citizenship"; if you still feel this is unsatisfactory, I'd be grateful for more ideas.
In the article named "Citizenship ... expatriation", that really, really is the title of the article; apparently, the editors of the ABA Journal considered this to be appropriate as a way of expressing a main heading ("Citizenship") and a subheading ("expatriation", without a capital). I'll recheck the Spiro faculty page cite you mentioned, as well as the other cites just for good measure.
I have more work to do, but the above is a start. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm too tired to look in tonight (will tomorrow), but on the repetition of wikilinks, I usually agree; if you feel another link to any non-common (technical or jargon) term is warranted, don't take it out on my account (there will be no fight :). I'm more concerned when first occurrences aren't linked (which I thoguht was the case there, could be I missed something), or when common terms (like Israel) are linked three times. Yes, sometimes it is helpful to repeat links, particularly when they are far apart. Use your judgment, but please make sure first occurences are linked, common terms (like Israel) aren't overlinked, and acronyms are defined on first occurrence-- no argument from me on such trivialities. I also agree with all you wrote on images and alternating them, but you had some of the images so far down in the section that they were into the next section. I see the problem on "painter", no idea how to fix that, so struck. I haven't taken a new look yet, but I'll look in tomorrow, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I did some more work just now — checking use and placement of wikilinks, removing some redundant references to "U.S." citizenship when the context made the country under discussion clear, and reworking the discussion of the later Rogers v. Bellei case to use the important legal term "distinguish", which I had originally used in the lead but took out because of your concerns over making readers follow links out of the lead. Please also note that I did a cleanup pass on the article using the dashes.js script. Please let me know if you see any unaddressed concerns that I may have missed this evening. Thanks again for your eagle eyes. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all of that looks good. I haven't had time to read the rest of the article, so I can't support, but the lead is entirely comprehensible to me (could be because I'm familiar with immigration and naturalization law issues somewhat, while the other law FAC lead is still not entirely clear to me as a layperson, maybe you can help tweak?) so that's all I can offer for now. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I peer reviewed this some time ago, and reviewed it again recently in preparation for this FAC. I think it meets the FA criteria fully. I have a few quibbles, which should be addressed but do not detract from my support.

  • There are a few wikilinks that seem to me to be terms that most readers would understand already - the two I noticed were voted and election in "...Beys Afroyim, a man who had voted in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen..." in the lead, though election is linked in the body too. (Note I am fine with wikilinks to legal terms like distinguishing which most readers will not be familiar with)
  • The article uses {{Cquote}}, but the documnetation for that template says it is for pull quotes ("visually distinctive text that is already present in the same article"), which does not seem to be the case here. I think the Cquotes should be replaced with {{Quotation}}

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed both of the above concerns from Ruhrfisch. — Richwales 03:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - excellent work, and it appears that the other reviewers have already caught any concerns. GregJackP Boomer! 14:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns all addressed. Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 11:55, 25 December 2012 [2].

Auriscalpium vulgare[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auriscalpium vulgare is a widespread, curious little mushroom that grows on pine cones. The article has had a helpful GA review by J Milburn, and recently a further round of review courtesy of Circéus. I've exhausted my literature sources and am confident it meets the criteria for being comprehensive and well-researched. Sasata (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK. Mushroom Observer (cc-by-sa-3.0) and PD-1923. Author and source provided for all images. (Tweaked one license to a more specific tag). GermanJoe (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments from Jim You're making it hard to find nitpicks, but here goes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • fibrils — no gloss or link
  • array of tiny teeth — array of tiny "teeth", as you have done in the captions
  • both light and darkness — "either" instead of "both"?
  • the duff— obscurity for its own sake, why not link directly to forest floor?
  • Stockholm, Sweden: Impensis Laurentii Salvii. p. 1178 — you have presumably translated "Holmia" as Stockholm, but left "impensis" in Latin, inconsistent. I don't think you need "Sweden" either.
  • London, UK — Do we really need UK, especially as it's the Handbook of British Fungi?
  • At previous FACs, I've gotten "nicked" by Nikkimaria for not being consistent with including countries in the location parameters. What is the greater evil: inconsistency in formatting the location parameter, or insulting the reader's intelligence by stating the obvious? I think it's the former, but I silently apologize to readers when I include "UK" after London. About translating the publisher from Latin, I'm simply being internally consistent by not translating them! Sasata (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is partly with me for "fibril", I think. I tend to forget about the into when revising articles. it does represent an interesting terminology point: the article says "hairy fibers", and I'm now curious if "trichome" would work? It seems not to be used for fungi, but "hair" apparently is (Kuo, MykoWeb and Barron use it), so that is probably good, and definitely is clear enough.Circéus (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the word was used in the lead, I replaced it with the easily understood "hairs". Trichomes are analogous, but I too have never heard them used in mycology. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK now, supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth A few comments, mostly on the prose. I then took a microscope to the references but failed to find an inconsistency or a period out of place. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The dark brown cap of the small, spoon-shaped mushroom is covered with fine brown hairs, and reaches diameters of up to 2 cm (0.8 in)." - This sentence mixes singular and plural.
  • "... and growth is inhibited by excesses of either light and darkness." - I would use "or" rather than "and".
  • " The cap margin, usually lighter in color (buff to light brown–roughly the same color as the spines)[17] than the center, becomes rolled inward (revolute) and often wavy in maturity." - I think this sentence is too convoluted with the part in parenthesis separating the rest of the sentence too widely.
  • Microscopic characteristics - I like the way you have explained some of the technical terms in this section.
  • "Each cap extends along length of the septum, along with a zone surrounding the pore that is free of organelles." Is this sentence lacking a "the"?
  • "Initially they are erect but they soon fall under their own weight to lie on agar surface." - ditto
  • Have you considered putting the section "Growth in culture" at the end of the article? Where it is now it interrupts the natural history of the fungus.
  • I've thought about this type of organization in previous articles, but decided that it seemed to make sense to include cultural characteristics after microscopic characteristics. Sasata (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Spines start out as minute protuberances on the part of the stem adjoining the cap. As the cap enlarges, more protuberances are formed, which elongate vertically downwards" - As this stands, it is difficult to visualise the protuberances growing vertically downwards, because they are growing on the stem.
  • "In North America, its range extends north from Canada[26] south to the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt south of Mexico City." - I don't think this sentence means quite what you intended.
  • Thanks for your review Cwmhiraeth, I've addressed most of your helpful suggestions in this edit. Sasata (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by MacDui

I am in agreement with Cwmhiraeth that you have done a good job of explaining technical terms by the use of parentheses. I don't know Nikkimaria but I fear this "London, UK", "Stockholm, Sweden" stuff is another outbreak of the dreary nonsense that plagues Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) i.e. this is probably American usage. I am unaware of any a priori reason to follow this scheme unless there is genuine ambiguity (e.g. Moscow, Idaho). Some specifics follow. One or two may duplicate Cwmhiraeth's comments, for which I apologise but I am running out of time to edit them out.

  • and reaches diameters of up to 2 cm
I can't fault the logic of the syntax but "diameters" plural reads oddly.
  • a crowded array of tiny teeth
They are not teeth as such but rather "tooth-shaped protrusions" or similar, which could be explained on first use. A link to Hydnoid fungi might fix this if you want to keep the existing wording.
  • I used your more accurate wording in this instance, and added "teeth" parenthetically, which hopefully give me freedom to use this common usage later. Hydnoid fungi is already piped to "tooth fungi" in the second sentence of the lead. Sasata (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • attaches to one side of the cap
This is a bit ambiguous. At first reading I thought it was a trite observation that the stem attaches only to the bottom side of the cap. I think "the edge of the cap" or similar would be more specific.
  • of either light and darkness
Surely it should be either " of either light or darkness" or " of both light and darkness".
  • potentially useful characters for phylogenetic analysis.
The lay person will wonder what is meant by "character". Can this be linked?
  • these combinations are therefore not validly published.
Do you mean that they "were not validly" published at the time or that they are "no longer validly published" under rules created subsequent to Kuntze and Banker's efforts?
  • when it was still a member of that genus
You are implying it changed genus. Surely "when it was still considered to be a member of that genus".
  • The cap margin, usually lighter in color (buff to light brown–roughly the same color as the spines) than the center, becomes rolled inward (revolute) and often wavy in maturity.
A few too many brackets and sub-clauses here I think. Can I suggest:
The cap margin is usually buff to light brown–roughly the same color as the spines and lighter in color than the center. It becomes rolled inward (revolute) and often wavy in maturity.
  • to instantly stain
is a split infinitive
  • I agree, but apparently, according to current schools of thought, this is no longer the grammatical crime it once was. ("... most modern English usage guides have dropped the objection to the split infinitive."). Sasata (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shameful modernity. Ben MacDui 19:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viewed under a light microscope, spores appear hyaline (translucent),
Missing "the" before "spores"?
  • Each cap extends along length of the septum
Ditto before "length"
  • Regarding nuclear division, the process of metaphase I of meiosis is similar to metaphase of mitosis
Ditto before "metaphase"?
  • Please link "inoculum" on its first appearance.
  • their own weight to lie on agar surface
"the" missing before "agar".
  • Crystalline deposits are abundant as small plate-like or star-like, randomly scattered crystals.
I couldn’t tell you why but I think this would read better as "Crystalline deposits are abundant as small, randomly scattered plate-like or star-like crystals.
  • the use of vegetative mycelium as inoculum precludes subsequent fruiting
missing "an" or "the" again.
I am not a mycologist and you have lost me here. What, in this context is "vegetative mycelium"? Is "vegetative" a legitimate descriptor of fungal material?
  • It is, but I've deleted the word as the meaning isn't significantly altered without it. Sasata (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the "step tip"? I can guess, but is there a way of explaining or linking this - perhaps using the helpful diagram?
  • My error – should be "stem". Sasata (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • so that if the axis of the stem is rotated by 90 degrees, it will return to a vertical position within 24 hours
If the axis of the stem is rotated by 90 degrees is the mushroom not still vertical? I think you may mean "if the stem is tilted by 90 degrees".
  • I hadn't thought of it that way, but yes, you're quite correct. Thanks for the suggestion. Sasata (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • they will grow at right angles to the line of gravity
Gravity doesn't have "lines" as such to the best of my knowledge. Surely the direction of gravity?
  • Saprobic has a duplicate link in the Habitat section. Ben MacDui 21:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't see a dup link for this.
It clearly isn't there - I think my redirect recognition software must have a bug. Ben MacDui 19:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've left the country disambiguators in the location fields as is – I strive for internal consistency, as well as consistency across other fungal FAs. There are quite a few places called London (disambiguation) and Stockholm (disambiguation), so maybe it's not such a bad idea here?
It's my view that disambiguation should be undertaken only where necessary, not on principle. This kind of attention to largely irrelevant detail is presumably the result either of the truly global nature of the wiki, or the sad fact that peer reviews focus on trivia because few of the reviewers have any real knowledge of the subject under consideration. I am certainly not going to add to the tedium by making an issue of it. Ben MacDui 19:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, thanks very much for the detailed prose review, it's much appreciated. Have actioned most of your suggestions in the diff given above in the reply to Cwmhiraeth. Sasata (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure, your welcome etc. I look forward to telling local vulgare specimens of their impending exalted wiki-status. Ben MacDui 19:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "recognized that the fungus was distinct from the other members of the genus" could be reworded. Technically all four were distinct from each other, which is why they are all classified as species. Am pondering whether "more distinct" or some other wording ("distantly related"...?)
fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
members of the Auriscalpiaceae family of the order Russula—has been demonstrated through molecular phylogenetics. - "Russulales" surely?
  • Yes, "les" got chopped somewhere along the way ... Sasata (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I presume there is nothing published on intraspecific variation as you'd have found it and included it ...?
  • Well, no varieties have been named as such; the scope of observable intraspecific variation is weaved into the "Description" section, and also in the "Fruit body development" section. Sasata (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments! Sasata (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm still running through and copyediting here and there., but the prose seems fine. I have a single nitpick in the lead; is it merely useless to provide a conversion here ("up to 55 mm (2.2 in) long and 2 mm thick")? ceranthor 19:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. It's standard to provide imperial conversions in biology articles; do you think it's useless because it's in the lead (repeated later), or the general practice of provide imperial conversions is useless? Sasata (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant that there is only a conversion for the first half. Is that so because the second conversion is too small to be practical? ceranthor 17:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is correct. I decided not to provide conversions for small measurements (less than 5 mm), because the # of sig figs going in should = those coming out, and there's no difference in the imperial output between (for example) 3 mm and 2 mm with 1 sig fig. Sasata (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 11:55, 25 December 2012 [3].

SMS Kaiserin[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another German battleship, I wrote this article about 2 years ago, and it's been waiting in the queue for quite some time, as I slowly grind my way toward the 50% requirement to upgrade this from a Good Topic to a Featured one. I feel this article is at or close to FA standards, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring this article represents Wikipedia's best work. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) P.S. Good semester I hope? - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks Dan, all look fine to me. And it's good now that it's over ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – was the ship named for a specific empress? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably for Kaiser Willy's wife, but I haven't seen anything specific (Kaiser was named for the first, not second, btw). Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Lots of passive voice.
    • Explosions are not "massive"
    • Don't like "smothered"; is there a better word? --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I kinda like it, but am not wedded to the word - do you (or anyone else) have any ideas? Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The two ships then proceeded to Kiel via Danzig, where they transited the Kaiser Wilhelm Canal back to the North Sea." I know that the canal is in Kiel, but it might look to a less well-informed reader like it was in Danzig. Can you clarify this? --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A week on, there is still too much passive voice for a Featured Article. It's the main reason I would not currently support this candidate. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Kaiserin and most of the capital ships of the High Seas Fleet were interned by the Royal Navy in Scapa Flow" doesn't need to be in passive voice, and there are probably other sentences that could be rewritten. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some of the passive voice is useful - for example, the clause on Nomad and Nestor "which had been disabled earlier in the engagement" or the line starting with "Repairs were conducted at the" elide generally useless information (namely, the irrelevant actors in both situations - it's not helpful to, in the second case, say "Dockyard workers effected the repairs...") and keeps the narrative focused on Kaiserin. I have made some changes in wording elsewhere - see if it's better now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
  • Why link NYC but not Annapolis or London? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images: check out. The Albion image was published outside the US before 1923, so is arguably public domain but for some technical legal reasons owing to the WMF move to San Fransisco, there might be trouble brewing on that and the CC-BY-SA licence is perfectly sufficient. I know Dan's had a look, and the prose is good, but The bulk of the High Seas Fleet was to have sortied from their base in Wilhelmshaven to engage the British Grand Fleet; Scheer—by now the Grand Admiral (Großadmiral) of the fleet—intended to inflict as much damage as possible on the British navy, to improve Germany's bargaining position, despite the expected casualties. But many of the war-weary sailors felt that the operation would disrupt the peace process and prolong the war. struck me as a bit odd. The first sentence feels like it keeps running on, clause after clause, and I personally disapprove of the second sentence starting "but" but assume this is for interest/to be more engaging. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I didn't know WMF moved to San Francisco - but in any case, the Albion photo is from the Bundesarchiv donation, so it's fine either way. I split the first sentence, as it is a bit long (perhaps writing on German topics is making me write overly-long, complicated sentences. If only we had split verbs in English). Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely clear meta:Wikilegal/The 9th Circuit and Works Published Without Formalities but as I say CC-BY-SA is course sufficient, it's just occasionally it's useful to disregard people's claim of copyright and understand that the file is actually PD. Not a physical move to SF, by the way (that happened for WMF staff in 2007, IIRC) but more a case of whether Wikipedia's content is legally in Florida, where the servers are, or, following the new Terms of Use, in SF (where the WMF is). Potentially huge unresolved issues. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That has to be one of the stupidest legal decisions I've ever heard, though I like the smart-ass comment about returning Greek classics to copyright. In any case, I wasn't aware of the move to SF - are there any significant differences between Florida and California? I'm guessing there are, since there's apparently potential problems - is there a link you can point me to for my own clarification? Parsecboy (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's stupid, particularly the uncertainty. I think we could live with pre-1923 becoming pre-1909. Anyway, I'm not sure what your query is, but in case you didn't know, SF is on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Florida isn't - unless adopted by the courts on Florida's circuit, Twin Books v. Walt Disney will apply only the the 9th circuit. If you want some more specific answer, please do ask on my talk page. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, I didn't know that the 9th Circuit ruling didn't apply everywhere. Thanks for clearing that up. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support and hello again, glad to see you are still writing! A few minor issues that will be easy fixes:

  • The second paragraph of the lead could use a bit of tweaking to avoid the use of 'also' in two consecutive sentences.
  • The commissioning date in the lead differs from that in the infobox and body of the article.
  • Also in the lead, the chronological flow is a bit disrupted where the scuttling is described as happening "days before the treaty was signed". Since the treaty wasn't signed until a week later, and the ships were to have been seized on the 23rd, I don't think the phrase really adds to the explanation anyway; think it could be dropped?

Well done as always. Maralia (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maralia - who would have guessed I'd still be around doing these articles five years after you invited me to join WP:SHIPS?
  • "also" -> "later"
  • Must've been a typo
  • Sure, that's fine by me. Thanks for reviewing the article, Maralia! Parsecboy (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, I had forgotten how I 'found' you. Crazy :) Maralia (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, so we could say this is all your fault ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Infobox:
  • I have to point out the namesake is uncited but its the Kaiser-class, (again!), and I'm 99% sure its right. I'll look into it.
  • The Designed displacement is uncited
  • The propulsion doesn't really match the cited prose (I was confused by 3-shaft vs. 3 sets); the horsepower is uncited.
  • Consider changing Crew to Complement, add citation.
  • Was Kurt Grasshoff always the commander? He needs a red link.
  • In Jutland, I think she only scored one hit out of 300+ attempts? Maybe you could summarize that in the end of the section.
  • The last paragraph of Operation Albion I thought could be shortened into a single sentence.
  • I think it would be more clear to name the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight so the reader doesn't have to click through.
  • The ship participated in the fruitless advance to Norway on 23–25 April 1918 - I don't happen to know what this is (or why it was fruitless); does this operation have a name?
  • Parsecboy, another good addition to the series. Kirk (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for checking on the namesake issue.
    • Added a citation for the designed displacement
    • Each set of turbines drove a shaft - is it clearer now?
      • Yes, thanks.
    • Done.
    • No, Grasshoff wasn't always the commander (there's a list of her commanders on the German wiki if you're curious)
      • Karl Sievers was at Jutland so he needs to be in there somewhere. I'll check on the other two.
        • Hmm, I can't find a good citation for him - do you happen to know of one?
          • Nevermind, he's mentioned in Scheer's book. Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did find some citations and all of the commanders retired as flag officers; the two mentioned are probably enough. Kirk (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's somewhat unclear, given the nature of the destruction of Defence - she may have scored hits there that were not recorded.
      • I just thought one of those Jutland sources might be a little clearer with this sort of thing.
        • No, unfortunately they only record hits sustained, not which ship inflicted them, unless there is clear evidence.
    • Good suggestion, removed the Easter egg link
    • No, there's no name for the operation - would you prefer more details on it? There's nothing specific to Kaiserin so I left most of it out.
      • Its probably enough to explain the purpose of the operation so the reader knows why it was fruitless etc.
        • Ok, I added a bit to explain what the goal was and what went wrong.
    • Thanks for reviewing the article, Kirk. Parsecboy (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another excellent addition. Kirk (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed the article for A-class and I'm satisfied it's continued to see improvements to prose since then. I saw a few minor things and corrected them. The only thing worth mentioning here, "officers and men" implies the officers are not men. I have fixed this on several ship articles at FAC, GAN and A-class reviews. —Ed!(talk) 13:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your change, "officers and enlisted men", works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- just a formatting nitpick, some of the refs include OCLCs and some don't, but I'd expect pretty well all have them; myself I don't include OCLC unless there's no ISBN, but if you're going to include any OCLCs you may as well include them all for consistency. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually use them either - I think they crept in when Br' Rabbit updated the ref style. Thanks Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 21:30, 24 December 2012 [4].

Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar is a beautiful coin, but an ugly story of an association given the right to have US coins struck using it to, for lack of a better word, screw the public. Encountered along the way is Ezra Meeker, who traveled the Trail in the early 1850s and lived to be almost 98. His intentions were good. Those who came later, not so much. However, at the end of the day, we are left with a handsome coin, so some good came out of things.Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: Thanks for working on and submitting this article, Wehwalt. It's a good topic, and an interesting read. Here are my comments on the first pass:
Awkward snake: "Ezra Meeker, who had traveled the Trail with his family in 1852, spent the final two decades of his long life before his death in 1928 publicizing the Oregon Trail, that it should not be forgotten.
Another one: "After having tens of thousands of pieces struck in 1926 and 1928, and not selling them all, the Association, most years between 1933 and 1939, struck small quantities of the half dollar, in some years from all three mints.
"The Trail had in some places disappeared, swallowed up by town and farm, and he sought to find where he had passed, pointing out important places along the Trail in the hope that historical markers would rise. He took his oxen team and wagon to the Brooklyn Bridge, and back west where they participated in the Rose Bowl Parade in Pasadena."
The Oregon Trail is nowhere near either the Brooklyn Bridge or Pasadena, so there's some sort of disconnect for the reader here.
Mixture of tenses: "felt that [...] commemorate events
The wikilink to Stephen Foster is good, but even better would be "American songwriter Stephen Foster". Then readers don't have to click on the wikilink to figure out who this article is talking about in this sentence.
"On April 26, 1926, the 95-year-old Meeker appeared before the Senate’s Committee on Banking and Currency in his capacity as president of the Oregon Trail Memorial Association, Inc., a New York corporation (the Association)."
What's "(the Association)" doing here? It seems very clear that the New York corporation is the Oregon Trail Memorial Association. Actually, why is the aside about it being a New York association even necessary?
Since the sources almost uniformly point out the New York corporation angle, I felt I should too. It is not a major point and it is clearly being used by the sources to imply disconnection with the Trail area, setting up the controversy to come. Although I can't find any sources on the Association beyond newspapers at the time and the later coverage by the coin authors, it looks like a lot of the non-Meeker personnel were from New York or the area, and Meeker seemed to like spending time in New York in the last couple of years before he died (he was very wealthy). Meeker's on my to-do list, btw, but it may have to wait until I can visit Pullayup (next summer I think). The (the Association) is so I can call it that through the rest of the article, but I see the disconnect and I've moved the parenthetical to before the NY corp angle.
"half dollar" is wikilinked on its second occurrence in the body of the article; it should of course properly be the first.
Yes, but it's frowned upon to link within the bolding at the start of the article.
I was actually talking about the first appearance in the body of the article ("wikilinked on its second occurrence in the body of the article)". The first appearance of 'half dollar' is in the second paragraph of Authorization: "The bill authorizing the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar was first..." I see now that although you linked half dollar on its second occurrence, it's an "Easter egg" link to Stone_Mountain_Memorial_Half_Dollar. I'm not a big fan of 'Easter eggs' because the reader doesn't know where the link is taking him/her until s/he clicks the link. The Manual of Style also frowns upon this usage. See: WP:EASTER EGG. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked on the first body appearance of "half dollar" and on the Stone Mountain pipe, included the word "commemorative" in the pipe to make it clear we are not going to the article on half dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink "dies" on its first appearance
Piped to Coining (mint)
No ISBN for An Illustrated History of U.S. Commemorative Coinage. New York: Arco Publishing?
Arco Publishing is what it is. Never heard of them before. Taxay was certainly a very reputable coin author, his History of the United States Mint and Coinage has been indispensable. ISBN added.
I look forward to eventually supporting this nomination on an engaging subject. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got all those I think (if I haven't said anything, it means I've done it). Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my first batch of concerns, Wehwalt. I haven't reviewed the fixes yet, and it's late, so it will have to wait for tomorrow, but the improvements look encouraging. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Made cautious by a series of unsuccessful issues, Congress turned back a number of proposals for special coins in early 1926."
The "turned back" here seems informal, and should probably be replaced by "rejected" because the phrase "turned back" has several meanings, including "to stop and go back", "to cause someone or something to retreat", and "to turn around", none of which make sense here.
"The Association sought more pieces in 1936, 10,000 were struck at Philadelphia and 5,000 at San Francisco, plus in each case six pieces for assay."
A semicolon is needed after "in 1936". You're connecting two independent clauses.
Once these few small changes are made, I believe I can support. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made changes as suggested. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done! The reviews of your article seem to have petered out. Best of luck finding additional reviewers. I've struggled with the problem of finding reviewers on my last few FACs, so I sympathize. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please feel free to let me know when you have one up, or if you have one up now, which it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite ready yet, but when it is, I'll let you know. I'm already aware it won't receive a lot of review, as it's quite obscure, and the "peer review" it received was non-existent. Anyway, best of luck with Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: A bit different from the usual coin article (different cast, for one thing), and a most interesting insight into the coin collecting world. I have a number of prose issues, all relatively minor; I apologise if any of these have been mentioned in the preceding review.

Lead
  • "ripoff" is designated as a slang term in all three of my (major) dictionaries
  • "which could be sold" → "that could be sold" is probably better. Other which/that issues occur within the article
  • "The Association..." needs to be explained on first mention; readers of the lead will not know what this is.
  • "all three mints" assumes prior knowledge
  • "Public protest followed" → "Public protests followed" ?
Background
  • "He took his oxen team and wagon across the nation to publicize his cause, parking his rig in front of the White House, where he met President Theodore Roosevelt, crossing the Brooklyn Bridge, and participating in the Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena." Present punctuation and georgraphical vagueness makes this hard to follow. I'd split: "He took his oxen team and wagon across the nation to publicize his cause, parking his rig in front of the White House where he met President Theodore Roosevelt. In New York he crossed the Brooklyn Bridge, and in Pasadena he participated in the Tournament of Roses Parade."
Authorization
  • Something has gone wrong here: "Congress placed no restriction was placed on which mint should strike the coins..."
Preparation and design
  • "Indian" or "Native American"? Both terms are used in the section.
  • Am I understanding this correctly? John and Laura Fraser designed a side each, but Laura did the modelling for both sides. She then seems to take control of the operation; it is she who sends the designs to the Commission for Fine Arts, and it is to her that the Commissioner responds.
  • I am a little uncertain about the use of highly descriptive adjectives such as "resplendent" and "dramatically rendered", unless they have been provided from a source. Also, in view of the later interpretations of the Native American's gesture, perhaps you should say "an intended gesture of peace".
Initial release
  • "The difference between the face value and the sale price was to pay the cost for historical markers along the Trail, and to renovate the Whitman Mission in Washington state". Who decided this? I imagine it was "the Association", but this should be explicit.
  • "disgruntled at missing voting" - the double "...ing" clunks an bit; could be "disgruntled because he missed voting". You should also mention that it was a presidential election; we Brits are an ignorant lot.
Reissue
  • Just "President Hoover" rather than full name
  • "procured" is surely wrong here. "Devised", perhaps
  • Is "Scott" a short form for "the Scott Stamp and Coin Company", or is Scott an individual? It's not clear whether the company or an individual was doing the selling.
Final issues, termination and aftermath
  • I can't understand why the 15,000 struck in 1936 should be dubbed the Whitman Centennial issue when it seems that the bill to allow such an issue failed in Congress. Am I missing something?
  • "the issue was sold in sets" - what did these sets consist of?

That is all. Ready t support when fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review The NYT archive sources are marked "registration required". This service requires a subscription rather than simple registration. Otherwise, all sources and citations look fine, though no spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for answering your comments as a bloc, it is easier to do this offline. Ripoff I contend no other word so clearly sums up what happened in such a limited space. No one will be at a loss to understand what is meant. That/which is one of my blind spots and I'd be grateful if you would point out the problematical ones or simply fix them. I've taken a shot at it though. Meeker had considerably more adventures than that, but I am saving them for doing his article in future: in New York, his driver was arrested for herding cattle (his oxen, apparently) on a city street, which apparently was not legal in 1907. I am using Indian and Native American as synonyms, so as not to use the same term all the time. I think we all know what is intended, and there is no question of prejudice as both terms are acceptable in American English (though some would prefer one to the exclusion of the other). On the Frasers: Yes, your understanding is correct, but the two worked as a team so I am comfortable having the infobox ascribe each side to both. Doubltess the division of labor was to expedite things for both of them, and each had a role to play in the two-dimensional design before Laura converted them to three-dimensional models.
"Resplendent" is directly from the source. "Dramatically rendered" is a paraphrase, I do not have my copy of Vermeule with me so I can't tell you the original, but he was an art historian and it is certainly so from looking at the coin. On the use of the proceeds: the source does not say who decided it. Logically it was the Association, since the authorization by Congress was a bit broad.
"Scott" designates a company, the original Scott was dead by then. Stamp collectors still refer to "Scott's catalog" which is the invaluable annual reference guide in that hobby. According to Bowers, Raymond, who had a major role in Scott's coin operation, was the motivating force in a lot of the commemorative boom of the 1930s.
On the Whitman Centennial issue, the bill for a separate coin failed in Congress. I can't say exactly what was behind the use of the name. However, there was the Whitman connection to the original coins, both Whitman and Meeker settled in the present Washington State, and the Association was looking to get other groups involved. I imagine in 1936, there was still uncertainty about whether the coins would sell out. It also provided a useful excuse, I suppose. I will be at the ANA library in Colorado Springs in January, perhaps back numbers of The Numismatist will turn up a better explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of very brief comments. First, "ripoff" may be the best word for instantly conveying your meaning, but that argument does not always hold good; in some circumstances an obscenity might do the job perfectly. My preference would be to stick to encyclopedic prose, but I am not pressing the point. Secondly, if "Scott" refers to a company, then surely it should be given as "Scott's", the common short form for many businesses (Woolworth's, Harrod's, Selfridge's, Macy's etc). I'll leave that to you; I have upgraded to support, since I believe the article now satisfied the criteria, even if tweaks and small-scale improvements continue. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grateful for that. Regarding "Scott" vs. "Scott's": Bowers uses Scott here although I see Scott's used in quotations from time to time. I personally always called it "Scott's" but I have to go by the sources. I am taking on board your concern regarding "ripoff" but leaving it for now. I will continue to search for a term which addresses your concern yet is as effective as the present phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - both infobox images need licensing tag for photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are some of Bobby131313's coin images; he did not always put tags on them to indicate what license he wanted. I queried this at a noticeboard a while back, editors felt that his action in uploading them (he took them himself) conveys an intent that they be used. Let me know if you need me to dig up the diff.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A few minor observations, none of which affect my support:

  • Authorization
    • Third para – "half dollars, that could be sold" – I think this should be either "half dollars that could be sold" (i.e. removing the existing comma) or "half dollars, which could be sold".
  • Initial release
    • I did slightly wonder if "Meeker's exploits" was a touch informal for an encyclopaedic article, though the term is wholly justified, as who can deny! I certainly don't press this point.
  • Reissue
    • To an English reader's eye "Scott figured" (third para) reads rather slangily – I'd have written "calculated", or some such, but if "figured" is formal in US usage please ignore me.
    • "could be purchased for as low as $1.10 each by purchasing" – perhaps "bought" for the first of the two purchases
  • Final issues, termination and aftermath
    • "Some of these pieces" – I imagine this means some of the ordinary ones, not the assay ones, but it could be clearer
Yes, indeed.
    • "Had it not done so, according to Swiatek and Breen, "there would probably be Oregon Trail coins dated 1980"." It's impertinent of me to say so, but I think there's a charming jest here slightly stifled by the phrasing. You might perhaps say, "Swiatek and Breen observe that if Congress had not intervened there would probably be Oregon Trail coins dated 1980".

I have nothing at all of the numismatist in me, but I found this article fascinating and you can sign me up for the Ezra Meeker fan-club. The piece is well-proportioned, balanced, clear and formidably referenced. I look forward to seeing it on the front page. – Tim Riley (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the support, I'll work through these. I think "figured" and "exploits" are good enough, I tend towards the use of such terms, to try to ground the article. The others, I agree with. Agree on Meeker.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's done. Unless there's further information on the images needed, I see no barrier to promotion. This has already been discussed in a prior FAC, though I'd have to research which one.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 21:16, 24 December 2012 [5].

Look Mickey[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because following successful WP:GAC and WP:PR discussions as well as some further literature research, I feel this may be ready. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Refs 11, 15 and 16 all seem to be from the same source; why is the short citation form not used?
    • They use the short format with the Chapter. Do you want me to remove the chapter? They also included the source quote, which I have removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These same Fineberg citations all refer to "The Landscape of Signs: American Pop Art 1960 to 1965", which is not the title of the Fineberg book listed in the references. Perhaps it is a chapter or a section of the book? Whatever the reason, the link between citation and reference source has to be clear and unambiguous.
  • ISBN for Watson book missing. It is 0-679-42372-9

Otherwise, sources look good and citation formats are correct. Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'm probably just a dirty philistine, but I really don't see the appeal of Lichenstein.

  • "and was later included, in large part, in another of his works." This is an unclear sentence, and, if we have an article on the other work, a link would be good.
  • "This 1961 work" Which? Both?
  • The first paragraph of the background section is a little choppy.
  • Little Golden Book series ... Donald Duck Lost and Found ... Carl Buettner ... Disney Enterprises ... Bob Grant and Bob Totten - Are any of these worth linking? Redlinks aren't a problem if they're notable. "Little Golden Book series", at the very least, could be explained.
  • "Lichtenstein employed color without co-mingling different colors in the same area, which surrendered the economical advantage of the Ben-Day dots that can accommodate the economical production of a variety of colors of the spectrum." I don't know visual arts, but this is not clear to me.
    • Basically Lichtenstein would not create a green appearance by placing blue and yellow dots near each other. He would just buy green paint and make green dots. I have revised the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One interpretation of Lichtenstein's use of red in the face is that it gives Mickey the appearance that" You haven't mentioned the red in the face yet.
  • "which has given rise to schadenfreude." Unclear
    • The source presents a half a paragraph of text leading up to this point. Do you want me to provide a source quote. I cannot clarify much further myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the discussion of the blushing in the description, rather than the analysis and interpretation? Frankly, a lot of the description section probably should be shifted- the last paragraph especially.
  • "During autumn 1961, a fellow teacher at Rutgers University named Allan Kaprow made introductions between Lichtenstein and Leo Castelli Gallery director Ivan Karp. Lichtenstein showed Karp several paintings, but not Look Mickey. He instead impressed him with Girl with Ball, and Karp decided to represent Lichtenstein a few weeks later.[3]" So what?
  • "This is also a prominent example of Lichtenstein's theme relating to vision." Why is this in the article?
    • What do you mean? Lichtenstein is known for subjects looking at/through peepholes, periscopes, reflections, etc. It belongs in this article just like it does in any painting related to his vision theme. I have tried to beef up the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've already said that in the article, just a couple of lines before where you say this. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He uses the narrative to emphasize this theme, while presenting several visual elements relating to the theme.[26] Walt Disney said about Donald Duck: "He's got a big mouth, a big belligerent eye, a twistable neck and a substantial backside that's highly flexible. The duck comes near being the animator's ideal subject."[28] Lichtenstein's painting expressed a lot using on these physical features." This needs rewriting.
  • "sense that it "explicitly situates the painting's maker himself within the self-enclosed narcissitic circuit at its center" It shows Donald" Missing punctuation.
  • "When Lichtenstein had his first solo show at The Leo Castelli Gallery in February 1962, it sold out before opening.[30] This was one of the paintings that was shown in Lichtenstein's first show.[7]" Could these sentences be merged?
  • "The painting was bequeathed to the National Gallery of Art following Lichtenstein's 1997 death as a result of a promise made in 1990 in honor of the 50th Anniversary of the National Gallery of Art.[4][33]" And where is it today? On display there?
  • "lso considered reflexive, in the sense that the artist is painting something through which the viewer may see elements of the artist." I've not heard that term before- do we have an article on the concept?

Overall, interesting. The writing's a little off in places and minor reorganisation may be required, but this feels around the FA benchmark. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just a couple more thoughts-

  • "Lichtenstein's 1961 work, especially Look Mickey, is considered a small step from his earlier comic strip pop art.[2]" You said in the lead that this was his first comic inspired work?
  • "He uses the narrative to emphasize this theme, while presenting several visual elements relating to the theme." I've copyedited the paragraph somewhat, but I do not feel that this line is required.

I'd feel more comfortable if someone familiar with visual arts were to take a look at the article- have you tried notifying the wikiproject? I've always found them to be very good. J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are solid. The three non-free images are clearly justified and the rationales seem complete. The other image is clearly free. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I really like this article; it's very readable, on an interesting subject. I think it is just about there, but the prose needs a little bit of a tidy; repetition and redundancy are the main, albeit minor, problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "There is an alternate theory that Look Mickey and Popeye were enlargements of bubble gum wrappers according to some sources.": Clumsy. Do the sources say that there is a theory? Or is this just restating the same idea twice? Perhaps just "An alternate theory suggests that Look Mickey and Popeye were enlargements of bubble gum wrappers". And who holds this theory? (I don't think "some sources" is precise enough)
  • "This work marked the first of numerous of works in which Lichtenstein cropped his source to bring the viewer closer to the scene.": Work … works
  • "One source says that…": Which one?
  • "…who mocked Lichtenstein's painting of hard to fathom abstracts.": Although this sentence is fine, perhaps this could be phrased a little better?
  • "Allan Kaprow relayed a story that he once stated in reference to a Bazooka Double Bubble Gum wrapper to Lichtenstein": I'm afraid this loses me: he's telling us that he once told a story about something else? And is this the wrapper mentioned earlier?
  • "In this period when he was using comics as sources, Lichtenstein used minor color modifications from the source.": Sources … source.
  • "His early comic subjects are said to be a "loose and improvised style clearly derived from de Kooning,"[1] in his Women.": Assuming Women to be works by de Kooning, it jars a little when the work is outside the quotation and the artist is inside.
    • Are you saying you want the whole thing dequoted? The full quotes that this sentence is sourced from are as follows
      • "In 1956 Lichtenstein had produced a small lithograph, Ten Dollar Bill, in a jovial, cartoon-like style, and in 1958, partly to entertain his two sons (then aged two and four), he had made ink drawings of comic-strip characters such as Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Bugs Bunny in a loose and improvised style clearly derived from de Kooning. Yet in spite of these precedents in his own work, the change in both method and sensibility implicit in the 1961 paintings Popeye and Look Mickey, both of which were gross enlargements of images printed on bubble-gum wrappers, was so striking as to announce his new Pop style at a single stroke."
      • "During 1960 Lichtenstein painted an abstract expressionist picture with Mickey Mouse in it, related stylistically to the de Kooning "Women.""
    • What would you like me to change?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the quotes, I think there is a slight danger of conflating two sources. I'd either cut the rest of the sentence after "de Kooning" and leave out the part about "Women", or replace the whole quote with the second quote which explicitly mentions "Women". And I think either quote requires in-text attribution to make clear who said it (i.e. Livingstone/Fineburg wrote...). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "causing Warhol to turn to create the Campbell's Soup Cans series.[12] Warhol relegated himself to soup cans as a subject at the time to avoid competing with the more finished style of comics by Lichtenstein."
  • "In fact, he once said "I've got to do…"
  • "Thus, Lichtenstein's foray into comics led to the abandonment of the topic by Warhol.[15] Although Lichtenstein would continue to work with comic sources, after 1961 he abandoned…": Abandonment … abandoned.
  • "During autumn 1961, a fellow teacher at Rutgers University named Allan Kaprow made introductions between Lichtenstein and Leo Castelli Gallery director Ivan Karp": Rather convoluted. Why not just "During autumn 1961 [WP:SEASON?], Allan Kaprow, a fellow teacher at Rutgers University, introduced Lichenstein to Ivan Karp, the director of the Leo Castelli Gallery".
  • "Lichtenstein employed color without co-mingling…": Any reason for preferring "co-mingling" to mixing?
  • "but also altered the position Donald's body and rod for better balance": Missing word here?
    • Fixed, although rod by itself is pretty self-explanatory.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not actually what I meant; there was an "of" missing, but I fixed it myself. Feel free to take "fishing" back out. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walt Disney said about Donald Duck: "He's got a big mouth, a big belligerent eye, a twistable neck and a substantial backside that's highly flexible. The duck comes near being the animator's ideal subject."": Not a major point, but was Disney referring to the painting here? Or is it just to make the point that Lichenstein captured these features? (Incidentally, what was Disney's view of someone effectively using his characters? Were there any problems?)
    • I don't believe Disney was commenting about this painting and am unsure of his opinions about any of Lichtenstein's works. He was referring to Disney Studios animators in this instance, not Lichtenstein.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, just checking. It reads that way, I just wanted to be sure. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was one of the paintings that was shown at Lichtenstein's first solo show…"
  • "This was one of the paintings that was shown at Lichtenstein's first solo show at The Leo Castelli Gallery in February 1962 that it sold out before opening": I think there's something wrong here. "That is sold out" does not appear to make sense unless I'm missing something.
  • Although no art expert, the one thing which I think is missing content-wise is some sort of critical reception. Was this well received or dismissed? If there is nothing major on this particular piece, could something be added in terms of reaction to this style of painting from comics? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - reading through now. Will jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some descriptor of who/what Alice Goldfarb Marquis would help alot with context -is she an art critic?
ditto Jonathan Fineberg and Ivan Karp.
  • I have added art historian and art dealer in front of the first appearance of their respective names. However, I am not so sure that Karp really needs this clarification because his title follows his name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lichtenstein made several transformations to the original work: - hmmm, maybe "Lichtenstein made several major changes to the original work:"? "transformations" just sounds really odd to my ears used in this way.....
that'll do fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, Ben-Day dots facilitate the economical production of a variety of colors of the spectrum as dots of a few different colors can be placed proximally to render the appearance of a third color economically. - actually I am not even sure what this sentence is trying to say...and a few words are repeated.
much better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise looking good. The analysis in the last section is a hoot. Agree with Sarastro1 that some more reception would be good, but if you can't find it then you can't find it. Engaging read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In terms of reception, the first and last sentences in this section are sort of reception-like, but are not enough to warrant a separate section. Most of this content comes from the library. I will see what I can do in terms of putting a section together for reception.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No no, I don't necessarily mean rearrange, but just any more material about why other people thought it was important or influential is all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: With the responses to my comments, and to those of Casliber above, I think this now meets the criteria. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pleased to see this here, working through but leaning support from first read. Ceoil (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Representative of Lichtenstein's first non-expressionist work, Look Mickey also marked his initial foray into Ben-Day dots – used to give an "industrial" half-tone effect – and his first use of a speech balloon.[3] It was also the first time he used comics as subject matter.[18]. "is representative of" - or is his first. Also the word "first" is used 4 times here. "foray" isnt a good word in this context, "employed" or something would be better.
    • It seems that a lot of this has been corrected. I changed "foray into" to "employment of". Most of the uses of first are for parallel structure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • yes, much better now. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • a variety of colors of the spectrum - remove 'of the spectrum'.
  • By mixing dots of different colors like an ink jet printer does with just a few colors one can create a broad spectrum economically - punctuation needed.
  • Lichtenstein employed color without co-mingling different colors in the same area, which surrendered the economical advantage of the Ben-Day dots. co-mingling? surrendered? This sentence needs to be clarified, seems unclear. Ceoil (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • several alterations to the original work: he eliminated several - several x 2
  • More generally, your using the past tence through out, eg "Lichtenstein's painting expressed a lot using these physical features". Not sure thats most appropriate here. Ceoil (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • towering over Lichtenstein and laughing at his retrograde efforts - should this be in quotes?
    • Here is the quote: "Mickey, a figure of self-control, represents the 'art historical superego looming over Lichtenstein at the moment of Look Mickey's creation,' namely, the vanguard modernist (a paintlike white spill under his left foot recalls Jackson Pollock's pours) who can only laugh at the exertions of the retrograde realist. The painting pits Donald's 'thwarted object attachments and slapstick textual exuberance' against Mickey's 'position of epistemological and symbolic authority.'"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'a prominent example of the theme of vision. He uses the narrative to emphasize this theme, while presenting several visual elements relating to the theme - theme x 3.
  • 'The painting is one of of Lichtenstein's first non-expressionist works, and marks his initial employment of Ben-Day dots – used to give an "industrial" half-tone effect. The painting sees his first use of both a speech balloon[3] comics as subject matter.[18] The - this is the opening lines for the "description" section, but is prob more suited to "analysis".
    • I have been unsuccessful at parsing a separate analysis section out of the "Interpretation" section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, its a difficult one. I'll make a try, but revert if not happy. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd place the "Legacy" section after "Interpretation". Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Look Mickey, is considered a small step from his earlier comic strip pop art" - This could be read two ways, and is hard to parse. Do you want to quote what the source actually says here, and we can try and rephrase. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll find the source and we can work from there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is the text "...there is a persistent compulsion to distinguish between "Pop" and "post-Pop" work, in effect, to proclaiim early favorites more classically "Pop.: This is, in fact, a wholly spurious—one might even hazard market-driven—divide that fails to recognize the centrality of the artist's tenatious conceptual regularity. Even Lichtenstein's work before 1961 occupies a place on the continuum. For over ten years he had been exhibiting paintings that played with unfashionable derivations of such scenarios as medieval jousting and American folklore (see cats. 62, 128, 129); thus engaged with the Outre, it was not a big leap to the "first" Pop experiments (see cats. 130, 131), and then to Look Mickey (1961: cat. 8).".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the lead, "The painting marks Lichtenstein's first use of painterly techniques to depict the process of mechanical reproduction of visual imagery", but later we read that he was utilising comic strips from 1958. A distinction is needed.
    • Note that 1958 is drawings. "Painterly" techniques are not employed in drawing. Someone above mentioned above. Text has been added to make it clear this is comics used as s source for paintings.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The self reflection / self reverential aspect of the painting is touched on in a few places, but not really developed satsfactioraly, in my view. I found it confusing reading through, and am not sure the inclusion of a reproduction of Caravaggio's Narcissus is justified by the supporting text. Again, can see where you are coming from, but it needs to be developed.
  • Its not clear while reading through that the para opening with "Donald is an explicitly divided subject" is a quote. Maybe a different template.
  • "issues relating to vision" is unclear. Issues isnt the right word here, I'd go for a formualtion around "explores" or something like that. I can make a stab if you wish
  • He did not develop the stencil use - the use of stencil.
  • The lead unsatisfactory and brief given the extent of the body of the article. This should be easy to resolve, there is plenty in the article body that could be briefly summarised. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont see any mention of saturated colours or farce. Again, should be easy to resolve, this is a seminal work. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I am leaning oppose at this stage, having gone though a very heavy copyedit in the last 12 hours;, the signifance of the painting in the time line of the last 50 years is not brought through, and I see other major gaps, though I still think they can be bridged, if the nominator has access to appropriate sources. I am very much willing to help, there are content gaps yet that need to be filled. Also Tony, I mentioned examples below of infractions of art speak that I was unable to parse and fix, can I list here and work through. Pls dont take this as a refutal, you have a very strong article, I just think it still needs a push re comprehensiveness. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a work that gets expounded upon in post modern art books. What kind of significance are you looking for? This is not like my other WP:WPVA painting FA (Campbell's Soup Cans). Not sure what you are expecting. Believe me, I have dug through the art books for this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe I have exhausted book sources at the Chicago Public Library.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tony, did a bit of digging mid week, and was unable to come up with anything not already included (google books only though). I'll conceed that one. I'll take another quick look tonight re prose, but thats something I can take care of myself from here, having read the article several times now, I know what is left to be done (incl some bits of re-org). So I'm a Support. Ceoil (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support. The paragraph on Graham Bader's interpretation (in the middle of the analysis section) is basically the same sentence repeated 3 times, and then again at the beginning of the subsequent quotation. Please make this less redundant and more concise. Kaldari (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one of the redundant sentences and reworded the other. It's still a bit repetitive, but not as bad as it was. I also removed the throw-away comment that the work is "the very engine of its narrative", as this adds nothing to the analysis. Hope you'll agree it's an improvement. Otherwise, the rest of the article seems pretty solid. Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just seeing your edits and am not so sure why you did them. I have reverted because I am not sure what you mean. What is your interpretation of the phrase "engine of the narrative"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where Kaldari is coming from, though I agree with your reversion. I've tried to draw out the the idea somewhat, but am not really happy with this one yet. There are a few instances where the alayisis become vague, which is hardly surprising given that we are talking about pop art, or 1960s art in general. My impression is that you've done really well in avoiding art speak in intrepating the sources, but there are a few tweaks left still. If I list them out here, and there are really only a few, can we go through them one by one. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After I looked more closely, I think his edit is mostly good. However, this is the engine of the narrative. Look Mickey means Look at what I am looking at. Meanwhile, Mickey is looking at the whole spectacle of him not seeing what he should be feeling. I think the other part of the edit is good. But this content describes the meat of the presentation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was misreading the "engine" bit. The problem is that when it says "Graham Bader, describing it", I thought 'it' referred to the painting itself, not the juxtaposition (in which case, it would be a pointless statement). My bad. It is confusing though that the two its in the sentence refer to different things. Kaldari (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the engine bit so that the grammar isn't confusing. Hope that helps. Sorry for my misunderstanding of it earlier. Kaldari (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I don't know if you saw above where I said, a lot of source issues are clear if you look at this 02:13, 2 August 2012 version that had quotes from the original sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, thanks Tony. Ceoil (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 15:37, 19 December 2012 [6].

Drowned God: Conspiracy of the Ages[edit]

Nominator(s): —Torchiest talkedits 17:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drowned God is a rather odd bird of a video game. The background story of its conception and development is probably more interesting than the gameplay, in that it's based on a forged document written by the game's creator, Harry Horse. He tried to pass it off as a manuscript from the 19th century, but was caught because of his distinctive style of illustration being recognized. After promising never to sell the work, he ended up repurposing it to tell his epic tale of "40,000 years of conspiracy". I've trawled the web numerous times and squeezed every bit of information I could find into this article. I think it's complete, interesting, and well-written. —Torchiest talkedits 17:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article does not describe why it was titled as such, for example. Therefore I feel it is not comprehensive. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 23:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the basis of the title comes from the Osiris myth, since some versions say that Osiris was drowned, and a spoken word voiceover describing his murder occurs during the end credits of the game, but I could not find a source explaining that. I believe an attempt to explain it would be considered original research, since I don't see a clear way to draw the connection from the game. I have a scholarly source ("Mummeries of Resurrection: The Cycle of Osiris in Finnegans Wake" by Mark L. Troy) with the phrase "In effect, Osiris had died twice: he was the drowned god, and also the rent god", which refers to page 32 of Joyce's Finnegans Wake, but nothing to connect the ideas for me. —Torchiest talkedits 23:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also found some interesting information about The Shabaka Stone, which describes Osiris' death by drowning, but again, there's no reliable source explicitly stating that's the reason for the title. It could hardly be anything else though. —Torchiest talkedits 23:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page
  • Support on prose and images, looks like a short but solid article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved resolved comments by Hellknowz to talk page
  • Support per review and resolved concerns. Ditto above, short but solid. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! In the interests of disclosure I should mention that Hellknowz is a member of WP:VG but has never worked on this article before reviewing it here. —Torchiest talkedits 13:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment (GermanJoe) - the article could still use more copy-editing and has a few issues with structure and clarity. Lead is no complete summary yet and some quotes are problematic. List of points after the first two readthroughs:

Moved lengthy list to talkpage - all points Done GermanJoe (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to let another interested editor check the prose. A lot of the mentioned points may be minor, but their amount indicates, that more work is needed. Primary specific issues are #1 structure, #6 lead and #24-26 quotation usage. GermanJoe (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comprehensive comments. I've addressed a large number of them, but will have to take a look at some of the more in-depth items later. —Torchiest talkedits 16:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed the remaining issues, I believe, mainly replacing quoted bits with fuller quotations, doing a good amount of rewriting, swapping section order, and adding more info to the lead. Let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 14:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the improvements, moved all finished points to talk. Not sure if it's even notable, but what happened with Burroughs' narrating part after his death? Was it cancelled or someone else did it? I'll do another read and some spotchecks of sources later. GermanJoe (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stroke already adressed point. Should have checked the other reviews. GermanJoe (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - stroke my oppose, though i still feel the article would benefit from another prose check. Some sentences are slightly repetitive or could flow a little better. Some more comments:

  • Image - fair-use seems OK, given the article's focus on the game puzzles.
    • Didn't need to go out of your way for the images, I checked them already (hence why I said "support on prose and images") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't see that part of your support statement, nothing implied on my side. GermanJoe (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources - checked #1, #2, #4, #16, #21 - OK, content is cited or accurately quoted. (#3 see below)
  • A minor point to source #3, the source does not cover the infobox data "Windows 95 [and above]". A lot of games are upward compatible to a degree, but you need a source (WP:OR). #3 covers only "Windows 95". How far above anyway, is that including Windows 8? GermanJoe (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, that's a good point. That bit is from before I edited the article, and I've basically left it alone. I can say that I've been able to play it on my Windows 7 machine with DOSbox, but I don't think there are any reliable sources discussing that. I've removed the "and above" part. As for the prose, I've asked another editor to take a look at the article, which he'll hopefully be able to do in the next couple days. —Torchiest talkedits 13:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm doing a copyedit of the article, and I hope to be done with a first pass by the end of the day today. I'll try and do checks on other FA criteria as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure "The game's plot hinges on the idea" is correct. Plots can't hinge, and even in eloquent English, that idea is the center of the plot, it hardly "hinges". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It might be a bit too informal a word choice for Wikipedia, but the game's setup (if not the game's straight narrative) is contingent on that element being true, hence "hinge"--it's certainly not a literal door hinge we're talking about. Either way I don't think the whole "central idea of the game" element and the plot introduction is working right now; it might be better to try integrating that into the plot proper, although that might also exacerbate the issues with density. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I rewrote it to say, "The game's plot centers around the idea...", which gets back somewhat to the original phrasing, but preserves the clarity and active voice. —Torchiest talkedits 16:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Add alt text to all images properly per MOS:IMAGES
  • Unlink "science fiction" per WP:OVERLINK in this case
  • "and the human race's development and" not keen on too many "and" there
  • "audio, and puzzles" don't think you need the comma there
  • Per MOS:PUNCT, references need to be placed after punctuation
  • "The Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton dialogue puzzle was highly praised by multiple reviewers[2][8]" missing a period after "reviewers"
  • "e.g." would write out fully rather than use slang in an article
  • "Scottish Arts Council" ' apostrutche at end?
  • "In its first two weeks" grammar fail, perhaps try "Within its first two weeks"
  • Link "Windows 95" per WP:REPEATLINK
  • "Horse killed himself a decade after the game's release, however, and no sequel was ever released" grammar there is most likely wrong, try "A horse killed himself a decade after the game's release, however, and no sequel was released" without "ever" as that doesn't represent a neutral point of view

TBrandley 16:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the notes. I fixed most of the above items, but I disagree about a few points you raised. I think linking the genre in the lead is not a case of overlinking, as it's central to what the game is, not a tangential subject. The doubled "and"s are grammatically okay, since they're functioning at two different layers of the sentence structure. The comma after "audio" is the serial comma, which is a controversial but essentially stylistic choice; I prefer to keep it. I don't think an apostrophe-S is needed after "Council", and it's not used in the source. Not sure what's wrong with the two weeks phrase. —Torchiest talkedits 16:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, but I do still believe that linking "science fiction" by itself is WP:OVERLINK, there are usually some subtopic links, such as "science fiction on television", but in this case "video games", that you could use instead as a link. Also, the two weeks phrase seems to sound more engaging with "Within" there instead. TBrandley 06:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Horse's initiation into the concept of an alternate history came in the early 1980s, when he first encountered professor Ian Halpke, who explained to him that information from the Kabbalah and ancient Jewish texts held a "cipher" explaining the secret". - what's the secret, exactly? And the text leads us to believe Horse had no knowledge of alternate histories before until this chap, is this true? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a little more to that spot and a lot more to the first paragraph of the story section, explaining the background more clearly. As far as I know, yes, Horse wasn't knowledgeable on the subject before meeting and conversing with Halpke. In the GameSpot interview source I'm using, Horse says, "I was awakened to the possibility of an alternative genesis of the world by Professor Ian Halpke way back in the early 80s." —Torchiest talkedits 21:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "The plot of the game" would change to "The game's plot" for more engaging prose
  • "The player must attempt" watch out for neutral point of view, the player "must" do that? Well, not really, if he/she wants to complete the game, then yes. Thus, could you please state something like that?
  • I don't believe you need to reference in the infobox if it is already referenced in the article's prose
  • Why has "human history" been linked in plot section, but not the lede? If anything, I would say to link in the lede, and not link in plot section, because of WP:REPEATLINK, only important links should be repeated again
  • Don't use words like "recently", as per WP:RELTIME
  • "multiple reviewers" you are referring to "critics"?
  • "That same year he" add a comma after "year"
  • The featured article criteria is against the use of one or two-line paragraphs, would suggest merging, shuffling, and such; in reception section
  • There's a whitespace after "AllGame" in ref. 16, needs addressing

TBrandley 20:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the additional comments. I addressed everything above except for a few items. I removed some of the references from the infobox, but a few other the things in the infobox aren't in prose, so I left their references. I think "recently" is okay where I use it, because it's referring to in-game time rather than real life. Hence, it will always be recently in the game, no matter when it is played. —Torchiest talkedits 20:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the line in release to "It initially was one of the top ten best-selling video games in United States", since I wasn't sure the original wording was actually giving an indication of what top ten meant; not sure if it needs best-selling, or if the issue I still have with it is it doesn't give a time period--does the source give something more concrete (best selling in October or November, etc?)
  • Okay, so you've got the Einstein and Newton puzzle referenced in an image and justified by a review. So what the hell does it actually entail? :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rewrote that part to say "It was one of the top ten best-selling video games in United States during the first month after its release," as the source says "it went straight into the top 10. Five weeks later it was dead". As for the puzzle, it is a jumbled conversation between Einstein and Newton. You have to rearrange the order of their back and forth statements until it forms a coherent conversation. It's one of the earliest puzzles in the game, and is actually explained in the game's manual along with its solution. Can I add some of that with a reference to the manual? I don't know where my copy of the manual is so I couldn't include a page number. —Torchiest talkedits 14:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Describe it as much as you can verify; I'd feel better with an actual page number but I don't think it's essential at this point (unfortunately replacementdocs doesn't have the game.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found the page number. Should this description going in the gameplay section, or reception where reviewers mention it? —Torchiest talkedits 16:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I moved the image down to the gameplay section and added in a description of the puzzle with a reference to the game manual. How does it look? —Torchiest talkedits 16:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support have spotchecks been done? If not I'll take a look at referencing tonight. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, my spot-checks were fine and if German's check was similarly fine I think we've covered all FA criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that! Noting that David is also a member of WP:VG but had never edited this article before the FAC. —Torchiest talkedits 19:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - (did some minor CEs, but nothing essential). Two remaining minor points, facts slightly out of article scope.

  • re David, i checked #1, #2, #3 , #4, #16, #21 (not sure if that's enough, but all seemed ok)
  • "Horse had previously written several children's books and received the Scottish Arts Council Writer of the Year award for his 1983 book, The Ogopogo – My Journey with the Loch Ness Monster." ==> Relevance for this article - why is this award important for the game?
  • "Williams also employed sculptor Greg Boulton,[who had previously worked on the Peter Gabriel video "Sledgehammer"]" - again, can you clarify, why this information is relevant for the game article? Did the video qualify him somehow for the team? Avoid "secondary" facts, when they have no direct relevance for the article topic. GermanJoe (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On both those points, the reason for inclusion is mostly the same: the information provides a little more context. On the first one, I think it's a pretty interesting fact that Horse won an award for a children's book the same year he wrote a forged manuscript about aliens and ancient conspiracies, and it gives some background on what an odd fellow he was. The second one keeps "Boulton" from just being a name; in fact, that information was added per the request of another reviewer here who asked if there was anything else the team members had worked on other than Drowned God. So I think the inclusion of both improves the article. Thanks for your support! —Torchiest talkedits 13:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the clarification - it's no deal breaker. GermanJoe (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Torchiest. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 14:25, 18 December 2012 [7].

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the brief service history of the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II fighter bomber with the Royal Australian Air Force. While the RAAF chose to acquire General Dynamics F-111Cs instead of F-4s in the early 1960s, severe delays to the development of the F-111s led the Australian Government to lease 24 Phantoms from the United States Air Force at a cut-rate price. The aircraft were in service with the RAAF from late 1970 until mid-1973, and proved so successful that the Air Force sought to retain them as well as the F-111s.

Given the short, and largely uneventful, service history of these aircraft with Australia this article is much shorter and simpler than is the case for most of my FA nominations. However, it's comprehensive, and draws on all the few published works which describe this topic in detail. The article was assessed as GA class in July and passed a Military History wikiproject A class review in October. It's since been expanded and copy edited, and I think that it now also meets the FA criteria. Note that I have received dispensation to have two FACs open at the same time [8]. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on prose quality. Fuller review to follow within 24 hours. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I'd be pleased to respond to a review. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I've also undertaken some preemptive copy editing!) Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be a little late! Here's my review.
  • Lead para: "successful"... "unsuccessful"... "successful" grates somewhat; "played an important role in improving the force's professional standards"; can you explain this?
  • Acquisition: "program" -> "programme" (not 100% sure of Aus Eng usage); "low altitudes" -> "low altitude"; five "however"s are definitely too many here!
    • Both are valid, but 'program' is generally preferred at the moment. I've fixed the altitudes, but 'however' isn't over-used; it only appears 7 times in the article, and only twice in the same paragraph (in which I've just replaced one of the instances) Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I make it six for the article, with four in that one section. It would be easy, and keep all the meaning, to remove all or almost all of them, per the style guide. I think this is my last remaining quibble on prose quality. --MarchOrDie (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just killed 4 or 5 of them. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you confirm which it was? The latter would make you an "ace"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Only four splashes, but two "successful"s have reappeared. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks Dank; I've tweaked part of your changes rather heavily though (the RAAF's 1964 proposal seems to have been to say that if Cabinet decided that it wanted interim aircraft the F-4s were the best option, and so wasn't really an 'unsuccessful' proposal as the RAAF doesn't seem to have had a strong position on the topic at the time). I've repaced the second 'successful' in the lead with 'effective'. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The changes look good. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's getting there certainly. We're down to two howevers. There are some other problems with the prose. I'll list them here and see if we can sort them out before Ican support. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • OK, but there's nothing wrong with using the word 'however' where appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. On a Featured Article I think I would disagree that there would be much place for this kind of language. WP:EDITORIAL says "Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, perhaps inappropriately undermining the first or giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." The current version has two examples:
  1. "The RAAF accepted all 24 F-111Cs at a ceremony held at Fort Worth, Texas, on 4 September 1968. However, at this time the F-111 program was in crisis due to technical problems with the design of the aircraft's wing assembly, and all of the USAF and RAAF's F-111s were grounded after an American F-111 crashed on 23 September; at this time the Australian aircraft were still in the United States."
  2. "Ground attack missions were practiced from February 1971, and in June that year the Phantoms began dropping live bombs during exercises. Shortages of spare parts complicated the process of bringing the aircraft into service at times, however."

Do these two uses fulfil "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"? I think I am still leaning towards "no". I think it would be fairly easy to improve the wording to remove this infelicity. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all respect, I've actually used this language in multiple FAs (see, for instance, Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy which passed last week). I'm far from alone in doing so - as a semi-random example, the FA currently on the main page (Youngstown, Ohio) also uses 'however' in this way; it's a perfectly normal phrase. In regards to your two concerns here 1) There's a clear link between the two concepts as at the time the RAAF accepted the aircraft the program was in real trouble (the acceptance of the aircraft at this time turned into a major embarrassment for the government and RAAF once the extent of the problems became known, but that's a topic for the F-111C article) 2) the word emphasizes that the process of bringing the F-4s into service (the subject of the paragraph) wasn't all sweetness and light, and doesn't give undue emphasis to this in the context of the full paragraph (which, rightly, emphasizes the successful introduction of this type into RAAF service) - again, the two concepts are linked. In regards to WP:EDITORIAL, it's about introducing relationships which aren't in the sources, which isn't the case here. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the respect. However isn't a phrase, it's a word. I think, with all my respect, that you're missing the point here. However expresses an opinion that the second data point contradicts the first. There is no contradiction beween the RAAF buying a plane that then turned out to be temporarily unflyable. This kind of thing happens fairly often with new types. The sentence would work just as well without the however. Likewise the second example; there's no real contradiction between the Phantom being certified to drop live ordnance and becoming operational later than predicted. Again this is fairly common and again the sentence wouldn't be the poorer for just removing it, in my opinion. --MarchOrDie (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, fair enough on the second sentence; I've re-checked the source, and have tweaked it so it reads better and is more interesting. In regards to the first point, it's important to note that there is a contradiction - the RAAF didn't 'buy a plane'; it took formal delivery of these aircraft (which means that they're meant to be flown in combat and all other situations). They also weren't 'temporarily unflyable': their design was so flawed that they came close to being scrapped, and it took 5 years to fix the problems (hence the need for the Phantoms, which as the article notes would have also been the RAAF's fall back had the F-111s proved unfixable, as was thought to be the case at times). As such, the word is appropriate given the contradiction between accepting these planes and the true state of the aircraft at the time. I'd be open to your suggestion for how this could be re-worded though. Nick-D (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Note: as part of the above comment I also accidentally posted some comments which contained a totally untrue statement about MarchOrDie. I drafted these comments only as a means of venting to myself, and they don't reflect my actual views. I've apologised to MarchOrDie on their talk page, and would also like to publicly do so here). Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see Nick removed one "however" and kept the other, and this seems right to me (after a small tweak, which I made). It's up to the delegates if MarchOrDie opposes, of course, but I don't believe the delegates will have a problem with the sole remaining "however". (It wouldn't bother me, though, if they object ... there are a lot of POVs on "however", and I can support anything reasonable and consistent.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've made a proposal via an edit on how we could get rid of the last however, and I withdraw my oppose regardless of whether you feel my proposal is worth implementing. Thank you for your work on this very fine article and for using most of my suggestions. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for that, though as Dank noted that wording changed the meaning of those passages a bit. Thanks again for your review. Nick-D (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Operational service: "a number of" is weak; "several" would be better. What are "break skid"s? Does this mean anti-skid braking?

There may be a few more but these are the main ones that are leaping out at me. Nothing that can't be fixed. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

  • FN30: formatting
  • File:F-4_Phantom_in_flight_Apr_1982.jpg: source link returns timeout error. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may now be available via http://www.defenseimagery.mil/index.htm, but it's having one of its periodical downtimes. I'll re-check in a day or two and will remove the photo if I can't verify the source. Thanks for your comments and checks Nikki. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That site's image search function is still down and I can't find a source for it elsewhere, so I've removed the image. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Note I'm going to be out of town for work from Sunday to Friday, and while I'll have my laptop I may not have regular internet access. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after minor tweaks. Good article. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- Since I'm pretty familiar with this story and the sources Nick has used, I'm recusing myself from delegate duties in favour of a full-fledged review...

  • Over all this is in good shape, my only concerns are right at the top:
    • Infobox: Role is described as "fighter-bomber", which may be legit, but not once is this specialised term mentioned or cited in the main body. Either we need to mention/cite this as its prime role in the main body, or else use one of the terms that is mentioned/cited in the main body (ground attack, strike, whatever) here instead.
      • Good point: I've added some wording around this and a cite to the infobox to briefly clarify the situation Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead: We need to clarify things for the uninitiated, and this relates to the role in the infobox. We don't actually define the Phantom's role in the RAAF in the first paragraph. We describe the aircraft as a fighter, which is generally correct, insofar as its main role with its home country goes, but misleading in relation to its RAAF service. We then say it was procured as a stop-gap for the F-111, whose role we don't mention either, even though we assert that the Phantom was successful in fulfilling whatever that role was... ;-) The solution may take less time than my definition of the problem, this for instance:

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) operated 24 McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II aircraft in the ground attack role between 1970 and 1973. The Phantoms were leased from the United States Air Force (USAF) as an interim measure owing to delays in the delivery of the RAAF's 24 General Dynamics F-111C bombers. The F-4Es were considered successful in this role, but the government did not agree to a proposal from the RAAF to retain the aircraft after the F-111s entered service in 1973.

Changes made as suggested. Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other that that, having performed my habitual light copyedit, I'm pretty happy with the prose, likewise structure, referencing, image licensing, and level of detail.
  • No spotcheck of sources performed, but I note Nick had one of those in his last FAC and, having employed three of his main sources in WP articles myself, I'm confident that he's used them accurately. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot for those comments and edits Ian. If anyone does want to spot check the references, the full text of the books by Mark Lax (one of the two major sources I've used) and Alan Stephens is online. Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing over this FAC, I'm glad to see others also tackling the "however" proliferation on Wikipedia; I thought I'd park these here in the event they are helpful: [9] [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 13:04, 18 December 2012 [11].

Little Moreton Hall[edit]

Nominator(s): George Ponderevo (talk), MarchOrDie (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article on one of England's most iconic Tudor black-and-white half-timbered mansions was greatly expanded by Giano back in 2007. Since then it languished somewhat, until MarchOrDie and I decided to make a final push to bring the article up to the FA standard. I hope you'll agree we've at least made a decent fist of it. I've been in email contact with Giano during this recent expansion of the article, and I think we've implemented pretty much all of his suggestions. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I did work on this page years ago and didn’t get too far because for all its glory, it is ridiculously under documented. Architectural historians have tended to largely ignore it, perhaps for the pseudo-intellectual reason that not only is it quite vernacular, it’s too ‘chocolate boxy’ and ‘olde worlde.’ Pevsner (who described it as 'vulgar') being a prime example. In my opinion, Britain has never really appreciated it’s half-timbered architecture which surprisingly is one of it’s only true indigenous forms. The nominating editors have done an amazing job finding references and rewriting the page. The other problem I found with writing up this page was the lack of interior photographs, that’s now rectified (although I see one has already disappeared, hopefully it will return). Perhaps, for balance, the final section needs to be bolstered out a little, but what’s the point of empty waffle? So while this page may be relatively concise compared to others on England’s historic houses, this is probably the largest writ-ups that the house has anywhere – Wikipedia should be proud of it. For these reason, I’m supporting it for FA. Giano (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support Giano, and for all your help during the rewrite. The image of the Great Hall had been renamed, so that's been fixed now. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments by Cwmhiraeth - as it happens I visited this house a fortnight ago!

A very well written article. I could only find three points to query. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "There is no evidence that the moat served any defensive purpose, and as with many other moated sites was probably intended as a status symbol." I think this sentence would be improved by including an "it".
  • "The first-floor landing leads to a passageway between the Guest's Hall and the Guests' Parlour" - Is the apostrophe in these two rooms intended to be treated differently? "Guests' Hall" appears in the next paragraph.
  • "The other two mills were used to drive water-powered hammers at the Moreton family's iron bloomery in the east of the estate, which they had owned since the late 15th century." - I'm not clear what precisely had been owned since the 15th century.
    • Not done, as I couldn't immediately think of a better wording. It should be clear from the context that it was the bloomery rather than the estate. Nevertheless I am open to a different wording to eliminate confusion here. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As MarchOrDie says, the family owned the bloomery, which was on the estate. But I can see there's a potential ambiguity there, so to try and clarify I've rewritten that sentence: "The Moreton family had owned an iron bloomery in the east of the estate since the late 15th century, and the other two mills were used to drive its water-powered hammers". Better? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. Changed to support above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to read through and for the support Cwmhiraeth. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ClemRutter[edit]

  • Comments by ClemRutter (copied from article talkpage) Leadlight
Lede
  1. As a German speaker my prose is flawed by a tendency to start every sentence with a subsidary clause. I see this here. # German grammar Now fully restored, the house is.... then At its greatest extent, in the mid-16th century, the Little Moreton Hall estate occupied.... and other examples
    It's not a flaw unless it's overused, like so many other things. The context of that "Now fully restored ..." sentence is in a paragraph that begins "The house ..." and has one intervening sentence. My feeling is that to begin the sentence with another "The house ..." is a little dull and repetitive. Similarly, I see absolutely nothing wrong with "At its greatest extent ...". Elegant variation rules.
  2. -08; the remainder was constructed in stages by successive generations of the family until around 1610. Surely this should be - 08. The construction continued until around 1610; successive generations of the family supervising further stages. Citation needed?
    "1504–08" is correct as per WP:MOS. That the last major expansion to the house was completed in 1610 is cited at the end of the third paragraph of the History section, so why do you feel it should be cited here as well? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. façades around three sides of a small cobbled courtyard A façade is a face of a building not a courtyard. Is façade the WP approved spelling of facade? Cobbled or cobble paved courtyard- the meaning of the former being ambiguous.
    There is no "WP approved" spelling, but either "façade" or "'facade" is correct. The façades of the buildings define the courtyard; what the sentence is saying is that the courtyard has the facades of the north, south and east ranges on three of its sides, which I think is correct. I don't see any ambiguity in "cobbled courtyard", but just in case there's any uncertainty I've added a wikilink to cobbled. The least I say about "cobble paved courtyard" the better. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. At its greatest extent, in the mid-16th century, the Little Moreton Hal surely extent which occured in the mid-16th Better however to say The Little Moreton Hall estate which was at its greatest extent during the mid-16th century.... Is extent the best word to express the concept of largest? Now we move onto the the iron bloomery with its cornmill, orchards and gardens and water-powered hammers. because that is the effect of the word with. Citation needed? wlinks needed to water powered hammers, cornmill types of orchard
    I think both of your suggested alternatives lack a certain polish, and I'd rather stick pins under my fingernails than adopt either of them; I see absolutely nothing wrong with the present wording, and "extent" is indeed the best word in this case. But you do have a point about the bloomery with its orchards and so on, so I've switched the ordering around to "contained a cornmill, orchards, gardens, and an iron bloomery with water-powered hammers". All of this material is cited in the Gardens and estates section, so why do you feel it needs to be cited here as well? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The gardens were abandoned until their 20th-century recreation. Recreation or re-creation? I am troubled by abandoned until. To abandon is final- were the gardens responsible for their own re-creation? were left in an abandoned state until the 20th-century, when they were re-created using published 17th century designs? Perhaps. Citation needed?
    Should be "re-creation", well spotted. Now fixed. I don't agree with your assertion that abandonment implies finality. You may, for instance abandon your car for shelter elsewhere during a flood or snowstorm, but that doesn't mean you have no intention of going back to recover it once conditions have improved. No of course the gardens weren't responsible for their own re-creation, and I don't understand why you even ask the question. And once again, why are you asking for a citation in the lead for material that is properly cited elsewhere? George Ponderevo (talk)

--ClemRutter (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My obsession with repeating cites comes from accessing WP by mobile phone where often only the lede is read- technically I am sure you are right. I stand by were abandoned being final but suggest lay abandoned is not. Gardens recreating themselves was an active/ passive issue. I had not looked at the png when commenting on courtyards and facades- would the phrasing open courtyard make the geography clearer? Does the png (on that file)- need the source of the information to be cited "After the drawing by A.N.Other, in the ..... book"? ClemRutter playing devils advocate (talk)08:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to go with "lay abandoned", so I've changed it. Yes, the base for the plan should have been included in the image description, which I've now updated. The courtyard isn't actually open, as there's a hedge on the west side running from the west range. I'm afraid I still don't see a problem with the facades, but perhaps MarchOrDie will have a view on this. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a suggestion for a compromise: "....with three asymmetrical wings (or even 'ranges' if they were not built at the same time) forming a small, rectangular cobbled court." Facades (with and without a cedilla) is technically the correct term and can be used, but does suggest a more formal, classical elevation. Court is also correct for a partially and fully enclosed courtyard - as in cour d'honneur and forecourt; allthough, again, courtyard is technically correct too - especially if a hedg, wall or fence forms the fourth side. Giano (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I could go with that. Thanks for the suggestion, which I've incorporated into the article. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good compromises; I think the article now looks better as a result. Great work. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - mostly OK (old, PD-own, geograph), only one point (all Done):

  • File:Little_Moreton_Hall.png - needs "source" info in image summary: what base map was used to create this map?
    • replaced with 2 new maps - still OK. GermanJoe (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional (unrelated to FA): consider using the ""geograph" template for all geograph images. Doesn't add much, but looks a bit clearer. GermanJoe (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, done that. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, updated accordingly. It's a very interesting building with a lot of history apparently. GermanJoe (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the image check. It's rather a magical little building, and I hope we've been able to do it justice. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ClemRutter 2[edit]

  • Comments by ClemRutter
General Comments
Mee (1938) and Coward (1903) refer to LMH interchangeably as Moreton Old Hall
It is useful that Bramall Hall is already an FA. Doing a quick comparison, BH includes Present Day as a subsection of history- and that would suggest that Present Day and Hauntings could be moved up and demoted into subsections- as they surely should not have equal prominence to a description of the house. BH also gives little or no architectural detail in the history section using it to describe the family- (POV I think they should have) but LMH is a bit sparse on the family detail.
Little Moreton Hall was known as Old Moreton Hall during the period it was rented out to tenant farmers, from the 1670s onwards. I've added that to the lead. I wouldn't have written Bramall Hall quite the way it's written now, and I'm perfectly happy with the structure of this article as is. One significant difference is that there's relatively little known about the Moreton family, who don't let's forget only lived in the house until about 1670. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History
  1. -The Moreton family's roots in the area of Little Moreton... where is Little Moreton- this is the first time it is mentioned. Perhaps ...in the Congleton area... ?
    Propose we just say "...in the area".
  2. -appears in the historical record in 1271- where? what?
    Already referenced to here and I see no problem with this.
  3. -The earliest part of the house is the north range. East Wing- none of these terms are shown on the png. Neither is there a compass arrow or scale. Does this merit a second derived map LMH_in_1510.png? If this were an svg I could knock one out from the description.
    Could we just manage some captions on the existing file?
    I'll add a compass pointer to the graphic, but as is conventional, north is at the top of the floor plan. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection, I think the exising captions are adequate. North being at the top is a sufficiently widepread convention that we can manage without a compass arrow, although one would be nice. Likewise a scale, but I am actually ok with the existing map if it cannot be improved by the author. A map in this type of situation is really just a schematic plan.
    I've added a compass needle to the bottom right-hand corner of the graphic anyway. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -The earliest part of the house is the north range. Built for William Moreton (died 1526), it comprises the Great Hall and the northern part of the east wing, which date from 1504–08 .... Germanism: looks better as - The earliest part of the house is the north range which was built between 1504 and 1508 for William Moreton who died in 1526. It comprises the Great Hall and the northern part of the east wing. ....
    I agree, will change.
  5. Comment: as this is the history section we should be answering the What? Where? when? Why? and How much? I don't see many answers to the why question. Heraldry is interesting here T.A.Cowards (1903) Picturesque Cheshire p255 mentions the coats of arms of the Moretons, the Breretons of Brereton, the House of Lancaster as Moreton was under the Baronry of Halton.
    Sounds like there is scope for more research; however, frustratingly often on historical matters, the "why" questions remain unanswered. I trust that if there was a well-documented reason for the house being built, we would have it in the article. I agree that it's worth a further trawl of sources to come up with something, as it's an important question.
    There's no record of how much the house cost to build, and as to why. presumably as a home for the Moreton family? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that might be the case. We can only make this article as good as the best sources which exist. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -Little Moreton Hall was requisitioned to billet Cromwell's soldiers. When? No date has been given to place the ECW putting one here would fix it.
    This is referenced to Lake, Jeremy; Hughes, Pat (2006) [1995], Little Moreton Hall (revised ed.), The National Trust, ISBN 978-1-84359-085-9 and if there's a date in the source I agree it would be worth adding it.
    LMH was confiscated by the Roundheads in 1643, which I've added to the article. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -They tried unsuccessfully to sell the entire estate, and disposed of several parcels of land. unhappy about use of qualifier unsucessfully followed by an and which refers to a successful sale. Would They tried to sell the entire estate, and unsuccessful, disposed of several parcels of land.?
    I agree the wording is sub-optimal (I wrote this bit) but I don't think the proposal is any better. Can I propose They tried to sell the entire estate, but could only dispose of several parcels of land. ?
  8. - By 1847 most of the house was unoccupied- unhappy about the repeated us of By. Could you say- In 1847 most of the house...?
    Agreed, this is better.
  9. - -was used to store coal. Why? Was this for domestic use or for use in a neighbouring silk/cotton mill? For which company? Do we know which pits it came from- Poynton was a mining village. If it is the latter we have interesting link up with the industrial development of East Cheshire.
    This is sourced to Lake & Hughes (2006), p. 42; I doubt there will be more detail on the coal in the reference, but if there was it would be worth including.
    There is absolutely no evidence that the coal was used for anything other than the Dale family's domestic consumption. The only industry on the estate (the iron bloomery) had closed in the early 18th century. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. - "an object of romantic interest" among artists.lk- additional factoid from Coward (1903) Amelia B. Edwardes made LMH the scene of her story ¨Lord Brackenbury¨
    I agree this would be worth adding. It seems to have been a significant book.
  11. -Elizabeth Moreton, an Anglican nun- maybe dates, and a wlink to her order.
    This is also sourced to Lake & Hughes (2006), p. 42. If the info is in the source I agree it should be added.
    Note e already explains that Elizabeth Moreton had become a Sister of the Community of St John Baptist in 1853. I've moved it to just after the word "nun", as if ClemRutter missed it at the end of the sentence then I suppose others may as well. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. and may have been responsible for the insertion of steel rods to stabilise the structure of the Long Gallery- surely -and may have been responsible for the insertion of steel rods that stabilise the structure of the Long Gallery
    I prefer the original wording here.
Superstition and haunting.
  1. -nd shoes" were found to have been hidden in the structure- WP prefers- nd shoes" were found hidden in the structure
    I agree this is a better wording.

--ClemRutter (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some interesting suggestions there Clem. Let me look through them in more detail and I will try to answer properly this evening (UTC). --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at your suggestions in some detail. I will implement the easy ones immediately. There are some which would depend on further research and for those I will have to depend on George's good offices. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've now done the easy ones. I'll wait to see if George wants to recheck those sources. It may be that there is nothing well-sourced to be said about the other points, though I agree they were good questions to raise. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment - only 1-2 clarity issues and a few nitpicks. Close to support.

  • lead "Little Moreton Hall is a moated 15th and 16th-century half-timbered manor house 4 miles (6.4 km) southwest of Congleton, Cheshire." ==> WP:OBVIOUS, "in England."
  • again "Little Moreton Hall is a moated [15th and ]16th ==> i am confused: the article states, that the pre-1500 theory is disproven. And the immediately following sentence has 1504-1508 (16th century) as earliest part.
  • "The house remained in the possession of the Moreton family [for almost five centuries] until 1938" ==> "more than four centuries" (less than 450 years).
  • "...published in the [17th-century]." ==> no hyphen
  • First floor "Its "massive" carved consoles have been dated " ==> why the quotes for "massive"? Seems like a common term (maybe "heavy" or "solid" would be better terms?)
  • Present day "The house is now fully restored, and is open to the public from April to December each year." => would be better with an absolute date, if available. "Now" is prone to get outdated. Since when is the house considered fully restored?
  • "Services are held in the Chapel every Sunday [at 3:45 pm] from April until October." ==> is clearly too detailed. Remove the exact time (more fitting for a travel guide).
  • Superstition and haunting ==> i have my doubts on the scientific research and if there are really any ghosts there :), but ok as a closure of the article, i guess.

A very interesting read, i especially liked the detailed background history and site description. GermanJoe (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like George has already dealt with all of these. Thanks to both you and Clem for your excellent reviews. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the only one I haven't dealt with is the question of when the house was considered to have been "fully restored". The answer is 1992, but I need to find a good source for that. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done now I think. The last major restoration was 1990–92, now mentioned in the final section. I don't see any reason why it should also appear in the lead, as "now" is "now". Malleus Fatuorum 04:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the ghosts, all that can be reported is what people claim to have seen and heard. I make no judgement. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) I appreciate, that there are still some stylistic and minor content details in discussion, but that doesn't significantly detract from the overall quality of the article imo. Changed to support above. GermanJoe (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ClemRutter 3[edit]

  • Comments by ClemRutter
General Comments House and grounds
  1. The most prominent feature of the grounds is the moat and island- yet this is not discussed in the Gardens and Estate subsection. Instead it is under house. Strongly feel the para

    The house stands on an island surrounded by a 33-foot (10 m) wide moat,[6] which was probably dug in the 13th or 14th century to enclose an earlier building on the site. There is no evidence that the moat served any defensive purpose, and as with many other moated sites it was probably intended as a status symbol. A sandstone bridge leads to a gate house in the three-storey south range.

    should be moved to Gardens and Estate. This gap in the text should be filled with

    The gate house in the three-storey south range is approached over a sandstone bridge that crosses the ornamental moat.

    (more later).
    • I can't agree with that, as the house is built on the island and is only accessible via a bridge across the moat, which is therefore an important aspect of the house's topology. But I'll be interested to hear what MarchOrDie thinks. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The opening sentence has no merit- in fact is a filler. In more detail:

    The 100-year construction of Little Moreton Hall spanned the period of the pre-Reformation, post-Reformation, Elizabethan, pre-Renaissance and Renaissance, but except for some Renaissance decoration such as the motifs on the gatehouse,[1] and Elizabethan fireplaces, the house is resolutely medieval in design.

  3. There is no such concept or architectural periods as pre-Reformation or post-Reformation architecture. Yarwood uses the time Periods- perpendicular Gothic 1375-1509/ Tudor 1509-1603/ Stuart 1603-1660/ Restoration Stuart 1660-1774.(Yarwood|1967|p=vii|ps=) Indeed the Renaissance preceded the English Reformation. The hall itself fell almost entirely within the Tudor period
    Nonsense. Malleus Fatuorum 05:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Like why? Seriously have you a reference that uses pre-Reformation or post-Reformation architecture for architecture, roughly I date Renaissance as 1501 -1625, and the English Reformation from about 1529/1531? --ClemRutter (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you re-read that bit you'll see that it's talking about historical periods, not architectural styles, and I wouldn't have added that to the article if I didn't have a good source for it, Nikolaus Pevsner no less. I quote: "So there is pre-Reformation and post-Reformation work here, Henry VII and Elizabeth, pre-Renaissance and post-Renaissance". Note specifically his use of the term "work", which includes details such as the decorative motifs on the exterior timber framing. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. However it is true that the house is resolutely medieval in design.
  5. I have considered what should replace the first part of the sentence and consider the strongest solution is to omit the fluff and start with
The house is resolutely medieval in design.
No. Part of the house's interest is that it was built over a period of 100 years, and thus contains elements of many architectural styles, ranging from medieval to Elizabethan. Malleus Fatuorum 05:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What we are both trying to say is that: LHM is important because was built over the 100 year period that saw a change in the use and and functioning of a house. The house is resolutely medieval in design, but with the century was modified to reflect the changing fashions and styles, it spans the transition. The period of its construction is loosely described as Tudor-but during that period society moved from church dominated to secular, the society changed from feudal to one of rural commerce with yeoman farmers:the open hearth great hall with screens and solar became irrelevant to the lifestyle of the yeoman family, who aped the changes in the aristocracy and a new model emerged. Existing structures were modified to accommodate the new life style and tastes. LHM is one of perhaps 10 surviving houses of this period and notable for its half-timbered construction.(Yarwood|1967|p=167|ps=)at a time when timber was becoming scarce and expensive. Later Tudor houses have become referred to as Elizabethan, and feature a long gallery as a social feature rather than the great hall. LMH displays how a long gallery could be tacked onto an existing structure even at the expense of distorting the whole frame. But, that is inelegant- lacking in references and needs to be thought out properly.
Part of the house's interest is that it was built over a period of 100 years, and thus contains elements of many architectural styles, ranging from medieval to Elizabethan is better wording than the cod theory attributed to (Fedden|Joekes|1984). There is no reason why someone couldn 't pen a line like:The house is resolutely medieval in design though part of the house's interest is that it was built over a period of 100 years, and thus contains elements of many architectural styles, ranging from medieval to Elizabethan. Circle squared. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I would like to include a description of what that means using data from (Hartwell|2002|p=6) where she describes the Great Hall at Chethams and Baguley Hall. What is critical here is whether the great hall had a fireplace (modern idea)- or still used the medieval open heath in the centre of the hall with louvres leading to a roof lantern. We have two interesting words here to describe features of the screens passage- the spere (a screen) and or the more modern spere truss construction a truss in the roof frame at with two free standing posts- fixed partitions at each end and the moveable spere screen suspended in between. When describing a great hall I think we also need to talk about the buttery, pantry and kitchen- and how at this time its function was changing from a general purpose room where the household (that meant servants and family) ate and some of the servants would sleep. The social change however to be elucidated in the History section not here. (Yarwood|1956|p=65-99|ps=) describes much in the Tudor chapter. LMH mention on p=76.
    The article already explains that the Great Hall would likely have had rush-covered earth floors and a central hearth, not a fireplace. Malleus Fatuorum 05:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes- how clever. You do miss things like that when you are reading from top to bottom. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But where would you have expected to find information about the Great Hall other than in the section about the Great Hall? George Ponderevo (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As (Yarwood|1967|p=167-169|ps=) explains. The proportion of half timberwork was smaller than in the middle ages due to hundreds of years of harvesting trees and not replanting. But this was not true in Cheshire due to an absence of good building stone- I think this should be written into the article somewhere (missing reference for that). I think what I am saying is that we need to give a more 'Ẃhy answers'

(more follows tomorrow)--ClemRutter (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Diagonal oak beams --> Diagonal oak braces per glossary (Hartwell|2002|p=350)
  2. garderobes wlink needed
    Garderobe is already wikilinked on the first occurrence of the term. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ground floor
  1. wood-panelling and screens passage could be wlinked- redirections to articles exist but are of such poor quality they add nothing to this piece. ?
    There's no article on "screens passage", it's a redirect to Great Hall, which doesn't add to our understanding of Little Moreton Hall. "Wood panelling" seems self-evident to me, and not worth a wikilink. Similary "wood panelling" is a redirect to a rather useless (in this context) article on panelling, so again not worth a link. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. the Parlour --> the parlour
    It's called "the Parlour" in the sources. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A private staircase between the Parlour - capitalisation issue, if it is a parlour and a withdrawing room no caps, but if it is a title caps OK. Prev sentence announces this is called the Little Parlour.
    It says it was called the Little Parlour in the 17th century, not that it's called the Little Parlour today. The capitalisation (Parlour, Withdrawing Room) is correct as far as I'm concerned, and is consistent with what is used in the sources. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Five oak-framed bins inside may have held barley for the Brew-house,[36] which is now used as a toilet block. Unsure- it sounds as it the bins are now used as a toilet block. Should the comma go? Should which is go?
    Don't agree, looks fine to me. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First floor
  1. The first-floor landing--> A first-floor landing ?
  2. consoles - an interesting use of this word. A general reader would associate this with a type of table. The other use would be the pendentive filling where a round headed window was inserted in a rectangular opening, a spandral- should it be written 'consoles (corbels)'?
    "Console" is the word used by the source, and although I've wikilinked it to corbel it's not quite the same thing, as corbels are usually made of stone or brick. My dictionary defines "console" as "an ornamental bracket, esp. one used to support a wall, fixture, bust etc.", so I don't think the use of the term is in any way unusual. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The first floor rooms in the east wing and most of the west wing are not open to the public, having been converted into accommodation for the National Trust staff who live on site.-- this is for the guidebook not an encyclopedia
    It explains why very few of the first-floor rooms are open to the public, so I think it's relevant. And I struggling to see how your comment here is consistent with asking for more details on the modifications made to the house to provide this accommodation. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. as a "sanctuary from the fun and games", was reference required?
    It's cited at the end of the paragraph, but presumably you'd like to see a citation directly after the quotation, so I've duplicated it there. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contents
  1. Except for those pieces, and a collection of 17th-century pewter tableware in a showcase in the west wall of the Great Hall, the house is otherwise displayed with bare rooms. Guidebook speak
    I don't think I agree, but perhaps MarchOrDie will have an opinion on this. That the rooms are bare is, I think, a significant feature, as most other National Trust houses are furnished. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gardens and estate
  1. Above I suggested that the para about the moat should be moved here. Comparing with Bramall hall LMH is light and descriptions of the topography- what is the name of the stream that fills the moat, and gave the water head for the mills? Where did the tailrace drain?
    The paragraph about the moat is where it is to explain the topology of where and how the house is sited, so I'm firmly of the opinion that it should remain where it is. I've found no information on the stream that fed the ponds used to power the mills, which are obviously long gone. I must admit to wondering myself though where the water for the moat comes from, so I'll see if I can find anything on that. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The moat isn't filled by any stream, it's just the natural water below the surface of the marshy land. The moat is consistently referred to as "waterlogged" as a result, which I've added. I don't see the relevance of the names of the stream(s) that fed the two now long-gone pools. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The contours of the pond used to provide power --> The contours of the pool used to power-- as, the Cheshire dialect word for a mill lodge appears to have been pool, see Poynton Pool etc I have no parallel to suggest that pond was a synonym, I have heard it being used to refer to a natural waterbody- or an artificial one used to raise fish.(actually can't not find other references to this-may be wrong!) The pool created a head of water that could be used to power a waterwheel- it was a source of energy for a watermill.
    I'm quite happy to change "pond" for "pool", particularly as on checking my sources again I find that the body of water used to drive the water-powered hammers was called Smithy Pool. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Water powered hammers -wlink to Trip hammer
    It was already linked in the lead, but I've now repeated the link here, which i think is OK. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Present day
  1. There is scope here to add information about how the NT uses LMH and how adaptations have been made to provide staff accommodation and toilet facilities, and what and how it chooses to display artefacts.
    I'm not aware of any published information on the modifications made to provide accommodation for staff who live on -site, and I'm not sure what more could be said than is already said. The toilet facities in the converted Brew-house are already explicitly mentioned in the Ground floor section and shown on the map, as is the gift shop and restaurant in the converted east range. As for the artefacts, there are only four, as the article explains in the Contents section: the refectory table, chest of cupboards and pewter in the Great Hall and the round table in the Parlour. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That concludes my sequential reading of the article- which is a bloody good read- and already was before I started. My two enduring niggles are the inaccurate fluff in the first sentence of the House section, and ensuring that everything mentioned is locatable on the diagram. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like the compass north- looks good. ClemRutter (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you about the "fluff", but I'll wait and see what MarchOrDie thinks before coming to a final conclusion. I've added a compass needle to the ground-floor plan, so there can be no doubt which is the north, south range etc. Most of your other points I think have now been dealt with or responded to where I don't agree, but I'll take another look through later to make certain. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I implemented what I think of as a compromise on the historical periods issue. Can you gentlemen live with it? I am neutral on the capitalisation issue, being able to see both sides of the argument. On the map issue, as I said, I am with George in thinking the key currently provided in the article is adequate. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't like it. It's perfectly clear to me that what's being described is historical periods, not architectural styles, and as I pointed out above, pre-Renaissance and so on are terms explicitly used by Pevsner. But nobody is suggesting that there is a pre-Renaissance style of architecture. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pevsner is iconic, but can be internally inconsistent and makes the occasional hyperbolic literary flourishes that are plain stupid. Here he was just plain wrong. Look at the difficulty you had in wikilinking the assertion The 100-year construction of Little Moreton Hall spanned the period of the pre-[[English Reformation|Reformation]], post-Reformation, [[Elizabethan architecture|Elizabethan]], pre-[[English Renaissance|Renaissance]] and Renaissance. Three out of five --two of which refer to the succeeding period, and one linked to an architectural period! If you wish to include controversial material- do it as an attributed quote.

    The architectural historian Niklaus Pevsner opined that "The 100-year construction of Little Moreton Hall spanned the period of the pre-Reformation, post-Reformation, Elizabethan, pre-Renaissance and Renaissance, but except for some Renaissance decoration such as the motifs on the gatehouse,[1] and Elizabethan fireplaces, the house is resolutely medieval in design."

    However that is a very inelegant way to start the most important section in the article. I would suggest that Malleus's sentence should be used first- giving

The house is resolutely medieval in design: part of the house's interest is that it was built over a period of 100 years, and thus contains elements of many architectural styles, ranging from medieval to Elizabethan. The architectural historian Niklaus Pevsner opined that the construction of Little Moreton Hall spanned the period of the pre-Reformation, post-Reformation, Elizabethan, pre-Renaissance and Renaissance [2] Except for some Renaissance decoration such as the motifs on the gatehouse,[1] and Elizabethan fireplaces, the house remains medieval in design.

ClemRutter (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(enough for tonight- till tomorrow)ClemRutter (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the house doesn't contain elements of many architectural styles. To quote Pevsner again: "But in spite of some Renaissance decoration and some Elizabethan fireplaces, it is ridiculous to speak of Renaissance in a house which structurally and in the visual consequences of its structure is so entirely in the medieval tradition." We need to find a mutually agreeable form of words making the essential point that Little Moreton Hall was old-fashioned even its own time. I've got no investment in terms such as "pre-Renaissance", so why don't we simplify the whole thing and make the essential point more clearly? I suggest something along the lines of

The 100-year construction of Little Moreton Hall coincided with the English Renaissance, but except for some Renaissance decoration such as the motifs on the gatehouse and Elizabethan fireplaces, the house is resolutely medieval in design.

That gets across all I wanted to say. George Ponderevo (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of outstanding issues[edit]

The article is in a very good state.
Essential issues
None remain
Style
Several 'Germanism's'
To enclose-->enclosing. The former implies intention, the latter is just descriptive.
Elizabeth Moreton, an Anglican nun[e] who inherited the house following the death of her sister Annabella in 1892, began restoration of the house, which by then was almost derelict.-->Elizabeth Moreton, an Anglican nun[e], inherited the house following the death of her sister Annabella in 1892 and began restoration of the house, which by then was almost derelict. Stylistic- there were 2 equal actions. Or Elizabeth Moreton, an Anglican nun[e] who had inherited the house following the death of her sister Annabella in 1892, began its restoration as, by then, it was almost derelict.
The word quarry- for glass is difficult to link or trace [12] I feel that there should be a link but the Stained glass is inadequate- though by now I surmise it is a corruption of the Norman French 'carré'.
Done Leaded glass ClemRutter (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wording
used to store coal-->used to store domestic coal. If true it rules out the possiblity of steam engines and textile mills
Diagonal oak beams creating chevron and lozenge patterns adorn the façades-->Diagonal oak braces that create chevron and lozenge patterns adorn the façades. Beam is a technical term so is wrong -it must be brace. The that create change is stylistic- but places the subject as the first element of the sentence
Refs needed
Links
Tegg's Mill Quarry
Timber framing
Great hall
Wishlist

Some early nights.

Replies
  • The source specifically says "to enclose an earlier property", so nothing is being assumed.
  • Changed to "Elizabeth Moreton, an Anglican nun, inherited the almost derelict house following the death of her sister Annabella in 1892, and began restoration work."
  • The OED gives this definition for quarry: " A small, diamond-shaped (or occas. square) pane of glass .... Also occas.: a small round pane of glass."
  • All the source says is that the Chapel was being used as a coal cellar, which pretty much every house would have had in those days. There's absolutely no reason to suppose that the coal was being used for any kind of industry, of which there was none in the area anyway, as the estate was still being farmed at that time. I've amended the sentence to more accurately reflect what the source says: "By 1847 most of the house was unoccupied, and the deconsecrated chapel was being used as a coal cellar and storeroom."
  • Changed "beams" to "braces" as per your suggestion.
  • There seems to be some disagreement about where the gritstone slabs on the roof of the Long Gallery came from; Pevsner says Mow Cop, Lake & Hughes say Tegg's Mill Quarry, but nobody says Tegg's Nose Quarry, which is the target for your suggested link. Therefore I've removed any mention of where the slabs came from.
  • Timber framing was linked in the lead, but I've now repeated the link in the opening paragraph of the House section.
  • Where would you suggest putting a link to great hall? And what would that link tell us about Little Moreton Hall's Great Hall that this article doesn't already tell us? George Ponderevo (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
George Ponderevo (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I look at this from the pov of the reader, who may have many reasons to have landed here. I do a nice rant about BBC journalists who cut and paste my poorly referenced text straight into their scripts..., but generally we are the most reliable authors around- and at the bottom end will be the first degree student who will be wiki-surfing and building up their base knowledge via our links. Over the last few nights, checking wlinks I have come across a plethora of stubs and starts. Great Hall is bad- but not as bad as some. I see the See also section as an invitation to improve related articles.. in this sense Great Hall needs to be there. I see the need for an article on Glass quarries and Lime ash plaster floors. We are moving into the area of Straw Bale Houses, building with cob and green construction crafts. That is outside the current focus. Tegg's Nose refers to the geographical feature and the various quarries there - haven't checked Mow Cop more research needed. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not prepared to speculate that Tegg's Nose Quarry is the Tegg's Mill Quarry mentioned by Lake & Hughes as the source of the roofing slabs. And I certainly don't see a See also section as an invitation to improve related articles. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK-Lime-ash floor is now written to C-class, and linked in --ClemRutter (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b c Fedden & Joekes (1984), p. 155
  2. ^ Pevsner, & 19XX
  • Yarwood, Doreen (1956). The English Home (1st ed.). Portman Square London W1: B.T.Batsford.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  • Yarwood, Doreen (1967). The Architecture of England (2nd ed.). Portman Square London W1: B.T.Batsford.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  • Hartwell, Clare (2002). Manchester. Pevsner Architectural Guides. New Haven &London: Yale. ISBN 9780300096668. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Just out of interest - do we happen to know which room on the plan were the former buttery 14 or 15 (my hunch is 15) and which was the original kitchen (14?). If it is knowned, it would be useful to see it on the plan's key as it would give insighting into the working rythm of the house. Giano (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure your guess would be right, but I haven't found anything to confirm that. I'll keep looking though. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by WereSpielChequers[edit]

  • Comments by WereSpielChequers Nice work, lovely building, can't understand why anyone would build anything in England in any other style. I've made a couple of links, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki... As far as I'm concerned it is already at FA standard, but perhaps there are a couple of things that could be tweaked.
Surely earliest extant parts of the house? The house itself dates from 1271.
Floor is used in two different ways throughout the article, it might benefit from replacing one useage with storey.
The bit about the Lime ash plaster floor might only refer to the floors on the first floor, the photo of the gallery certainly looks like that floor has floorboards. If the flooring is indeed different on the upper floor then that should be mentioned. Not sure whether it might also be worth adding a link to Lath and plaster but that article only refers to walls and ceilings, not floors. Thanks ClemRutter
One of the most distinctive features of the building is the lovely half timbering and the patterns on the outside walls. If anyone has covered this it would be great to have something about the consequent patterns and to what extent they are structural or merely decorative.
Is the moat really waterlogged, or is it actually waterfilled? Applying the duck test to this photo File:The Moat at Little Moreton Hall, Cheshire - geograph.org.uk - 1525.jpg it is more than just waterlogged.
There is a curious little structure on the roof which is visible in File:Congleton moreton hall 002.jpg, do any of your sources say what it is? Thanks for checking, obviously we can't go beyond our sources
A little more detail on the secret rooms would be much appreciated.
Having a plan for the groundfloor is great, but is there any chance of plans for the other floors?
I was also intrigued to see a kennel on the map as a small room inset into the house, again this looks odd enough to be worth mentioning.
In the moat usually means in its ditch rather than inside the moat, I found this slightly confusing especially in combination with the waterlogged /waterfilled issue.
May I suggest File:Little Moreton Hall garden - geograph.org.uk - 433632.jpg as a marginally better photo of the knot garden?

ϢereSpielChequers 17:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replies
  • The house dates from 1504–08. The house mentioned in 1271 is more than likely the one in the ground underneath the present house (which is why the ground – not the house – is a Scheduled Ancient Monument), but there have only been very limited archaeological investigations and I've not seen anyone explicitly claiming that.
  • The point about lime-ash plaster flooring does indeed only refer to the first floor, which I've tried to clarify in the First floor section by saying "The floors of the rooms on this level are made from lime-ash plaster ....".
    See my comment above about the quality of linked articles. I Googed this Lime ash floors which referes here and could form the basis of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 22:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure it could, and perhaps someone ought to write that article, but my focus is on Little Moreton Hall. I have neither the time nor the inclination to create an article on lime-ash flooring at the moment I'm afraid. Perhaps you do? George Ponderevo (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source specifically describes the moat as "waterlogged", not "waterfilled", and no source for the water appears on any map.
  • That little structure on the roof also appears on an 1870s photograph I've seen, so it's obviously not a modern addition. I suspect that as it's on the roof above what I believe to have been the original kitchen it's something to do with ventilation, but none of the sources I've seen confirm that.
  • That's everything I've discovered about the secret rooms, but I'll have another scout around. As the Moretons were a Protestant family I'm not sure why they would have had secret rooms anyway, something else I'll try and search out.
  • There wouldn't be much on plans of the upper floors, as the first floor is almost all private accommodation now, and the upper floor is just the Long Gallery and its adjoining Upper Porch Room. I could probably do something for the first floor though, but not for a few days; it took me ages to do that ground floor plan.
  • I've now added a plan of the first floor. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've swapped the knot garden image as per your suggestion.
George Ponderevo (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This site could be the source of the confusion, but in its "more information and sources" section it does describe the moat as waterfilled, and that rather accords with the photos. ϢereSpielChequers 18:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One source in that section describes it as water-filled, another as waterlogged. English Heritage also describe the moat as waterlogged here. That the moat is filled with water isn't in dispute; the question asked was "where does the water come from"? And I've answered that question as fully as the available sources will allow me to. I can say no more than they do. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took out the word "waterlogged" as I could see why some readers found it confusing, even though I can see why you included it. I really don't think we need to explain in detail in the article where the water comes from to fill the moat. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking that out. I don't see the difference between waterfilled and waterlogged as anything to do with the source of the water. Just whether the moat is a marshy ditch with a permanently damp floor or whether it is full of water as in the photos. Now that the text no longer conflicts with the photos I'm happy re that point. ϢereSpielChequers 17:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Espresso Addict[edit]

Comments by Espresso Addict. Overall, an enjoyable article. I'm not familiar with the references available on LMH, but I know other Cheshire half-timbered houses have rather little material available, so I suspect the authors have done a thorough job with limited references. The style doesn't shine and is in parts a bit clunky, but it gets the message across. Some minor copy edits are necessary (some of which are noted below). Most, but not all, of the following is very minor.

Perhaps a case of too many cooks? ;-) George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • 'vast tracts of land' -- very vague
    • I've adjusted this. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still seems rather vague. What does the source actually say? Espresso Addict (talk)
        It's rather vague by necessity, as obviously there are no surviving records of the Moreton family's early land deals. But I've rewritten the sentence as "The family were successful in acquiring land cheaply in the aftermath of the Black Death epidemic of 1348 and the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the mid-16th century, greatly increasing the size of their estate". We can say no more than that. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I went to the library this pm and picked up a book with a chapter on the family, which seems to have some more about the land area at various dates. I don't know how reliable it is, but there are detailed numbers which must have some source. Will see what I can dig out and how it meshes with the info you've got. I also photocopied the pages from deF & T and copied out some stuff from McKenna (as the library won't let me take them out, argh) which might be useful. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para 2 ff. capitalisation of rooms is inconsistent, eg Chapel, Withdrawing Room, Great Hall, Brew-house but gallery, kitchen, long gallery. Later chapel is lower case and Long Gallery in upper case. Gate house is variously given with and without a space.
    "Gate house" is now consistently "Gatehouse", and the later "chapel" now changed to "Chapel". As for the others, they're not capitalised when the terms are being used generally, as opposed to referring to a particular room, as in "a gatehouse" rather than "the Gatehouse". George Ponderevo (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what the rationale for 'kitchen and Brew-house' is ? Espresso Addict (talk)
      I explained below. It wasn't called the "Kitchen and Brew-house block", it simply contained a kitchen. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para 3. 'A small kitchen and Brew-house block was added to the south wing in about 1610, the last major extensions to the house.' either 'were added' or 'extension' singular.
    It's a block containing a kitchen and a Brew-house, hence a small "kitchen and Brew-house block". Therefore the subject is the singular "block", and "was" is correct. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para 4. can an indication of the modern value of £3000-4000 be given? I know these values are fraught with problems but a range would be useful. Also later for the 6d entrance fee.
    OK, done. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para. 4. big time gap between late 1670s & 1841. Is nothing known about this period?
    Only that the house was leased to tenant farmers, which is already described. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para. 4. 'By 1847 most of the house was unoccupied, and the deconsecrated chapel was being used as a coal cellar and storeroom. Little Moreton Hall was in a ruinous condition; its windows were boarded up and its roof was rotten.' Swap these sentences? Rephrase to state chapel had been deconsecrated (at unknown date?).
    It wouldn't make sense to swap those sentences, as the context for the second is set by the first, "by 1847". George Ponderevo (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well you'd obviously have to move the date too... The main point on rereading that jumped here is when was the chapel deconsecrated -- is this much earlier (eg when the house was let to tenants), or recently? Espresso Addict (talk)
      There's no record of when the Chapel was deconsecrated so far as I'm aware. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

House

  • It would be interesting to compare LMH with other Cheshire half-timbered houses, eg Gawsworth Old Hall and even the much smaller Churche's Mansion.
    I believe that to be outside the scope of this article. Where it seems relevant, such as in the possibility of free-standing screens, reference is already made to similar houses such as Rufford Old Hall. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree it's outside the scope at all; any great piece of art needs to be put into context. I think this is somewhere Wikipedia often falls down compared with expert-written encyclopedias. However, I would guess that it's difficult to find sufficient references not to fall into OR. Have you tried references on English half-timbered architecture? I don't see any in the bibliography. Espresso Addict (talk)
      Then we'll have to agree to disagree, as I'm firmly of the opinion that any such comparison would be outside the scope of this article. Perhaps one day someone will write a general article on Cheshire's half-timbered houses, but that person won't be me. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para 1.'100-year' Prefer hundred-year, but no longer familiar with stylesheet.
    I'm happier with "100-year", which is consistent with the MoS. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Diagonal oak braces that create chevron and lozenge patterns adorn the façades, completed by rendered infill and Flemish bond brick, or windows.' Illustration would be interesting.
    The image in the lead already shows that patterning quite adequately. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok; it's not very clear on the thumbnail, but if you look at the full-sized image they are illustrated. Espresso Addict (talk)
  • para. 1. 'The windows contain 30,000 leaded panes known as quarries, set in different patterns of squares, rectangles, lozenges, diamonds, circles and triangles that complement the decoration on the timber framing.' Again illustration would be interesting.
    I don't think there's room for any more images, but there is a link to all the images on Commons. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be inclined to try to squash this in, if it could be made to fit. There looked to be a very useful image on Commons which is quite small. Espresso Addict (talk)
      • I've shoehorned it in, without doing too much damage to the overall layout (I hope). Do edit the legend if you can think of something more erudite to write. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I've expanded the image caption slightly to identify what window that is. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para. 2. Quatrefoil should probably be wikilinked.
    Added wikilink for quatrefoil. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para. 2. 'There is no evidence that the moat served any defensive purpose, and as with many other moated sites it was probably intended as a status symbol.' References?
    Already referenced at the end of the following sentence. the convention adopted here to reduce visual clutter is the common one that citations support everything preceding them. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My problem with this (and subsequent instances) is that it makes it much more difficult to maintain after 50 editors have added random material, some sourced, some unsourced, into the middle of paragraphs, without realising that they need to propagate your references backwards. It builds in a future reference failure, unless you guarantee to watch the article in perpetuity. Espresso Addict (talk)
      I prefer to avoid clutter, I'm unconvinced by the maintenance argument, and I don't want to go down the "citation at the end of every sentence" route. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para. 2. 'Each of the two upper floors here is jettied out over the floor beneath.' Is the displacement larger than normal? It looks very top heavy compared with other jettied houses of my acquaintance.
    As alluded to in the "Noah's Ark" quotation in the lead. I've no source suggesting that the displacement is larger than normal. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, this is where a few general references on half-timbered houses might be helpful. Espresso Addict (talk)
      I don't see that as being within the scope of this particular article. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The garderobes in the two-storey tower to the left of the gate house empty directly into the moat.' This sentence seems ill-placed.
    • Not responded to. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the placement is fine, as it's a very obvious feature as the visitor approaches the Gatehouse., but I've amended the sentence to read "The two-storey tower to the left of the Gatehouse contains garderobes, which empty directly into the moat". George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ground floor

  • para. 1. 'The original purpose of some of the rooms in Little Moreton Hall is unknown.' Put this sentence at end of paragraph?
    I think it's better where it is. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Greeves' general description makes quite a strong opener to this section, while the original purpose statement conveys little information and is not attention grabbing. Espresso Addict (talk)
  • para. 2. 'The gabled bay window overlooking the courtyard was added in 1559.' Reference?
    Referenced at the end of the paragraph. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para. 2. 'arch-braced collar trusses' Any wikilinks for this? Also 'arch-braced roof trusses' under Upper floor.
    Doesn't seem to be. The article on truss doesn't help, as it only addresses triangular supporting structures. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might like to link to this instead King post; it's a little nearer the conctruction of collar beams and makes an attempt to explain them etc. Giano (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It should really be explained in timber roof trusses I suppose, but of course it isn't. I'll look to add something there and link to that. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be useful. The coverage of technical terms for half-timbering is very poor. Espresso Addict (talk)
      It is, but that's hardly the fault of this article. Anyway, I've started working on it. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've knocked up a diagram for arch-braced roof trusses (arch-braced collar trusses and arch-braced roof trusses are the same thing) and added it to the timber roof trusses article. I'll continue to work on expanding that article, but hopefully what I've done so far addresses the issue raised here. George Ponderevo (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent, thanks. Your drawing skills are better than mine! My one thought on this now is that it would be useful either to relink later when 'arch-braced roof trusses' are mentioned, or (perhaps preferably if they're identical) to call them both by one or the other name. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It took me a couple of hours to draw that diagram, so I'd say it's more down to persistence that any innate skill. I was thinking the same thing as you about the naming of the roof trusses; as "arch-braced" seems to be somewhat more common than "arch-braced collar" I've standardised on that. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para. 3. 'The wooden panelling is a Georgian addition, behind which the original painted panelling was discovered in 1976.' Reference?
    Referenced at the end of the paragraph. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para. 3. 'The bay window in the Withdrawing Room was added in 1559, at the same time as the one in the Great Hall.' Reference?
    Referenced at the end of the paragraph. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para. 5. 'The Corn Store adjacent to the Chapel, accessible from the main entrance, may originally have been used as accommodation for a gatekeeper or steward. By the late 17th century it had been converted into a grain store by raising the floor to protect its contents from damp.' Reference?
    Referenced at the end of the paragraph. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First floor

  • para. 1. '"discreet doorway" Reference for this quotation?
    Referenced at the end of the paragraph. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to my general concerns (see above), I thought the standard for direct quotations was that they should be referenced immediately following the quotation. The Wikipedia ruling on this might have changed while I've been away, but it's certainly still best practice. If you prefer to avoid peppering the text with citations, you could always rephrase. Espresso Addict (talk)
  • para. 2. Is the Ann here the same as the Anne in Ground floor section? Names should be standardised.
    Two different ladies, but both spelled "Ann", which I've fixed To try and make that clearer I've called the second Ann's father William Moreton III. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para. 3. Suggest prioritising original uses, rather than the modern ones. In fact could all of this material throughout be moved to the Present day section?
    In many cases we don't know what the original use was, and coupled with the fact that the usage changed throughout the 500 years of the house's occupancy I think this is the best we can do. Therefore I don't think it makes sense to move this to the Present day section, as this is the only way the layout of the house can be visualised/described. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see this is problematical, but some of the juxtapositions generated some unintentional hilarity. Personally I'd prefer to gather modern usage (ie post-Trust takeover) somewhere else, except where necessary for identifying the room clearly (though the plans are helpful there). Espresso Addict (talk)
      I've done what I can with the material that's available. I'm not prepared to consider splitting the post-National Trust takeover layout from the overall layout as currently described. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upper floor

  • para. 1. 'Running the entire length of the south range, the Long Gallery is roofed with heavy gritstone slabs,[44] the weight of which has caused the supporting floors below to bow and buckle.' This was one instance where I'd have avoided starting with the sub-clause.
    Agreed, done. --MarchOrDie (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • para. 2. '"bursting apart"' does this need to be in quotes?
    I think it does, as it's hardly a technical term. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've enacted these suggestions, and I think it looks better now. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't, "Collapsing" isn't synonymous with "bursting apart", which is the term used by the source and hence in quotes. "Collapsing" implies a vertical movement, whereas "bursting apart" implies a horizontal motion. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Though we could probably see that one would be swiftly followed by the other! I don't like quotes unless they are essential, but I don't feel that strongly about it. You ok with losing "waterlogged"? --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It would, but one would cause the other, which is my point. As for losing "waterlogged", I'd really like to see that put back, as it (to me at least) goes some considerable way to explaining where the water in the moat comes from. And if it's good enough for English Heritage ... George Ponderevo (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, well let's think of a compromise. I never liked using "waterlogged" as I agree with WSC that it's confusing. Also, even if the source used this, it doesn't seem like the best way to describe a moat that fills itself from the water table. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allthough it doesn't sound very nice; isn't the required word for pond/moat or any still body of water that does not flow anywhere: 'stagnant'. Giano (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back to the 'bursting apart' quotation: if it is a quotation, it should be in quotation marks. As to 'stagnant', it might be technically accurate, I don't think it gives the correct impression. I didn't like 'water-logged' either. Espresso Addict (talk)
    "Bursting apart" is indeed a direct quotation and is already in quotation marks, so I don't understand the problem here. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Can the citation list be made two column?
    The Citations list is already two columns. If you mean the Notes section, then I prefer to keep that as one column. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For some reason, when I accessed the page, the citations were all single column. Seems to have been fixed now. Espresso Addict (talk)

Figures

  • The numbers on the plan look a bit fuzzy; are they improved at a different size?
    They look fine to me. I drew the plan as an SVG, which it would have been preferable to upload, but I had to convert it to PNG because of a bug in the SVG-rendering engine. If that's ever fixed I can replace the PNG with the SVG. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are still fairly fuzzy on my monitor. I don't know much about png, but text reproduction in images is often improved by reducing the size to the display size before adding the text. Espresso Addict (talk)
      I've managed to find a work-around for the rendering issue, and both of the floor plans are now SVGs. Which do look a bit crisper I have to admit. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interior shots are rather dark -- has image brightening been attempted to improve them?
    They look fine to me. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First figure legend has a full stop, while others do not (including the plan, which is more than a sentence fragment).
    I think the punctuation of all the image captions is fine. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems fixed now, ie ones with complete sentences have full stops, and fragments don't. Espresso Addict (talk)
  • Why is the Present day section illustrated with the moat? Why does this break the left-right image rule used elsewhere?
    I wanted to include a picture of the moat, and that seemed a good a place as any. There is no "left-right image rule". George Ponderevo (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the windows are more interesting than the moat, if space is at a premium. I notice there is one earlier example of breaking the left-right alternation, but the two closely adjacent right-placed ones still looked very odd to me in context. It makes the moat look even more of an afterthought. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've removed the image of the moat, as it didn't have any relevance to the section it was in. And as I've said, there is no left-right rule, so I think the image alignment is fine as it is. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC) (btw, I'm not on wiki often these days; if I fail to return to check your responses, do prod me by e-mail)[reply]

Support. My major concerns have all been addressed. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help Espresso Addict. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a massive improvement from a rather ordinary article to one worthy of featured status; the result of hard and detailed work by the editors. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support Peter, and of course for your advice during the rewrite. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

  • Support once other issues above resolved. I'm not going to pick over it further; the somewhat comical "vast tracts" has gone, though I wonder if "substantial tracts" is still a bit OTT for what was presumably a few hundred acres. There must be some ripely phrased appreciations from the likes of H.V. Morton that could be usefully quoted to give a sense of its prime position among the houses of Ye Olde England, but I can't insist on that. Nice work. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Only one prose comment: in the first sentence of the House section, the assertion that the house is medieval in design is bracketed amidst dueling 'except for' statements. That extremely minor quibble aside, this is very well done, and was an enjoyable read. Maralia (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I fixed that. Thank you for the support. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- The only (minor) thing I still see concerns the last two, very short, sections. If a suitable heading sprang to mind it'd be nice to merge them, especially since they both seem to incorporate some "present-day" info (I inferred that the last renovations weren't eons ago). Failing that, I'd have thought the Present day info should appear last, after any discussion on hauntings. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that. I switched the sections and moved one sentence to maintain the flow and logic--ClemRutter (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 13:04, 18 December 2012 [13].

Blockhaus d'Éperlecques[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second of three related articles (the other two are Fortress of Mimoyecques and La Coupole) that I will be nominating for featured status. The latter article achieved this status in September (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1). Next March is the 70th anniversary of the start of construction of the three sites described in these articles and I envisage running a triple Today's Featured Article covering all three articles (see User:Prioryman/Heavy Crossbow FA blurb). In advance of that, I'm nominating this article, which is already a Good Article, for consideration as a Featured Article. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current status
Support
Oppose

n/a

Comments only

Comments This article is in very good shape, and I'm always a fan of potential FAs which feature photos and graphics created by the nominator. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "He suggested that the missile should be launched from heavily defended fixed sites, constructed in a similar fashion to the massive submarine pens then under construction in occupied France and Norway, where the rockets could be stored, armed, fueled from an on-site LOX production plant and launched." - this is a bit of a complex sentence - I'd suggest splitting it into two sentences
  • "It was given the codename" - this might be better described as a 'cover name'
  • What's the source for the information in the File:Watten site diagram.png diagram?
  • Several places. I created the image myself in Inkscape. The source information is a mixture of ex-Crown Copyright material from the UK National Archives, display material at the site itself and material from a number of books (all of which presumably draw on the original site plans at the National Archives). Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you identify these sources in the image file? Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and construction plans were presented to Hitler on 25 March 1943, who immediately gave the go-ahead for the project to begin" - this should be split into a separate sentence
  • Were the German specialist workers treated harshly as the current wording suggests?
  • Actually I haven't found any info about how the Germans were treated, but I'd imagine not - the sources all speak about harsh treatment of the non-German workers. The wording was a bit ambiguous so I've clarified it. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "falling ill or being unable to work through injury was the equivalent of a death sentence, as they would either be left to die or be transported back to the concentration camps from which they had been brought" - is this correct for all the foreign workers? (and were they prisoners of war as stated?) While the Germans worked Soviet POWs to death and held them in severe conditions, their treatment of POWs from other nationalities was generally OK until the closing months of the war (though Italians were often treated badly after 1943). Civilians forcibly conscripted from these countries were often treated in the way you describe, so the use of POW might not be correct here (or it could be an early example of the Germans mistreating POWs I wasn't aware of).
  • According to the sources, they were indeed POWs - basically just used as slave labour. There is quite an extensive display about it at the site. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related topic, are there any estimates of the number of prisoners who died during the construction process, and was anyone prosecuted for the harsh treatment of the workers after the war?
  • "A large dump was established at Watten next to the River Aa, which was eventually used for stores for all the V-weapon sites in the Saint-Omer area. " - this is a bit awkward (how about A large dump was established at Watten next to the River Aa, which was eventually used to store material required for all the V-weapon sites in the Saint-Omer area"? - which I suspect could also be improved upon).
  • "At the end of May, the British Chiefs of Staff instructed General Eisenhower to organise aerial attacks on the sites." - this can't be correct as Ike was still in the Mediterranean at the time (he also didn't gain control over the strategic bombers until the lead-up to D-Day)
  • OK, I've reworded this to say simply that they ordered attacks to begin against the sites. Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentences of the paragraph which begins with "The Germans' main focus of attention switched instead to Wizernes" need a reference
  • "and nothing could be determined about how well it had penetrated the concrete" - this is a bit awkward
  • Do we know why the French and British inspected the facility in 1951?
  • Yes, the article already says why: "to determine whether it was capable of being reused for military purposes." Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but why the interest in this topic in 1951? Were the British still worried about the French potentially reactivating German V-weapon sites, or were they assessing them for use by NATO forces? Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was left to lie fallow" - I don't think that the agricultural term 'lie fallow' is an appropriate term to apply to a large concrete bunker!
  • "In 2009, the museum welcomed 45,000 visitors" - are more recent figures available? (probably not)
  • Afraid not... (or at least I don't have them). Prioryman (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Air raids on the Watten site' contains a bit of over-linking Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've raised a couple of issues above, but both of them are of a minor nature and aren't a barrier to the promotion of this fine article. As noted in my initial comments, great work with the high quality self-created photos and images as well as the high quality text. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Dornberger's staff subsequently decided to continue minor construction at Watten "for deception purposes". The site itself was now useless, as the Germans recognised when they wryly codenamed it Concrete Lump, and the liquid oxygen generators and machinery were transferred to the Mittelwerk V-2 factory in Germany, well away from Allied bombers" - source?
  • I'm guessing you were looking at it while I was editing it in response to Nick's comments - I've added a source now. Prioryman (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4: don't need italics on quote
  • We probably don't need the quote either to be honest - I've taken it out. Prioryman (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn10: formatting
  • Not sure which one you're referring to here? Prioryman (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current footnote 10, which appears to double the magazine title. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see what you mean. I know it looks confusing, but the publisher of After the Battle is actually called After the Battle Magazine. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN44: italics on magazine name
  • Done.
  • Where is Esslingan?
  • That was a typo - it should have been Esslingen. Now corrected. Prioryman (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate state names, and whether you use "DC" or "D.C."
  • I think I've already abbreviated all the state names - I didn't see any unabbreviated ones when I looked just now. Prioryman (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, still have Florida for Air Proving Ground Command Eglin Field, abbreviated elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thanks for the clarification. I've abbreviated this now. Prioryman (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whole lotta sentences starting with unnecessary "howevers"; even paragraphs. See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I reworded two and left two. There are 17 howevers on the WP:MOS page, not counting the subsection on however, which mirrors my experience: I don't think we're going to get people to abandon them entirely. But I'll remember to give them a closer look and reword when there's a case to be made that "however" is either inappropriate or too strong. - Dank (push to talk) 05:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found this last night, in case it helps. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's really good, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I went through the entire article and found it to be an interesting read. There were a few issues that I detail below, but nothing major. If they can be taken care of, I'm likely to offer support.

  • Ref 5 could be moved outside the parenthesis, like ref 6 is.
  • Construction: The Organisation Todt link should probably be moved up a couple of sentences, to where it first appears in the text.
  • I'm a bit confused by this; the first link to the OT appears in its first mention in the body text. Or have I missed something?
  • There is a usage in the first sentence of this section, and the link appeared in the third sentence. I fixed it myself, so don't worry about it. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned that "The living conditions were appalling" sounds like we are giving our own opinion on the issue, even though I'm sure it's true. The language could be made more moderate while keeping the main point intact.
  • Em dash in the next sentence ought to be a smaller en dash instead, or you may want to make the dash unspaced. I'm surprised this wasn't caught earlier in the process.
  • Discovery, destruction and abandonment: You don't need two Chiefs of Staff Committee links in three sentences here.
  • I saw both links still in the article, but took the second one out. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On August 6, Sandys also...". I notice that Sandys' first name is given in the next section, but not here. It should be the other way around.
  • Air raids on the Watten site, 19 March 1944: What is the 1. doing after the colon?
  • 16/17 June 1944: Period before ref 58 should be a comma instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – After taking care of the last couple of things I saw, I think this deserves the star. As far as I can see, it meets all of the FA requirements. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 13:04, 18 December 2012 [14].

Shunzhi Emperor[edit]

Nominator(s): Madalibi (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the good article review took place a month ago, I have abridged long developments on the Qing conquest of China and expanded a few sections on the emperor's personal reign. The article is now thematically complete, fully referenced, and fluently written, which I think makes it ready for featured status. Thank you all in advance for your time! Madalibi (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • About bloody time this made its way here . As the person that did the GA review, I'm not going to make a formal support, but I will go on the record and say that I felt it was FA quality when I did the GA review several weeks ago. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon me, but that sounds perverse. You thought when you did the GA review that it was FA quality, but now it is here you are not prepared to support it? Makes no sense to me, unless you are saying that the article has somehow deteriorated since becoming a GA. Maybe you will clarify. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe he thinks it would not be neutral to support, considering his GA review. I've often wondered when an article I've reviewed for GA ends up here if my support would be considered biased. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MathewTownsend is correct. If I hadn't been involved in the GAN I'd be supporting it here, because I do believe that it's FA quality, but since I was the person that reviewed it at the GAN, I don't want my one voice to have a disproportionately large effect on the article's status, and thus am not putting up a bolded support statement. To reiterate, I do feel comfortable that this is FA quality, I simply don't think that the person that promotes an article to GA status should be one of the formal FAC reviewers. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation. It's entirely up to you, though it is fairly usual for GA reviewers to give formal support here, while declaring their prior GA involvement. Anyway, I'm sure the delegates will note this as an effective support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, this is why we have delegates reading and weighing up comments to determine if there's consensus, rather than just a bot counting supports or opposes... ;-) Nevertheless, even taking Sven's comments as a effective support in conjunction with the explicit ones, there's still some more to consider -- see below. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are problems here:
    • 83. ^ Wakeman, pp. 985–86. Harv error: link to #CITEREFWakeman doesn't point to any citation.
    • 99.^ a b c Wills 1984, p. 40. Harv error: link to #CITEREFWills1984 doesn't point to any citation.

Graham Colm (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job spotting this! Just fixed it. Madalibi (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. 1) lead contains a referenced claim "it constitutes a relatively little-known period of Qing history", not repeated elsewhere. Per MOS:LEAD, lead should only summarize the information present elsewhere in the body, and avoid references, unless the claim is controversial enough. I suggest copying this claim to the body and removing ref from lead. 2) Xuanye should be linked in lead 3) so should Mongol 4) first section of the body, missing links to Qing state and later, to Fulin 5) second paragraph, first section, is missing end-of-para references. I know there is no consensus on my preferred "each sentence should be referenced", but surely, we do require at least end-of-para refs? 6) I'd suggest adding a paragraph to the first section (or above it) explaining the wider circumstances of Chinese history of the period, I am gathering it was a time of some civil war? 7) quickly scanning through the rest of the article, I see several other paragraphs missing end-of-paragraph citations. Given that, I would like to ask for a reference check on some unreferenced sentences from elsewhere in the article (the article does not use Google Books links, so I can't be bothered to spot check anything myself). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Piotrus, this is very useful. I have addressed points 2 to 5 and most of 7, except for one thing: linking to "Fulin" would be circular, because Fulin was the Shunzhi Emperor's personal name. Let me think of a good place to integrate the sentence you mention in point 1... I'm also starting to write a new "Historical background" section to explain where all these people, institutions, and dynasties came from. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted a new section explaining the events that led to the enthronement of the Shunzhi Emperor in 1643. I made sure to mention themes and names that come up again in later sections, things like the Eight Banners, the difference between the Jurchens and the Manchus, the origin of the dynastic name "Qing," and the crises that led to the fall of the Ming in 1644. Let me know if you think the new section is clear enough for all readers to understand what's going on. I also integrated the citation from the lead into another section. That should take care of points 1 and 6. Thanks again! Madalibi (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I just eliminated the last unreferenced sentence in the article, the one claiming that "hundreds of thousands were killed" before all of China was brought to submission. The sentence is factually true, but I don't have any specific reference for it, so I replaced it with two sentences that form a better conclusion to the paragraph at hand (the third within "The conquest of China"). I think this takes care of point 7, though anybody is welcome to point to other unreferenced claims that I may have missed. Madalibi (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Piotrus has spent what must have been a considerable amount of time to "fix and organize references" in the article (see the diff here). This edit was made with the good of the article in mind, but I have reverted it because I don't think it improves the page. Despite adding 7,493 bytes of text, it doesn't change the footnote display. But my main concern is that editing has now become less convenient. If I want to add content to this wiki, I now have to do it in two different places, because the content of all the notes has been confined to a separate section at the end of the article. And if I want to look at the html code for the notes while I edit a specific section, I can't, because that text has been moved elsewhere. That makes for inconvenient editing. I may be convinced to undo my own revert, but only if someone can explain why the new form is an improvement over the previous one, and how this improvement can offset the added inconvenience, which I find considerable. What do you all think? Madalibi (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Why are you setting so many image sizes at smaller than the default? See WP:IMGSIZE
  • I've put most of them back to default size. The full-size images used to interfere with display because they overlapped between several sections, but that was when sections were smaller or when there were more images. Now default size seems to be working fine. Madalibi (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Emperor_Shunzhi.jpg needs US PD tag
  • Aren't US PD tags reserved for works made in the US? When it comes to copyright tags, I'm a complete beginner, so I just want to make sure of this before I go on modifying the tags on so many files. Madalibi (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out the disclaimer on {{PD-old}}: "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". Since Wikipedia's servers are US-based, we require that all works - even those created abroad - are free to use in the US. That shouldn't be an issue with works of this age, which should mostly be {{PD-old-100}}; the problem mostly arises for more recent works. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is good to know, thank you! Sven Manguard graciously inserted all the proper templates. All the images are now on the {{PD-art|PD-old-100}} format. Madalibi (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:China_Qing_Dynasty_Flag_1889.svg: source link is dead
  • What do we do when that happens? Madalibi (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to find an updated or archived link if you can; potentially add a second source, if you can't. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to delete the flag from the infobox. The flag itself is authentic (see Talk:Qing Dynasty#Source for the Qing flag), but it was only adopted in 1889 or 1890, so it has no business here. Until the late 19th century, the Qing dynasty had no national flag. Madalibi (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Jurchen_woodblock_print.png: page number in source?
  • File:Emperor_Huang_Taiji.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Yangzhou_massacre.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Shang-Kexi-0099.jpg: PD-self tag shouldn't be there - uploading an old image does not create a new copyright
  • File:Shunzhi.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Portrait_of_Jiang_Shunfu.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:A_eunuch_of_Qing_Dynasty.JPG: source link appears broken, needs US PD tag
  • What do we do when that happens? Madalibi (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • done. The entire source site (www.52banzou.cn) seems to be down or blocked. It took some time, but I found the original source of this picture, a 1936 work on the history of Chinese medicine, which dates the picture to 1901. I updated the description template accordingly and found another online source (see File:A eunuch of Qing Dynasty.JPG). Madalibi (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Yongli-itinerary-cropped.svg: what data source was used to create this map?
  • I don't know. Can I check for complete accuracy in reliable sources that I own and then add that to the file description? If I find inaccuracies, I will replace the map with another file. Madalibi (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created that map a few years ago based on the chronology in a few standard works on the Yongli Emperor and his era; see the list at User_talk:Vmenkov#Looking_for_sources_for_a_map_you_uploaded. Obviously, the blue line connecting the known points is purely speculative; one presumably could draw it more precisely based on the information about the transportation routes of that era. -- Vmenkov (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks fine now - thanks for your work on this. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Schall.jpg needs US PD tag and page number
  • done. Page number and US PD tag added. Madalibi (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Oboi.jpg has double of one licensing tag and needs a US PD tag
  • Somehow I can't find any edit button on this file: could someone help remove PD-old and keep PD-art? Madalibi (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:《孝庄文皇后常服像》局部.jpg should not have PD-self but needs US PD tag
  • done. Deleted PD-self; added US PD tag. Madalibi (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:《孝惠章皇后朝服像》.jpg has a doubled licensing tag but needs a US PD tag
  • done. PD-old deleted; kept PD-art. US PD tag added. Madalibi (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Young_Kangxi.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support comments - reading through now. will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning!) - queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...which he did from 1644 to 1661. - I might append this onto the following sentence. The first sentence is pretty long..... different solution, but ok.
From 1643 until Dorgon's death in 1650, political power lay mostly in the hands of Dorgon. - it'd be good to find a way to not have "Dorgon" mentioned twice in this sentence.
  • Thank you! You're right, these two sentences need work. I kept "which he did from 1644 to 1661" in the first sentence, but removed "a Manchu of the Aisin Gioro clan" from that sentence to make it shorter. I also reworded the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph, the one with two Dorgons in it. In the process, I realized the lead could be further improved, so I added a few things here and there to make the 2nd paragraph flow better. The diff for all the changes is here. Let me know what you think! Madalibi (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're ok, now where was I.......

...a highly contagious disease that was endemic in China, but against which the Manchus had no immunity. - I'd remove this - endemism means found somewhere and nowhere else (not true for the cosmopolitan smallpox), and many many people had little immunity to smallpox. The disease is well-known enough that a bluelink suffices.
  • There's a small but significant scholarly litterature that points to the Manchus' lack of immunity against smallpox. (For a small sample, scroll down to the "smallpox" section.) Smallpox was dangerous enough for everybody, but for the Manchus it was almost always lethal, so the Manchus and their Mongol and Tibetan guests in Beijing were particularly fearful of it. I allude to this in the lead because I think it's an interesting and little-known tidbit about Qing history. You're right about "endemism": the endemism page is about biological species and is therefore the wrong link. I replaced it with a piped link to Endemic (epidemiology), which claims that an infection is endemic in a population "when that infection is maintained in the population without the need for external inputs." Let me know what you think! Madalibi (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I'll pay that> Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"was poised to deliver the final blow to the beleaguered Ming dynasty," - can be rewritten without quotes
"the only reasonably undamaged structure" - can be rewritten without quotes
Dorgon issued "the most untimely promulgation of his career": - dequote and rephrase.
"a humiliating act of degradation" - dequote and rephrase.
"was tantamount to the loss of their manhood." - dequote and rephrase.
"broke the momentum of the Qing conquest." - dequote and rephrase.
These massacres ended "active loyalist resistance" - dequote and rephrase.
at least "signify a form of passive resistance to foreign domination." - dequote and rephrase.
  • These six were all in the same paragraph! I've modified them all here. Madalibi (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edict "opened a Pandora's box of literati politics" - dequote and rephrase.
  • Rephrased as "This edict triggered factional conflicts among literati..." Madalibi (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He discussed "history, classics, and politics" - no need for quotes here.
"smallpox avoidance centers" - no need for quotes here (?).
  • I think this one should be kept for three reasons: (1) this is an unfamiliar concept that is first introduced here; (2) it's a translation and the original Chinese is cited; and (3) the quotation marks attibute the translation to the source cited in the note. Let me know if you disagree, though. Madalibi (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll pay that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any possibility of a Legacy section? Did he have any impact on China with his style of rule? Was it reversed after he died? I suspect given his youthful demise this section would be difficult or impossible to write. It makes a nice conclusion to the article.
  • Yes, I agree that some kind of conclusion would be nice. Shunzhi's style of rule was mostly reverted by the Four Regents of the Kangxi Emperor (return of the Manchu aristocracy, purge of eunuchs, great severity toward Chinese literati, dismissal of Jesuit astronomy, etc.), but starting in 1669 the Kangxi Emperor in turn reverted the work of the regents. Writing this kind of section would be feasible, but I would have to find an array of relevant statements from reliable sources, which would take time. Honestly I would prefer to take care of this slowly, that is, after the FAC review if possible! Madalibi (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking on target for a Featured finish....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame - I reckon it would really cap the article off nicely. If other folks are not fussed, I won't hold this up, but I do reckon it'd improve the article...Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you put it this way... I'm very tempted to satisfy your interest! How about I write a short narrative coda that will explain what happened to Shunzhi's policies after he died: backlash of the joint regency, followed by Kangxi's consolidation of Qing rule on more Shunzhi-like models (as well as Kangxi's introduction of smallpox variolation for all Manchus, to keep developing that minor theme). This would be easier to write than a "significance" section that would have to take the judgment of many historians into account, though I can eventually integrate that into the article as well. Unfortunately I can't do any of this today, because I have real-life commitments to take care of, but I will try to take care of this in the next few days... Madalibi (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think this would be a great improvement to the article. A few days is ok -feel free to alert me on the progress. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just completed that last section. I titled it "Legacy," though it could also be called "Aftermath." And you're right, it improves the article by providing some kind of closure. Thanks for pushing me to write it! Madalibi (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nice job! possibly a little detailed but I can't see waht to leave out...so all good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, I abridged the new section by 559 bytes.[17] Thank you for your support! Madalibi (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your close reading! The writing has clearly improved as a result. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography? Congrats on a "rich" (in content and detail) article!

One point, though, is that the Bibliography is great for the 1% or .1% of readers who are grad students preparing for their general exams, but not so much for the 99.9% of readers who just want to know what to read next.

At the least, I suggest removing the items which concern the general Qing or later emperors, beginning with any which mention another emperor in the title. I'd be glad to take on this task at some point, but you might want to do the editing now while you're warmed up and into it. ch (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi CH, and thank you for your assessment! This is a great suggestion, but we have to be careful not to mess up the Harvard footnote system that is used here. All titles are cited in at least one footnote, so I can't remove any entry without leaving a footnote orphaned. But there's no reason not to divide the bibliography into "Basic works" and "Other studies cited." Unless someone objects, I will take care of that tomorrow when I have time. Thank you for the useful suggestion! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • One quibble - can you label the non-English sources in the Bibliography? Also - the usual section title for this would be "References" or "Sources" - see WP:FNNR where Bibliography is discouraged because of the use of that title for a list of works BY the subject of the article.
  • I hope to get back to this for a full prose and content review later, when I'm not trying to get sick.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your suggestions and sorry about the delay. I suddenly got very busy in real life and couldn't reply right away. Anyway I just made the changes you suggested,[18] and I'm looking forward to your more detailed review! Madalibi (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - This article is very good, just a couple of questions:

  • I can't recall exactly, but aren't all eight Manchu Banners established by the 1640s - the "Becoming Emperor" section only notes the allegiance of six of the banners. What happened with the other two? Or were they not involved in the potential succession issue?
You're right, there were Eight Banners by then. (Actually 24 if you count eight Chinese banners and eight Mongol banners!) I didn't mention the blue banners, because the books I read don't mention them when discussing the Shunzhi succession. The Bordered Blue was controlled by Jirgalang, who became one of the two co-regents in 1643. The Plain Blue was originally in Hong Taiji's hands (says Dennerline 2002, p. 74), and it was eventually given to Hooge (Dennerline 2002: 79), but I'm not sure about its status during the succession crisis. Madalibi (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was just curious. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Hooge executed or just his supporters? As it reads now, it sounds like Hooge was just stripped of his titles.
That's right. Hooge took place in several military campaigns between 1644 and 1648, especially against Zhang Xianzhong in Sichuan, as mentioned lower in the article. When he came back to Beijing in early 1648, Dorgon had him imprisoned and Hooge died in jail about a month later. But the account about 1644 is right. Madalibi (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just wanted to make sure I was reading it right. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be too many images in the article - I'm getting some text sandwiching and some of them are less relevant, like that of the eunuch and the smallpox bacteria. Maybe some should be removed?
I agree that the eunuch picture adds little to the article, so I have removed it.[19] But I really like the smallpox picture because it's so different from the images you usually find in history articles. Instead of removing it, I deleted the picture of the mausoleum,[20] which is not actually that of Shunzhi himself, but another building at the Eastern Qing tombs. (I have a picture of the actual mausoleum here, but it's copyrighted.) I also played around with some other images to reduce the sandwiching problem. Let me know if there are other places you think need improvement. Madalibi (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the details in the "Family" section have citations? Parsecboy (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the emperor's consorts is basically unreferenced. Let me see what I can do... Madalibi (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just finished adding references to the section on empresses and consorts.[21] I noticed and corrected two or three mistakes in the process, so thanks for asking for these clarifications! Madalibi (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, everything looks good to me now, and my questions have been answered. Moving to support. It's good to see the bio of an early Qing emperor done this well. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your help and formal support! Madalibi (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • Didn't notice a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing so, as I gather this is the nominator's first FAC, I'd like to see such a check.
I'm not sure how to do this. Most of the books I used in this article are on my bookshelf. What are acceptable ways to do a spotcheck? Should I give you direct citations on a few notes of your choice? Let me know what to do and I will do whatever is necessary. Madalibi (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just sit tight for a bit, a volunteer to do the spotcheck may emerge from among people who've already reviewed, or I might ask around for someone else. In either case online material may be sufficient to get a feel for how accurately the sources have been employed while avoiding close paraphrasing of text -- we'll see. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. I will wait, then. I'm just worried there are not enough online sources to perform the check conveniently. Piotrus mentioned that very problem above (search for "spot check"). But anyway, I'll just wait! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few places I'd expect to see citations but don't:
    • End of third paragraph of Frontiers, tributaries, and foreign relations
I removed this sentence altogether. I think it's accurate, but it's a summary of complex scholarship that would be inconvenient to cite in a single footnote. Madalibi (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much of the Family section -- if you can demonstrate that all uncited statements have been cited earlier in the article (I know his father is, and the fact that Shunzhi "died of smallpox shortly thereafter") but it's probably simpler to just re-cite these points anyway.
Good point. Give me half an hour... Madalibi (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished adding references to the "Family" section.[22][23] Every non-trivial information should now be referenced. Madalibi (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need the smallpox image? Don't think it adds much to an already well-illustrated article...
You're the second editor who points this out (after Parsecboy), so maybe this image needs to go after all. I inserted it here because it's different from what you usually see in historical articles, and because many writers have been discussing the role of microbes in history (for example Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel), so I thought it would be nice to see a picture of one of those germs! But I will have no problem removing the image if you think it's superfluous. Madalibi (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, fair enough, it's not a deal-breaker. Tks for all your other responses/actions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over-bolding/over-linking in the Sons section -- other family members' names are not bolded, and we don't need Manchu linked for every Manchu name (not even the first, as it's been linked earlier in the article).
Indeed... Done.[24]
  • Aside from the just-mentioned Manchu language, there are many duplicate links in the article -- you can use the script User:Ucucha/duplinks.js to check for them. Some may be justified but I'd expect the overall number to be reduced.
Thank you for pointing this out to me. With the script's help I've removed a lot of duplicate links.[25] I kept piped links that do not display as the same word––Late Jin and Qing in the first section; Eight Banners and Bannermen further down––as well as links to words whose previous occurrence was several sections above the duplicate link. Let me know if you think further trimming is necessary. Madalibi (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hucker 1985" under citation #19 produces a Harv error -- you can use the script User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js to check for these yourself in future.
Another useful script! Problem corrected.[26] Thank you for all your useful comments. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article:On 7 April 1651, barely two months after he seized the reins of government, Shunzhi issued an edict announcing that he would purge corruption from officialdom.[91]
  • Source: "In any case, the campaign to root out corruption began with an imperial edict of April 7, 1651, scarcely two months after the emperor assumed personal control."
  • Article: This edict triggered factional conflicts among literati that would frustrate him until his death.[92]
  • Source: "It signaled a new round of factional fighting among the literati as well".
  • Article: One of his first gestures was to dismiss grand academician Feng Quan (馮銓; 1595–1672), a northern Chinese who had been impeached in 1645 but was allowed to remain in his post by Prince Regent Dorgon.[93]
  • Source: "Most prominent among the officials who were dismissed by this edict was the grand academician Feng Ch'uan."
  • Article: He was even allowed to draft imperial edicts just like Ming Grand Secretaries used to.[96]
  • Source: "By the end of the year he was authorizing grand academicians to draft rescripts. This simple decision not only allowed the emperor ans his closest advisors..."
  • Article: These two institutions based on Ming models further eroded the power of the Manchu elite and threatened to revive the extremes of literati politics that had plagued the late Ming, when factions coalesced around rival grand secretaries.[107]
  • Source: "In 1658 the emperor formally established the Han-Lin Academy and Grand Secretariat on the Ming model, further enhancing the revivial of literati politics."
  • Article: In July 1646, a new Southern Campaign led by Prince Bolo sent Prince Lu's Zhejiang court into disarray and proceeded to attack the Longwu regime in Fujian.[74]
  • Source: "On 10 July (1646), as Ch'ing cavalarymen rode across the river at T'ung-lu, the defending army collapsed and fled in disarray toward Shao-hsing..."
No issues. Graham Colm (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you! Madalibi (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not supposed to write here now that this FAC is over, but I just wanted to thank all the reviewers for their help and suggestions. Special cheers to those who taught me new skills! I am now a better editor. Gratefully, Madalibi (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 08:06, 17 December 2012 [27].

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have here an article with a long and distinguished history. First nominated for FAC in 2006, it survived two AfDs before it was demoted after a FAR in May 2010. I repaired the article, addressing the concerns raised at the FAR, and it passed a GA assessment in July 2012. It was Today's Featured Article on 21 November 2006, so if restored to Featured status it will not be eligible to appear again. Although I already have an article at FAC, I have a fiat for a second nomination here. There are a couple of things things about this article that may be of broader interest to the community:

  1. Once an topic is notable, it stays notable. Back in 2006, there was concern that an article sourced from news coverage would not stay notable, but the argument that history stays history carried the day. Six years later, the truth of this is evident. I came across multiple references to this important event in 2011 while researching US civil-military relations article on President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur , and was pleasantly surprised to find such a fine Wikipedia article. Over time, the event has attracted considerable coverage in offline reliable sources.
  2. Dead links are better than no links at all. There was concern that as an article's links decayed over time, an article relying on internet sources would become unverifiable, and the article would become unsourced. Some suggested removing dead links. However, the dead links proved to be far superior to no links at all. In many cases, the references sources had merely been moved or archived, and the dead links allowed us to rapidly locate the sources again. In these cases, the dead links were replaced with the living ones. In a small number of cases, the material could still be seen on mirror sites that could not be used for copyright reasons, but you could still read them. This allowed them to be replaced with references to other reliable sources. So it is important that, when maintaining articles, you don't remove links that are dead without replacement.

With all the links repaired, myself and a couple of other editors have gone over the article to polish the prose again. This allowed the article to be promoted to Good Article status for the first time, and, with all the issues addressed, I hope it can be restored to Featured. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to Delegates: This is a former FA that has been on the Main Page, please see the note on my Talk Page regarding closing Graham Colm (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE. I actually have equal concerns as to whether this article should exist; it seems to merely reflects 'recentism' of the time. Admittedly, I'm not American and have little idea as to what would have made this a 'legendary event', as is asserted in the article. But AfD has pronounced and so be it.

    I would note that when I run my cleanup scripts to 'audit' candidates that are ready or have passed, I get a null output. In this case, they picked up a large number of inconsistencies which would suggest that the article is still a long way off FA status if we were only to consider matters of style. The article was überlinked (with multiple chained links viz:"Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer"), and remains so – words such as "irony", "photo op", "elitist", "Google", "Yahoo!" and "approval rating" have no business being linked, pipes notwithstanding. I am also unimpressed by what seems to be a potentially misleading/NPOV-violating easter egg with "[[Media bias in the United States|media]]" -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Recentism is refuted by the way I found the article - through academic journals. I have pruned the links, but kept "Google" and "Yahoo!". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Several newspapers and magazines are missing italicization
  • FN8: doubled quote marks
    • Replaced double quotes in title with single quotes
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
    • (1) I love WikiNews! Written 70+ articles there myself! Replaced with a book reference. (2) This is an official Yahoo site, which is used to cite a statistic on Yahoo traffic, which I think is quite reasonable. (3) Newshounds is a volunteer organization that watches the Fox so you don't have to. Cited by 32 articles. Used here only to report the fact that CNN and Fox had video up. Supported by links on the Newshounds site but while its still the the CNN and Fox videos are now gone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN51: formatting
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when.

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Nikki! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments My knowledge of US politics isn't great, but it's too terrible for someone living in Australia. While comments from specialists in US politics are probably necessary, I have the following comments:

  • The order of the sentences in the 'Performance at the dinner' section should be reversed (and can more be said about why he was invited?). This section should also provide background on these dinners, including the tradition of humorous speeches (including from the president).
  • "Cable channel C-SPAN broadcast the White House Correspondents Dinner live on Saturday, April 29, 2006" - given the date is already stated, you could cut everything after 'live'
  • "The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune covered the dinner, but neither contained coverage of Colbert's remarks" - this wording is a bit awkward
  • "The wire services Reuters and the Associated Press both used three paragraphs to discuss Colbert's routine in their coverage of the event" - seems a bit wordy (and implies that these were the same paras)
  • "a clip of Colbert at the dinner was an overnight sensation, becoming a viral video that appeared on numerous web sites in several forms. Sites offering the video experienced massive increases in traffic." - was this one clip hosted on a single website, or multiple copies of the the clip on different websites?
  • "Searches for Colbert on Yahoo! were up 5,625 percent" - is this a meaningful statistic? (eg, was the pre-speech number of searches significant?)
    • I think so. Yahoo only releases percentage, not actually figures, but his wikipedia stats varied from 5,000 to 15,000 (with an average of over 6.000) per diem over November 2012, so the numbers involved were probably very large indeed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The New York Times published five letters to the editor on Colbert's performance in its May 3 and 4 editions—all of which were strongly supportive of Colbert, and some of which were critical of The New York Times for reporting only critical reactions" - the article already has a much better overall discussion of the response by NY Times readers and the paper so this seems unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is still in the article Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tried again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was my fault. I saw a large chunk of deleted text and thought that it was a negative. I didn't realize that there was some duplication. Sorry. Boomshadow talk contribs 18:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've read the article and have no particular complaints. Spot-checked a source or two at random. Seems solid. If there are lots of bluelinks, it's only because the article by necessity name-drops like crazy for attendants, reactions, media sources, etc. SnowFire (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Generally favorable and minded to support, but first a few things:
Lede
  • "U.S. President" Franken is a "US Senator". Please check consistency here.
  • Was freedom fries still around in 2006?
    • Apparently. It is from a contemporary quote. I remember it from a media campaign in 2003. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intentional cover-up". Suggest first word redundant.
Performance
  • Something should be said about what Colbert was expected to do. Did the previous comedians at the WHCA dinner comment on politics? It's really not clear what Colbert was expected to do, other than what he actually did.
    • Added a few words of explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "implicitly criticizing the way Bush positions himself as an anti-intellectual" First, the past tense is probably needed here. Second, unless Bill O'Reilly would agree that this is how Bush positioned himself (you get the idea), I'd cite inline.
  • "photo ops aboard the …" I think "photo ops" is POV. Colbert can call them that, you should probably find a more neutral term. Any word on how Bush reacted during the routine? I see the "after".
  • I would pipe WMD to the specific controversy about WMDs (not) in Iraq.
  • Can anything be said about why one control said "Gannon"? Also, for those who are not political junkies, I would identify Helen Thomas as a reporter or correspondent.
  • "Heavily distributed online". Sounds like iTunes. Perhaps "widely available" or "widely viewed"? My point is, "distributed" doesn't really seem to fit what happened.
  • "although a few in the audience, such as Scalia, laughed heartily as Colbert teased him". The subject is "a few", thus the sentence should end with "them". Suggest mild rephrasing.
  • "Much of the initial coverage of the event highlighted this difference." I would expect you to follow this with a description of said coverage, but you really don't.
Internet sensation
  • " clips of Colbert at the dinner were an overnight sensation, becoming a viral video that appeared on numerous web sites in several forms." "A viral video" seems uncomfortably in singular form.
  • Nos. 1, 2, and 3 spots" The Nos. feels awkward. Can it be avoided?
Allegations
  • Is there no way to avoid the repeated rendition of The New York Times, five times in the final paragraph?
Appraisal
  • I scent some POV with "—both groups having been targets of Colbert's satire" You tear down the detractors of the video. You did not say anything detracting from those who praised it, like Franken, from whose description the word "Democrat" is conspicuously missing. While I understand that an article about a subject cannot be utterly dismissal of the subject, I get a feeling that the article is saying saying that the detractors were way off base, and those who believed in the cover-up were correct. The fact that you sandwich the paragraph in which the detractors speak between two praising or defending Colbert should be looked at too.
    • Moved the paragraphs around, so they go: bad, defensive, good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your use of Washington Post without the The looks odd after the mantra of The New York Times and considering you've referred to it in full throughout.
    • Only once in the whole article. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "felt that Colbert had gone too far, telly the newspaper" Some fixing needed.
Please leave word on my talk when you are ready for me to take another look. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well done, glad to see another FFA gonna come back I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A concept closely related to truthiness is "wikiality," which is, "A reality where, if enough people agree with a notion, it becomes the truth" (Colbert Report July 31, 2006). In other words, if something is truthy, it is bound to become a part of wikiality. Colbert particularly uses this concept to refer to the constructed state of reality formed by online polls and open source collections of information on the Internet like Wikipedia. To demonstrate his capacity to influence wikiality, he joked on the show that the world population of elephants was no longer in need of protection because it had tripled in the last decade. Within minutes, the Wikipedia entry for elephant had been changed to highlight this "fact."

— Fowler, James H. "The Colbert Bump in Campaign Donations: More Truthful than Truthy". PS: Political Science and Politics: 534.


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:50, 16 December 2012 [28].

Amphibian[edit]

Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC) and Axl (talk)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is of a high enough standard. I worked on it as part of the Core Contest and it then had a thorough GA review performed by Axl who made many contributions to the article. FunkMonk was also most helpful, particularly with regard to the images. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: I conducted the GA review. My reviews tend to be more rigorous than average. I scrutinized the article and pointed out issues that needed fixing. I also made a number of minor changes directly to the article. This is a high-quality article, and I am struggling to find any further problems with it. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (33 images incl. some derivatives), source and author provided. Almost all are own work released into PD. 1 USGov-FWS. Edited: expanded 2 old images with PD-1923 - OK.

  • Support Comments from Jim Another major article, and a great effort. Comments below
  • though included in the group — is redundant, you've already listed them as amphibia
  • among species — not all species, perhaps in some species?
  • Amphibians also use their skin — Why "also"? You have given a use for the skin previously
  • The word "also" refers to the use of gills and lungs as primary respiratory organs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that's obvious from text
  • and have no lungs. — lack lungs?
  • The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats — I'd prefer a more academic ref if possible, but this will do if nothing better
  • a skull very similar to the lobe-finned — a skull very similar to that of the lobe-finned fish
  • You have underlined this. Is there something else you want done here? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • supra-occipital — no link or explanation
  • Please don't mix AE and BE spellings (centimetre, meter)
  • began to evolve and invaded the land where they provided food for the carnivorous amphibians that began to emerge — too many beginnings
  • frog – salamander— I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but I'm unclear why it's an endash and not a hyphen
  • I'm not sure what you mean here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that you are referring to "Evolution", paragraph 5. The "frog–salamander divergence" is the divergence between frogs and salamanders. This is correct use of the endash, as per WP:DASH. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • palaeontological, ultraviolet, metabolic rate, ossified, capillaries, prearticular bones, cloaca, cornified— no link or gloss (or at least not at first use
  • the circulation is similar to that of fish.—No idea what that means
  • "Circulatory system" section — largely repeats information from "Characteristics", perhaps the latter could be trimmed?
  • Tadpoles' eyes resemble those of fish—Again, not particularly helpful
  • a few (e.g. Fejervarya raja) can inhabit brackish water and even survive (though not thrive) in seawater — How?
  • refs 132 and 138 have no publisher
  • refs 122 and 124 are the same
  • The underlining is because the "underline" tab is next to the "strike" tab on WikiEd (: I'm sure other editors will find niggles in an article this length, but I'm happy to support now, changed above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

  • The section Anura has three paragraphs beginning with "The suborder ..." and two of these then go on to say "These families are ...". This should be reworded to give more variety to the prose.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 15:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted the text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good job. LittleJerry (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Very well-researched article. I'm impressed. As a general glance, refs #14, 76 and 96 are dead.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. I have replaced the dead references with living ones! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just picked a single paragraph and found several issues, which makes me think this article needs quite a bit more work - here's what I found in just that single paragraph, for now:
    • tail with dorsal and ventral fins: too technical (and not even wikilinked!), better to say "fins extending upwards and downwards from the backbone" - "spine" might still be acceptable if backbone is felt to be too Anglosaxon.
    • There are fifteen species of obligate neotenic salamanders, including Necturus, Proteus and Amphiuma,: Those are not species.
    • The northwestern salamander (Ambystoma gracile) is one of these and, depending on environmental factors, either remains permanently in the larval state, a condition known as neoteny, or transforms into an adult. [..] The adult tiger salamander is terrestrial, but the larva is aquatic and able to breed while still in the larval state.: It is never stated whether the A. gracile permanent larva is also reproductive.
    • Neoteny occurs when the animal's growth rate is very low. This is usually because of adverse conditions, such as low water temperatures that may inhibit the production of thyroxine or prevent the larva from reacting to the hormone in the normal way.: Sceptical of the way this proximate mechanism is presented as the final explanation. If continued development in the described conditions were advisable, the biochemistry of the salamander should have changed to accommodate this. It is likely that an excess production of thyroxine during cold periods would incur starvation by devoting too much energy to development at times when food is scarce - peer reviewed literature can likely be found on this. Highly unsuitable in this context is the use of the word "normal" - since the thyroxine response is consistently programmed across individuals of a population, there is nothing abnormal about it - "usual" would be more acceptable, but even better would be something like, reacting to the hormone as at higher temperatures.. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I have clarified "species".
4. I have deleted "in the normal way".
I do not have access to the references to check on points 1. & 3. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Rephrased and wikilinked.
3. Added this information and an extra reference.
4. It seems that it is not so much that thyroxine production is inhibited but more that the tissues react differently to the hormone. I have rephrased this bit and added a useful new source. You may have chosen a single paragraph on which to comment, but I think the subject of neoteny and paedomorphosis is a particularly difficult topic and this article covers it in considerably greater depth than does the article on salamanders. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm slowly working my way through it, but I'm going to put up some comments for now.

  • There are some issues with the language in certain sections where it strays out of the passive voice. Particularly where there is reference to males and females often overusing "he" and "she" which makes it sound like a children's story rather than an encyclopaedia article. We aren't talking about specific individuals, but the entire sex of certain species or taxa. I have cleaned up some of this, but not all.
I will work on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes as you requested. However, the section "Parental care" is full of references to his and her behaviour and I do not think it would be sensible to change these. My main source of inspiration for this section, the Stebbins book, uses these pronouns when discussing the care of the young. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue with them being used, I just didn't like their overuse in some sections. Thanks for the change. --liquidGhoul (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This frog lives in fast-flowing streams and internal fertilisation will prevent the sperm from being washed away before fertilisation occurs."
    • This implies that they lay directly after mating but they actually mate in late summer and lay in early spring, which suggests another cause. Also, thousands of species lay in fast flowing streams (much faster than the streams where I saw Ascaphus) without the need for internal fertilisation.
This is the reason given by the source. I have added a further sentence to explain that the sperm may be retained by the female. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photos need improvement, particularly the lead photo which has the back of a poison dart frog on paper-towel, a barely visible toad and an absolutely terrible photo of a caecilian. Somebody needs to trawl through Flickr and ask for some photographers to release good caecilian photos on applicable licences because they're basically not available on wiki. Otherwise, there are plenty of better frog/toads shots around and even the salamander could be improved. I think the Italian Crested Newt photo should also be replaced with something better. This isn't a reason to reject this article, but for a subject so broad there needs to be more featured picture quality photos in the article. --liquidGhoul (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what can be done about the images. The lead compilation was made to replace one that had been there historically because I gather the previous one had problems with sourcing. I will consult our image "expert". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the Italian Crested Newt image. Many of the images are selected because the specific amphibian they represent is mentioned in the text. This limits the range of images that are available. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will make a new image later today, the present one was found on Commons to replace the former one which was unsourced. A new image would need to have an image of one of the extinct groups as well in my opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about this?[29] An anuran (no "toads", since they're not a clade), a salamander, a caecilian, and a member of an extinct group (the specimen is often figured in the literature). The two on the left are featured images, the two on the right are pretty good also. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like the collage, thank you. I attempted, uunsuccessfully to add "alt text" to it. How can this be done in the context of the taxobox? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The parameter is called "image_alt". Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 07:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, it's much better and I love the inclusion of an extinct group --liquidGhoul (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just reviewed another paragraph and found a similar number of issues, some of which are now somewhat addressed (by me). Principally, it's not clear to me that it's the article's job to give a brain morphology 101. What it does need to do is clearly state what is unique about amphibians as opposed to their ancestors and descendants (i.e. their fellow branchers that are now differently classified as reptiles and then again, etc. - if there is an omniscient higher power, he/she/it knows that I hate paraphyletic taxa). So anyway, there needs to be greater selectivity and more relevance in that section. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help in improving the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only high frequency sounds like mating calls are heard in this way but low frequency noises can be detected through another mechanism. There is a patch of specialized haircells, called papilla amphibiorum, in the inner ear capable of detecting deeper sounds. Another feature unique to amphibians is the columella-operculum complex, adjoining the auditory capsule, which is involved in the transmission of both airborne and seismic signals. The ears of salamanders and caecilians are less highly developed than frogs as they do not normally communicate with each other through the medium of sound. Can we just confirm that none of the adaptations described are unique of frogs? Because if they are, this is the wrong article for them. Samsara (FA • FP) 03:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! Turning to my invaluable Stebbins I find that both frogs and salamanders are unique in having columella. These are equivalent to the stapes ossicle in higher vertebrates. I have adjusted the article text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. What makes http://amphibiaweb.org/index.html a high quality reliable source?
  2. Likewise http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=amphibian?
  3. And http://www.michellecaldwell.com/linkfiles/scaredcricket/index.html?
  4. And http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/prehistoric-amphibians.htm?
  5. Ref 16 (Crump) needs a publisher. Repeats as a source for ref 76, needs fixing there too.
  6. Ref 17 (Zug) needs a page number
  7. Ref 28 (Badger and Netherton) appears to be a children's book, what makes this a high quality reliable source?
  8. Ref 35 (Benton) needs a page number
  9. What makes http://www.arkive.org/chinese-giant-salamander/andrias-davidianus/ a high quality reliable source?
  10. What makes http://www.lookd.com/frogs/index.html (ref 49) a high quality reliable source? It also lacks a publisher and author.
  11. Current ref 51 goes to some personal blog - http://www.amphibanat.org/
  12. Same problem with ref 52 as with 49 right above - what makes it reliable and lacks author and publisher.
  13. Current ref 57 http://staff.tuhsd.k12.az.us/gfoster/standard/bamphib.htm appears to be a school project/teaching notes/something. What makes this reliable?
  14. ref 78 (Duellman) looks borked somehow - has a "work=Encyclopaedia" field showing.
  15. What makes http://pages.uoregon.edu/titus/herp_old/neoteny.htm a high quality reliable source? (current ref 84)
  16. What makes http://www.herpfrance.com/ a high quality reliable source?
  17. What makes http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Fossilgroups/Amphibia/characters.html a high quality reliable source?
  18. Ref 135 is a PhD dissertation - needs formatting as such so it's clear that's what it is.
  19. Why is ref 136 (Regier) got sooo much in the link? I think something got borked there.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. According to this page, "AmphibiaWeb was created in conjunction with the Digital Library Project at the University of California, Berkeley." Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but who is responsible for the content? Are the articles written by experts or students? We're looking for a high quality sources at FAC, not just plain reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AmphibiaWeb - "Species accounts are being added regularly by specialists and volunteers". Each species account is fully referenced. If one is trying to write a comprehensive article on Amphibians, one would be lost without AmphibiaWeb. Scientific papers on a species may tell one all sorts of detailed information on obscure topics but for the background information on the species, one turns to AmphibiaWeb, itself gleaned from the published literature. I believe AmphibiaWeb is a reliable source. It was used in my FAs Frog and Common toad without any queries. See this Species account for an example. If you were to disallow AmphibiaWeb I guess I would withdraw this FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. According to this page, the writer "is a historian, author, journalist and lecturer based in Lancaster, Pa." Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes her a reliable source per WP:SPS though? We'd expect her to be an expert in the field - but it doesn't sound like she's an expert in biology, much less amphibians. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an etymological dictionary (book) which gives the origin of the word "Amphibian". I removed the Etymology section and incorporated the information in the Classification section, new reference 12. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. I have replaced this unreliable source by a Google Book chapter by Robert L. Carroll, author of a number of books on vertebrate palaeontology. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. According to this page, the author, "Bob Strauss is a freelance writer and book author; one of his specialties is explaining scientific concepts and discoveries to both a lay and professional audience." Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, though, we're looking for high quality sources at FAC. I would expect experts here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced this with the same book source as 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5. I have reformatted both these under "cite journal". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6. Page number not known so I replaced this with another paper by Blackburn, D.C. (California Academy of Sciences) and Wake, D.B. (University of California, Berkeley) both of whom have many publications in this sphere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7. So Amazon categorizes it (Badger & Netherton) as a "children's book". So what? The information is accurate. Indeed the article's text that the reference supports is well known among zoologists and isn't controversial at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, though, we're looking for high quality sources at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a children's book - I had it out from the library general Biology section. The information provided is not controversial and I can source it from elsewhere if required. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced this source with a TOLweb page written by David Cannatella and Anna Graybeal of the University of Texas. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8. This is a single web page so no page number is needed. The author is the Professor of Vertebrate Palaeontology, University of Bristol, with many papers on vertebrates and palaeontology to his name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number has changed .. it's now 34 - (that's why I said "Benton" after it, so if the numbers changed slightly, it'd be possible to find it.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't provide a page number so I have replaced the source by the appropriate AmphibiaWeb page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9. According to this page, "ARKive is created and run by the charity Wildscreen. Our team of dedicated and creative people based in Bristol, UK and Washington D.C., USA, is made up of passionate scientists, technology gurus and social media whizzes." Half of their staff have zoological degrees. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the articles you're using written by experts on the subjects though? Or just someone with a bachelor's in zoology? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could source this well-known fact from other sources such as AmphiiaWeb, the IUCN or Stebbins but I thought it was desirable to have a wide range of sources. You will find that ARKive species accounts are referenced and have a statement of authentication from an expert. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I"ll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than leave this to other, probably unresponsive, reviewers, I have replaced the reference with one from AmphibiaWeb. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10. I guess it's not a high quality reliable source. I have rephrased this sentence and replaced the reference, - Stebbins again.[1] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11. This reference has gone AWOL. The information to which it referred was superfluous and I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12. I guess it's not a high quality reliable source. I have rewritten this part using a zoology textbook.[2] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13. Its teaching notes from Desert Vista High School, Phoenix, Arizona. I have replaced the reference with one from a more reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What replaced it? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My Stebbins book.[3] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

14. I have fixed the reference (Duellman). Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What replaced it? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This reference, now 77, was reformatted slightly and now looks OK to me. Is there still a problem with it? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, totally misread this, yes, you got it right first time. Sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15. According to this page, the information is "Presented by the University of Oregon Biology Department" and "Supervised by Dr. Tom Titus". Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Titus though? Is he a subject matter expert? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Titus has a number of published papers on reptiles and amphibians. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16. I have replaced this reference with one from a more reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What replaced it? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AmphibiaWeb Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

17. Because it's from the University of Bristol. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is responsible for the content though? Is it a subject matter expert or is it some random grad student studying reptiles instead of amphibians? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this reference (a student project). The whole of the paragraph is covered by the Stebbins reference at the end of the paragraph. "Who is this Stebbins?" do I hear you ask? Well, he is/was the Emeritus Professor of Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley and Emeritus Curator in Herpetology at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

18. Fixed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19. Trimmed a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I numbered the list for ease of replying. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Stebbins, Robert C. (1995). A Natural History of Amphibians. Princeton University Press. pp. 10–11. ISBN 0-691-03281-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Dorit, R. L. (1991). Zoology. Saunders College Publishing. p. 847. ISBN 0-03-030504-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Stebbins, Robert C. (1995). A Natural History of Amphibians. Princeton University Press. p. 100. ISBN 0-691-03281-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)


, neither of which features is found elsewhere in the animal kingdom. - strikes my ears as an odd - I'd try ", neither of these features (being) found elsewhere in the animal kingdom."
Rearranged Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Anura subsection, the three isolated sentences and a preceding bit I have converted into a second paragraph. Maybe a sentence descriptor on the first two suborders would make it less listy.
I have expanded this paragraph a little more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The order Caudata (from the Latin cauda meaning "tail") consists of the salamanders—elongated, low-slung animals that mostly resemble lizards in form, though this is a symplesiomorphic trait and the two groups are no more closely related than salamanders are to mammals - confused. Two groups = caudata and anura?
Confusion cleared up Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss something - does it mention the largest amphibian that ever existed? Some info on this would be good in the article, and possibly as a few words in the lead to contrast the size of it compared with the Chinese salamander.
I have added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. I'll take another look today as it's a big and important article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference nitpicks by Sasata (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. don't need access dates for journal articles
  • 4 & 24. title case or sentence case for book titles? Why is editor abbreviated as "(Ed.)" here, but earlier (#1) as "ed."?
  • 5. 57 pages is a wide page range to hunt for a fact, could you supply a specific page number?
  • 7. The publication year should be February 2006, not 2011 (see bottom, "Citing this page")
  • 9. check stray capitalization
  • 10. missing a fullstop after last author initial
  • 13. check capitalization
  • 18. missing editor designation
  • 19. Rebert->Robert
  • 21. author format different; publication year not consistent with what's on web page (check throughout for other instances from ToL web project) Also, check throughout for capitalization consistency of "Tree of Life Web Project".
  • the "A Natural History of Amphibians" source is repeated unnecessarily 18 times. Please check the article Psilocybe aztecorum as an example of an easy way to multiply cite the same book. You could also use sfn-style referencing to do this. Similar situation with the 1991 Zoology reference.
  • 30. author format
  • 32. missing space in author initials. JSTOR and doi lead to same location, only 1 required
  • 33. clicking on linked article title leads to journal homepage (not helpful)
  • 41. double period
  • 42. double period, ed. format. If you're giving the authors of a chapter, should give the title of the chapter too.
  • 45. double period
  • 52. redundant jstor/doi (check refs throughout)
  • 66. is this a book chapter? If so, it should should be formatted as such.
  • 67. sentence/title case?
  • 70. There was a discussion a year or so ago about ARKive as a RS when they donated a bunch of species pages to help fill out Wikipedia articles (I don't have a link); I think they aren't high-quality enough for FAC (note also their caveat "This information is awaiting authentication by a species expert, and will be updated as soon as possible. If you are able to help please contact: …"). Should replace this if possible.
  • 71. page range format. open access icon probably better at the end of the citation (instead of the end of the title). Is this source really the only one that's OA?
  • 72. add "School of Life Sciences" to publisher field
  • 73. double period
  • 78. journal publisher not required
  • 79. missing volume#, stray capitalization in title
  • 81. double period; parentheses, not curly braces
  • 89. needs full page range
  • 90. why not give Martha's full name? Also, should this not be formatted as a book chapter?
  • 91. extra space after Charles W.
  • 110.title/sentence case; no publisher for journals; incorrect volume#, missing issue#
  • 111. unclear what kind of source this is. Thesis? If so, use cite thesis template and indicate degree type and educational institution.
  • 115. double period
  • 117. check page range formatting (stray colon)
  • 118. missing author
  • 125. ditch publisher
  • 128. title/sentence case?
  • 129. double period
  • 131. use cite thesis template, and give institution; remove accessdate
  • 132. format as book chapter
  • Thank you. I will work my way through the list, starting at the end in case reference numbers change. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have done all these except:
  • 5. Its a long paper and I don't have access to its contents to pin the pages down more accurately.
  • 91. I'm not sure what you mean here.
I fixed it. – Maky « talk » 00:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Natural History of Amphibians" and "Zoology". I will look into recording these references differently tomorrow as I have to stop now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • References to these two books are now reformatted using "sfn". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reference formatting looks fine to me now; feel free to move the nitpick list to archive talk if you want to clear up some room here. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Review by Maky

  • Many of images have very simple captions, just specifying the name of the species and sometimes where/when it was found. This isn't a requirement, but I suggest more meaningful captions when/where possible. For exmaple: "Triadobatrachus massinoti from the Early Triassic of Madagascar" -> "Triadobatrachus from the Early Triassic of Madagascar is the earliest known frog." Granted, since it's not mentioned in the text, a source would be needed for that. (And, actually, the article later talks about an even earlier "proto-frog", but this was just an example.) Hopefully that gives an idea. Basically, I think it's a good idea to have images and their captions speak for themselves. The hope is that it will draw the readers in... because, let's face it, most people just read the lead and look at the pictures.
  • In the lead, I find it odd that you link "New Guinea frog", especially since the Wiki article for the species doesn't give a common name. Maybe say: "The smallest vertebrate in the world is a frog from Papua New Guinea (Paedophryne amauensis)..."
  • I find it odd that batrachology points to this article, whereas most branches of science receive their own article. I suggest creating a stub and linking the first use of the word in the article. Otherwise you might want to make the first mention bold so that people who search for "batrachology" on Wiki can see why they got redirected to this article.
  • In the "Evolution" section, why is Labyrinthodontia considered the "main article"? I know they were a grade of primitive amphibians, but the information seems misplaced. I would think that the main article would be an article entitled Evolutionary history of amphibians. I know it's beyond the scope of this FAC to fix up related articles, but for now, maybe you could create the suggested article and redirect it to the specific location within Labyrinthodontia that discusses amphibian evolution. Then when you or someone else has time, the proper article could be organized and written, extracting much of the more general information from the article on Labyrinthodontia. Also, another good article for a "main article" would be Evolutionary history of tetrapods, in case you're up for pursuing this someday.
  • "They developed "hands" and "feet" with five digits..." – I don't know if it's worth mentioning (or saving for an "Evolutionary history of amphibians" article), but I thought there were some interesting recent finds showing that early tetrapods didn't always have limbs with five digits. Some had many more than five. Your thoughts?
  • There are duplicate links for "million years ago".
  • "...though some, such as Ichthyostega, may have sometimes hauled themselves out of the water." – Is this still the latest view? I remember some considerable debate about early tetrapods and their ability to walk on land. Anyway, the source states that it if Ichthyostega did come onto land, it would have used it's front limbs to pull itself along and would have dragged its hindquarters. Given the common misconceptions about early tetrapods, it might be worth clarifying this point early on. I would bet that most readers would read the quote above and a cumbersome tetrapod slowly walking out of the water on four legs.
  • "...provided food for the carnivorous amphibians that began to emerge from the waters." – Maybe I'm overly sensitive on language because of perpetuating misconceptions about various stages in evolution, but I would suggest phrasing this: "...provided food for the carnivorous amphibians that began to adapt to the terrestrial environment." There's technically nothing wrong with what you wrote. To me, "emerge from the waters" sounded like there is some deliberate, inevitable direction with evolution (moving from fish towards us). Maybe this was inevitable given all the preadaptations evolved for the low-oxygen, freshwater environment. Anyway, I'm not saying that you were suggesting this, but instead, this is how I could see readers interpreting it. Again, I'm nitpicking, so maybe it's fine as is. Your thoughts?
  • "the divergence of the three groups took place in the Paleozoic or early Mesozoic." – Can an approximate date be given in parentheses (~252 mya)?
  • "They needed to develop new means of locomotion to replace the sideways thrusts of their tails that had been used for swimming." – Was this adaptation (change in locomotion) made by amphibians? The sideways flexing of the spine is still used in reptiles and most amphibians that I know of. Just think of a snake gliding along or a lizard running. Granted, they're not using the tail, but the movement of the spine didn't change until much later. Maybe a brief clarification is needed.
  • The article talks about the complicated cladistics of amphibian classification, but why is there no mention of amphibians being a paraphyletic group?
  • "The oldest known caecilian is Eocaecilia micropodia, also from Arizona..." – When?
  • "Practical considerations seem to favour using the former arrangement." – What practical considerations?
  • Link first mention of Albanerpetontidae.
  • The article uses the term "cold-blooded" several times. Why not mention the word ectotherm (in parentheses with a link)? Even in the lead, I personally would prefer to see "cold-blooded" (unlinked) changed to "ectothermic" since that is more precise. In fact, I think this is what is now taught in schools. (But then again, given the state of science education, particularly in the United States......)
  • Consistency: "(from the Ancient Greek an-, without and oura, tail)" and "The order Gymnophiona (from the Greek, gymnos and ophis meaning "naked serpent") or Apoda (from the Ancient Greek an-, "without" and poda, "legs")" – Earlier, you used ancient Greek letters, and this time you don't.
I see some corrections, but not Greek letters. But it's not a huge deal. – Maky « talk » 22:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started to use the Greek letters in all of them but then could not find a source for "Anura" that used the Greek characters and reversed my previous edits. They are now consistent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scale-free skins" – singular or plural?
  • Its debatable, but I think it should be plural Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A unique feature is their ability to feed by suction using only one half of the lower jaw at a time." – I don't understand the last part of this.
  • "...although some lay their eggs on land and have developed various ingenious ways of keeping them moist." – "Ingenious"? It sounds like they planned it out.
  • Link first mentions of spermatheca and spermatophore.
  • "The extent of adaptations to specific environmental circumstances among amphibians is remarkable." – "Remarkable" doesn't sound very objective.
  • Under "Territorial behaviour", do amphibians do "push-ups" as threat displays, or is that only some reptile species?
  • "Dramatic declines in amphibian populations, including population crashes and mass localized extinction, have been noted in the past two decades..." – Starting when? This could easily become a dated statement.
  • "...over the next 5 years" – Same as above.

Aside from these relatively minor issues, this article is very well written and comprehensive. I look forward to adding my support. – Maky « talk » 19:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for reviewing this article. I have worked through the points you raise above and will now get to work on the image captions Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now edited many of the image captions along the lines you suggested. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last point: In the lead, there are several bits about the largest and smallest amphibians, as well as the names of the fields of study. Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, these should be mentioned (and cited) in the body (per WP:LEAD), thus removing the need for citations in the lead. (You can leave them there if you want.) – Maky « talk » 22:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the largest and smallest information to the appropriate section. I was at a loss where to put the information on "batrachology" so I created a small section at the end of the article called "Study". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That addresses all of my concerns. As long as the references are up to par, then I support this nomination. – Maky « talk » 11:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fixed some anchors. "Coauthors" is a deprecated parameter (Last1, first1 ...) and harv-syntax is not active by default for some (most?) citation templates (ref=harv). A very nice article on a huge topic. GermanJoe (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 08:25, 15 December 2012 [30].

Banksia aquilonia[edit]

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I hate leaving things unfinished. I promis this will be the last banksia FAC for a few months. I halted because there wasn't much written on this one, but I've managed to get everything I can find and meld it into a concise attractive article....and raced off to the botanic gardens and take some snaps this arvo to stick in the article. Short and easy and I'll answer pronto. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose from Maralia - Only one quibble: "Propagation is generally by seed, with plants flowering four to six years of age." seems to be missing a word. Otherwise looks great. Maralia (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I often get comments with "with...-ing" clauses (which I like but others don't :( ) - so reworded. thanks for the feedback :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support

*"Alex George described the plant in his 1981 monograph of the genus Banksia as a variety of Banksia integrifolia, but later reclassified as a separate species." - Is that George who reclassified it or was it reclassified separately by another means? Also is there a missing "it" or any other descriptive word missing between "reclassified" and "as"?

Yikes! The "it" disappeared somehow. George did both actions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting little article. -- CassiantoTalk 11:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see another. A few quick thoughts-

  • "Furry at first, they become smooth with age and open when ripe,[2] the two half-oval valves splitting to release the one or two seeds contained therein.[4]" Odd construction
(what have all you folks got against participles anyway.... :)) Tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "distinctive enough for it to be considered a species distinct" Repetition
I reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming the variants are not recognised as distinct taxa?
Correct. I best I can do to not stray from sources is not that no subspecies are recognised. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no intermediate plants between B. aquilonia and B. integrifolia." This is odd, as the name "B. aquilonia" presumably did not exist at this time?
I was lazy - reworded now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "case has since been held up as an interesting case" Repetition
I reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banksia aquilonia grouped in a clade with B. plagiocarpa, B. oblongifolia and B. robur" That is an odd use of the verb "group"; I think it says what is (I assume) intended, but perhaps consider rephrasing?
I reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those little points, it's looking good. I made some tiny tweaks. J Milburn (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although the inflorescences... as in all B. integrifolia subspecies — I wasn't sure until I reached the end of the long sentence which species was being described.
Being too economical with prose...clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • hence location is helpful in assisting identification — not sure you need "helpful" and "assisting"
trimmed Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite initially assigning it varietal level of B. integrifolia, — is there a verb missing?
no, but clarified anyway Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found from near sea level to an altitude of 1000 m (3500 ft), it grows in a variety of habitats and aspects.[3] Found in wet sclerophyll forest or rainforest margins,[5] it can be found
found --> occurs Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (own work, map contains source info). GermanJoe (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments...minor issues:

  • Saw a little excessive use of the word "promote"...so changed a couple of those to "elevate"...maybe another word may be better.
Elevate is fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The range map indicates this is not widespread naturally...but apparently the species isn't in danger as I read it is easily cultivated. How about the ecozone the species is in? Not a deal breaker, but a short statement discussing these issues wouldn't hurt.
I'll see what I can find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the conversion templates after I saw a couple missing non-breaking space issues, but it may be better to round the imperial units in the conversion.
I'll get out the sigfig parameter to fix Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer image captions to be full sentences, though this is just a personal thing, so no big deal. Believe MOS recommends a period at end of full sentences in captions and caps at beginning of any thumbnail caption.
See, I find if I convert to full sentences, it often makes the caption wordier than I'd like. It certainly is an easier option because we then debate whether the first word of a non-sentence caption is capitalised or not (I'd say not but others generally do) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a fan of redlinks in FAs...I'd delink from Mount Finnigan National Park unless someone wants to stub it out..MONGO 16:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redlinks in FAs are fine. Better to have a redlink than it be unlinked, if it's a topic worthy of an article... J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aaah found it. It was enlarged and renamed as Cedar Bay National Park. The Queensland government was adept at creating hundreds of tiny national parks rather than larger joined-up ones, and criticised by environmentalists previously. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cool...a cursory search from my end yielded only a peakbagger stub of Mount Finnigan.MONGO 20:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support...my minor quibbles seemed to have been addressed.MONGO 16:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 08:25, 15 December 2012 [31].

Joseph Grimaldi[edit]

Nominator(s): CassiantoTalk 13:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The actor Joseph Grimaldi is perhaps best known for his invention of the modern day white-face clown. His portrayal and design of the pantomime character Clown made it into a leading role in the Harlequinade from his day forward and was one of the most important British theatrical designs of the last three hundred years. He was a prolific performer in Christmas pantomimes and Harlequinades of the early 1800s, and he became associated with some of the biggest and most extravagant theatres of the day, including the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. Despite his success, his stage career was plagued by injury and then ill health, leading to his early retirement and depression in later years. Having worked on the article for many months, and after a peer review and GA review, I now feel that it meets all of the required criteria to be considered featured content and would gladly invite any comments (or custard pies) one would have to offer. -- CassiantoTalk 13:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as contributor. I have done extensive copy-editing, as well as some research, for this article and helped Cassianto to respond to the peer review. I believe that it now satisfies the FA criteria and congratulate Cassianto on his fine work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a superb article, well written and thoroughly researched and which meets the criteria for FA status in my opinion. Jack1956 (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, a huge thanks SS for making this FAC possible with all your help and guidence and to Jack for providing Grimaldis "too weak to stand" image. It's great that the article has your support. -- CassiantoTalk 11:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - mostly OK (PD-old or similar), author and source provided. Some comments and a minor issue:

  • Hi, all images were checked and checked again by Crisco 1492 during the peer review and I don't think the pd-art issue was even mentioned. With that in mind, I went to the link you provided but it is dead so I couldn't read up on it. Also, I know some could be moved to commons (I don't know how to do this), but it's not important for FAC so I won't chase up experts this early on. If you know and have time, then please feel free. -- CassiantoTalk 11:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Fixed the link) The commons move is not required, as already mentioned above it was a mere information for further improvement. GJ 12:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • further to the pd-art concern, I have gone through the images, using the commons guideline, and added the art tag to those images that fitted within the guidelines. I think I caught them all but you may wish to check and report back. Thanks for reviewing. -- CassiantoTalk 13:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I've watched the progress of this article from the sidelines, and am impressed. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is comprehensive but not discursive; the documentation is thorough and wide ranging; the prose is good; and the illustrations are spot-on. A fine article; I am very pleased to add my support for its elevation. – Tim riley (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Likewise Tim, thanks for all your advice over the last few months. Your support means a lot. -- CassiantoTalk 13:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - looking good, an enchanting read. Will jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although jubilant at the birth of his first son, Giuseppe Grimaldi spent little time with Brooker, living mostly with Perry, but probably maintaining other mistresses as well - the "but" doesn't strike me as contrastive where it is, so I'd think an "and" was better....
Done. -- CassiantoTalk 13:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sustained his first known major injury while performing at Sadler's Wells in 1785. -as a doctor I was curious to know what the injury was...
I have rechecked Findlater who states: "One evening, when this feat was in the act of performance, the chain broke, and he was hurled a considerable distance into the pit, fortunately without sustaining the slightest injury – for he was flung into the arms of an old gentleman who was sitting gazing at the stage with intense interest." Since corrected. -- CassiantoTalk 13:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is a very well-prepared article. I gave it a long peer review, and I was by no means the only hand active at PR. The issues raised by me and others were adequately addressed, and I have no doubt that the article meets the criteria now. Too late for TFA on this year's birthday, but I'm sure other opportunties will arise. Would this be the first clown to grace the main page? (think carefully before answering) Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comments at peer review were an essential part of the articles development and I cannot thank you enough for that. Your support here is very much appreciated. -- CassiantoTalk 16:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton, I am sure there have been lots of clowns on the main page - possibly all of them politicians.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a fairly in depth peer review. Based on the changes since, I have a few comments:

  • Grimaldi originated the Clown catchphrase "Here we are again!", which is still used by pantomime Clowns - What's with the capital Cs?
Corrected. -- CassiantoTalk 11:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clown with a capital C means the character in the Harlequinade called "Clown". All the characters in the Harlequinade are different kinds of clowns, but only one is called "Clown". It is a proper noun. I'll restore it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along with Bologna, he re-appeared briefly at Sadler's Wells where he gave some acting instruction to the eighteen-year-old William Payne, who became a well-known mime artist and was father of the Payne Brothers. - That's a little too extended. You should cut back some detail on Payne.
Trimmed. -- CassiantoTalk 11:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes It's Behind You a good EL? Clowns Gallery & Museum is a dead link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, deleted. I have replaced it with a British Museum link and tidied the others. After some research, I have decided to reinstate this 11 year old website based on the following findings:

TheFreeLibrary says: "Another resource you may wish to try is an excellent website devoted to the development of pantomime and its roots in music-hall tradition. Click on www.its-behind-you.com." See this, this and this. Other praise includes: this, and this, but perhaps most reliable of all is this, which is taken from Exeter University Library and is widely used in studies there. -- CassiantoTalk

I've used this as a reference in the article, so moved it out of ELs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments Crisco and for your invaluable input at peer review. -- CassiantoTalk 11:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and images, per my comments here and at PR. Very well put-together article, glad to see it. Hope we have an actual clown on the MP soon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support. The article is quite thorough and well written. Apart from some minor grammatical errors, I only have two complaints. First, the article is a bit tedious and overly detailed in parts. There are numerous places where it could be more concise without losing the essential narrative of the article. I'll leave it to your judgement where to trim, but some examples that stuck out to me were short digressions or random details such as the following unnecessary sentences:

  • The production, like Peter Wilkins, also featured two adult Harlequins, two Columbines and a female Pantaloon.
Deleted. -- CassiantoTalk 20:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later in 1810, Grimaldi appeared in Birmingham in a benefit performance in aid of his sister-in-law, who had been forced into early retirement as a result of the riots the previous year.
Trimmed. -- CassiantoTalk 20:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • During a benefit in October 1814, Grimaldi fell ill and was housebound for four months.
Kept, as I feel this is important to show the start of his real decline in health. -- CassiantoTalk 20:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In December, Grimaldi's friend, mentor and former father-in-law, Richard Hughes, died at home while Grimaldi was in mid-season performing in pantomime.
Trimmed. -- CassiantoTalk 20:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The production transferred to the Haymarket Theatre where it completed its run.
Kept, to prevent one guessing where the production ended up, did it finish? Did it continue? Where? Etc... -- CassiantoTalk 20:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are just some examples, and you may not agree with them. There were also some sections that perhaps could have been summarized rather than presented in detail such as his falling out with Thomas Dibdin or the biography of Grimaldi's father. Basically, I would like to see the article tightened up a bit so that we don't lose the reader's interest.

I took the liberty of trimming the info about Dibdin and Grimaldi's father a bit. I notice that Cassianto tightened up a few other points. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He did. -- CassiantoTalk 21:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, I was expecting the legacy section to mention something about his influence on the field of clowning. He seems like he must have been a fairly important clown in the history of clowns, but the legacy section doesn't really give me any idea of how he is perceived by clown historians or later generations of clowns. Perhaps I'm overestimating his importance, though. I'm not sure.

I see that Cassianto has now added some material about this to the Legacy section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, your beating me to it. Yes, all done, I hope to your liking Kaldari. -- CassiantoTalk 21:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical errors include the following:

  • "Although, Jack Bologna" should be "Although Jack Bologna"
Yes, fixed. -- CassiantoTalk 12:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It uses both "Mr. Ford's Academy" and "Mr Ford's Academy"
An excellent spot! American period removed, now consistent. -- CassiantoTalk 12:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", there is no record of him ever sending money to his father." I would use a period or semicolon here instead of a comma. Better yet, I would remove the clause entirely as it seems like an unnecessary digression.
I have used a semicolon for now as I feel it helps understand just how bad JS was towards his parents. The estranged relationship had a detrimental effect on Grimaldi's health. Anybody think differently? -- CassiantoTalk 12:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were two semicolons in the sentence, so I broke it into two sentences. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, cheers. -- CassiantoTalk 21:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, excellent work on the article and congratulations on not having your article blighted with a crufty infobox! I'm not a regular at FAC, so I may not be responsive to questions/comments here. If you need anything, just ping me on my talk page. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is looking better. I'm a bit disappointed that the new legacy section is merely a quotefarm. Perhaps some prose could be added and the quotes used as citations instead. Notably, I was expecting some elaboration on the text from the lead: "[Grimaldi] became best known for his development of the modern day white-face clown. In the early 1800s, he popularised the role of Clown in the harlequinade". Neither of these statements seem to be directly addressed in the body. Basically, I'm looking for an explanation of why Joseph Grimaldi is considered important (from a modern point of view). What influences did he make that lasted beyond his lifetime? A few quotes wouldn't hurt, but we need some sort of expert summary as to what his legacy actually was. Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The part about his development of the modern day white-face clown, is mentioned in terms of the make-up design lower down. It was really from this point that the look devolved into what is considered today as being the white-face clown. -- CassiantoTalk 14:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of my concerns have been addresses, so changing to Support. Kaldari (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for your excellent review and support. It's surprising what was missing this late on. Thank you  :) -- CassiantoTalk 10:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from GuillaumeTell
Lead
Para 3: is it wise to link to Robinson Crusoe? The article is about the book and the only reference to pantomime is buried near the bottom.
Link deleted. Or would it be better to link to the pantomime section in Robinson Crusoe? -- CassiantoTalk 19:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there isn't a pantomime section, just Robinson_Crusoe#Stage_and_film where Offenbach's Robinson Crusoé (premiered long after Grimaldi's death) gets a mention. There's no mention of Crusoe in Pantomime however - you could perhaps insert a section there and link to that? (Or to Robinsonade (?!), but perhaps not.)
I have done just that (not Robinsonade) and added a bit in the Crusoe article. Now linked to that. -- CassiantoTalk 14:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Family background
Links to harlequinade characters are all over the place - the Clown link to Harlequinade#Clown in the Lead is OK, but Pantaloon just goes to Harlequinade and it's overlinked in the first 2 paras; Harlequin and Pierrot are linked to their own articles rather than to the Harlequinade sections
Done, done and done. -- CassiantoTalk 19:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note 3, second sentence: "He encouraged Rebecca's career and secured her minor roles in various London theatres." - secured her for minor roles... or secured for her minor roles...?
He secured minor roles for her. Done. -- CassiantoTalk 19:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
Clown just links to Harlequinade
Now links to Clown. -- CassiantoTalk 19:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lodoiska: I'd add that the music was a mixture from separate operas of the same name by Rodolphe Kreutzer and Luigi Cherubini with additions by Stephen Storace. It was performed as an afterpiece (info from Grove Opera).
Thanks for that. Do you have a page number? -- CassiantoTalk 19:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, p. 1303-4, article by Jane Girdham. There's also a Lodoiska drawing by Thomas Greenwood the elder on p.533 - he was a resident scene painter at Drury Lane, died in 1797.
Great, many thanks for that GT. Now mentioned. -- CassiantoTalk 14:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the next section, Lodoiska links only to Cherubini's opera - better to delink it.
Doesn't appear to be linked :-s -- CassiantoTalk 19:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's linked in the Last years at Drury Lane section, with footnote 81. I've no idea whether this relates to the Kemble/Storace work or to the other Lodoiskas.
Got it, delinked. -- CassiantoTalk 14:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Trip to Scarborough is by Sheridan and should be linked; is Rule a Wife and Have a Wife Fletcher's 1640 play? If not, whose was it?
Now linked. Yes this was Fletcher, also linked. -- CassiantoTalk 19:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last years at Drury Lane
Copy-edited this section, complete with edit-conflict which I hope I haven't messed up. One extra comment: "Harlequin Amulet; or, The Magick of Mona, with Grimaldi as Punch, the lead clown". I think there should be a Punch link, but Punchinello and Mr Punch don't fit, and Punch doesn't appear in Harlequinade. Maybe Punch?
Done. -- CassiantoTalk 20:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Covent Garden years
More copy-editing and linking. One query: "In early 1815, Grimaldi and his son played father and son Clowns in Harlequin and Fortunio; or, Shing-Moo and Thun-Ton, the first known pantomime to feature a principal boy" - does this mean that JS was the first principal boy, in which case he doesn't count as a principal boy as we understand the term? Or was the principal boy a female - in which case, who was she?
Definatley not JS. I don't think MCS elaborates but I will check when I get in. -- CassiantoTalk 23:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Checked and Maria de Camp was the player in what was then known as a breeches role. It would evolve into the modern day principal boy role fifty years later. -- CassiantoTalk 00:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've now finished copy-editing and nit-picking and am very happy to support promotion to FA.--GuillaumeTell 18:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had my say at an earlier peer review and was happy enough with it then: since that point the article has been improved even further. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks SchroCat for your brilliant comments at peer review on a subject, which I hope you won't mind me saying, is slightly different to what your used to reviewing, and GT, for your knowledge on theatre pieces and operas which has resulted in some late but invaluable additions to the article. -- CassiantoTalk 23:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spotchecks

  • Checks of online sources found no close paraphrasing or verifiability issues
  • McConell or McConnell, Scott or Stott?
  • FN45: full citation?
  • Mayer or Mayers?
  • Where author and date are available (ex. FNs 181 and 178), it's good practice to include them
  • Mayer: where in Massachusetts?
  • Location for Thomson?
Support Comments by Blofeld
"The Drury Lane season ran from September to the late spring , and Sadler's Wells played from 15 April to the second week in October." Confused which year you are referring to September 1781 or September 1782 to Spring 1783, or every season it ran from September to the late spring and 15 April to October you mean 1782? - please clarify.
  • Every year, although which year this ceased (if it has) I don't know. I expect the seasons are slightly different nowadays. -- CassiantoTalk 15:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Grimaldi originated the catchphrase "Here we are again!", which is still used in pantomime.[57][58] He also was known for the mischievous catchphrase "Shall I?", which prompted audience members to respond "Yes!"" That's very notable I'd say and worthy of mentioning in the lead.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioned, although is it that notable enough to be mentioned within the first para? -- CassiantoTalk 15:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that "Here we are again" is worthy of the LEAD. Less sure of "Shall I", in the Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree. Dr. B, any objections to removing "Shall I" as "Here we are again" is more well known. -- CassiantoTalk 18:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh both are annual I see. Strange for same dates every year that's all as some days could be Sundays etc. Here we go again is fine both. Definitely a thoroughly enjoyable and satisfactory read and worthy of FA status, I can see how much work and time has gone into this. You have my support.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm middle-aged, well-traveled, and well-read and have never heard either of those phrases in my entire life. Perhaps they are of more relevance to Brits (or Euros)? Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Here we are again!" is still used in British pantomime 200 years after Grimaldi coined it. Every Christmas, the most prestigious British theatres stage elaborate pantomimes, and we in America know almost nothing about it! Here is a listing of 20 pantomimes being produced in London alone this holiday season. In the 19th century, pantomime was even more popular and was given year-round in some theatres. I remember finding out about pantomime on perhaps my third or fourth trip to the U.K. Kaldari, we should really feel quite ashamed of ourselves! Thanks to this article, we get a chance, perhaps, to educate a few of our countrymen. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes -- Ten supports in barely a week, I wonder if this is a record. Anyway, it's always nice to see clear consensus arising from thoughtful reviews. Couple of things in the lead, though:

  • It doesn't seem to have bothered others but I'm a bit dubious about a quote in the first sentence, especially when it's not particularly memorable in itself, nor from a particularly notable (though reliable) source. Did you use it because you wanted to convey his place among the entertainers of his era, and couldn't put it into sufficiently different words to avoid our close paraphrasing guidelines?
  • I converted the quote into a regular sentence. I think it avoids any "close paraphrasing" problem, even though it uses several words from the quote, because they are simply an assertion of fact. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his last years, Grimaldi was living in relative obscurity and became a depressed alcoholic living in poverty." -- can we avoid repetition of "living in"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a stab at restating that. Feel free to rewrite, Cassianto. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it looks all good to me. A big thank you to everyone who has taken part in this FAC and who have helped out on the article. I am ecstatic that all the hard work has eventually paid off with Joey's promotion to FA. -- CassiantoTalk 09:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:13, 9 December 2012 [32].

Pale Crag Martin[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only seven swallow FAs, must be time for another one! Unlike my last two FACs, this species isn't (a) extinct or (b) restricted to war-torn Congo, so there's a bit more content than in those articles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Maralia This looks great. I fixed a few typos. There were a couple of bits that I didn't quite understand:

  • The second paragraph of the taxonomy section was a tough read for me. I think the numbers were part of the cause—first four species, then three groupings, and then a separate list of four at the end. Not sure how to improve this.
  • And this is a simplified version of the tricky taxonomy of this group! I've tweaked a little and removed one of the numbers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the next paragraph ("The genus Ptyonoprogne is closely related to the larger swallow genus Hirundo, but a DNA analysis showed that a coherent enlarged Hirundo genus should contain all the mud-builder genera.") also threw me. It seemed like maybe 'and' would be more appropriate than 'or', but on second thought I'm not sure I understand it at all.
  • I've rewritten this with shorter sentences and, I hope, a clearer exposition of the ideas Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider moving the wikispecies & commons links higher up on the page since they're more relevant than the navigation templates that precede them. The picture of the eggs could use an alt text description, too. An excellent article; well done! Maralia (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Crisco 1492
  • Why do some files show Ptyonoprogne obsoleta and others show Ptyonoprogne fuligula? These are different categories too.
  • Thanks for the image review. Taking the last point first, Pale Crag Martin Ptyonoprogne obsoleta was formerly often considered to be a subspecies of the Rock Martin Ptyonoprogne fuligula, but more recently it has become usual to split it as a separate species, including by the International Ornithological Committee which is the Bird Project's taxonomy standard. That's why I've written this FAC, because all the other genus members are GA or FA already. File:Ptyonoprogne fuligula 1894.jpg is definitely a Rock Martin, unfortunately wrong species, and as you probably realise there is nothing else free. The change in taxonomy also explains why the files have different binomial names, and why the definite Pale Crag Martin in Egypt has the "old" binomial. I put in the Aswan image because it's a martin's eye view of a city mentioned in one of the sources. It's not essential, so if it becomes an issue, it's easy to remove. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed prose comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • Support on prose and images. A solid, readily comprehensible article on a topic I'm sure many people would not know about otherwise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for support, I'll have to write more swallow articles ;) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Support, very nice. I made a few small changes. One comment-

  • "The argasid tick Hyalomma marginatum was found in nests on a sarcophagus and an ancient tomb in Egypt. This tick has been implicated in the transmission of Bahig virus, a pathogenic arbovirus previously thought to be transmitted by mosquitoes.[40]" Presumably, this is a virus which affects the Pale Crag Martin? It's not clear what this section has to do with the article subject.
  • I've tried to tweak this a bit. The point is that this virus was formally though to be spread only by mosquitoes. Its presence in ticks in the Pale Crag Martin nests suggests that it could also be transmitted via bird-borne ticks. I'm wary of spelling this out because it comes close to OR by synthesis Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Other than that, very strong. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Ref 15: Space needed after "Rose"
  • Ref 31: needs more specific publisher information than "Desert cave project", which does not seem to be the name of an organisation
  • You may want to add the OCLC for the Baker 1926 book. It's 312198707
  • In the Cited texts section the publication year is missing from Harris et al

No spotchecks carried out. Subject to the above minor fixes, sources and citations look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review and the OCLC. I've fixed the technical bits, not sure about the Desert Cave Project. It's the title for all the www.saudicaves.com web pages, and I've linked through to the home page in the ref. Who are we shows it's a stand-alone website, but the bird page I've referenced in the article is written by Michael Jennings, author of Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Arabia (see "Cited texts"), and publisher of the Phoenix journal of Arabian birds, so you can't get a more authoritative source. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]


Support. Well-written and appears to cover all the major aspects of the topic. Ucucha (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Reads good, and I couldn't think of anything to add in the text. There's still the lack of images showing the upper part of the bird itself, which is a bit of a shame. How about this drawing?[33] Other than that, I found this[34], which is kind of useless though. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review and support, I've moved the Sharpe image to the taxobox and the previous taxobox image to Feeding, The Flickr image isn't really good enough to use Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that's what I'm talking about! I fixed the tag for you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 00:38, 9 December 2012 [35].

Strepsirrhini[edit]

Nominator(s): – Maky « talk » 10:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC requirements. The article is a top priority article for WikiProject Primates, and covers one of the two major suborders within the order. Most importantly, the article addresses many common misconceptions about the "lower primates" (as they have sometimes been called). I will admit that the article was very challenging to write, especially since most of the sources conflicted due to a lack of agreement on terminology. In some cases, this inconsistency resulted in incorrect statements in the sources, and even contradictory information on the same page. Because I was starting to have the same problems on other lower-level Wikipedia articles (such as Toothcomb), I felt it was time to address these issues and adopt the one popular taxonomy which gives a formal clade name to the living strepsirrhines (lemuriforms). (To read more about this taxonomic mess and my proposal to fix it, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates#Opinions needed: Infraorders within Strepsirrhini.) Anyway, I'm eager to see any concerns people might have, but otherwise it should be neutral and written in a language that is accessible (and accurate) to both primatology and paleoanthropology. (I also have plans to re-write Prosimian soon, in which I will elaborate more on the history of that term as well as the anatomical differences that led to that popular distinction. Furthermore, I also plan to create a distinct article entitled "Lemuriformes" soon, removing the redirect to Lemur. Once that is done, I plan to add a link from this article.) – Maky « talk » 10:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all images are OK (CC, own work, PD-old-100, USGov) and contain source and author info, except one (Done):

I have fixed up much of the description box info on the image, and it does appear that the image is in the public domain due to an expired copyright (although one library in London has listed their copy as CC-BY-NC 2.0 so that they can sell it). The image was created in 1842, which was 170 years ago, so the copyright expired almost exactly 100 years after it was created. I think it's safe to say that the author was dead by that point, even though we don't know their name. If you can suggest a better permissions tag, I would appreciate it. – Maky « talk » 11:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional information. According to the hosting website (publication info is well hidden in the image data) the image was published in 19th century, so PD-1923 should apply. Updated image tags and description. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I recently gave the article a thorough review during the GAN, and am confident the article meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preliminary comments
    • Article feels solid at the top and choppy at the bottom. This is because it has a lot of short sections and short paragraphs at the bottom. It seems to want fleshing out. What contributes to this is that...
    I think I said this below, but section length is constrained by what is published regarding this broad category of primates. Needless to say, there is a ton of information about their classification and anatomy (since those used to go hand-in-hand), as well as a descent amount about their behavior. Distribution and habitat is pretty general, although I may be able to add a statement about how some lemurs live in seasonal, arid environments. The conservation issues are mostly universal for primates, and I've discussed the major issues (for lemurs and lorises). – Maky « talk » 18:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Manual of style provisions for image placement are not consistently followed, particularly in that lower half of the article. Briefly:
      • Images which have a "facing" effect should be facing into the page.
      • Image placement should alternate between left and right.
      • Images should be placed below a heading only for level 2 headings, i.e. ==. In all other cases, images should displace, or be to the side of, a heading. This MOS mandate is broken in five places.
    As pointed out below, MOS:IMAGELOCATION does not require these, but instead recommends them. Even the wording seems quite flexible and dependent upon the case. I can't even find the level 2 heading material to which you refer. Anyway, I generally approve of most of your edits regarding this issue, except for the last image (deforestation). The MOS reads: "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection..." In this case, I feel this trumps the recommendation: "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left...". I would like to hear your thoughts on this before moving it back in order to avoid conflict. – Maky « talk » 18:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at Mauritius Blue Pigeon and the amphibian article from Amphibian#Caecilians on downwards to see how neat this can look. Samsara (FA • FP) 00:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, all three articles (which includes the one in this review) look nice. It all boils down to a matter of opinion, which is reflected in MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Anyway, in your examples, there are several "violations" of the "facing the text rule"... So when are these "rules" enforced, when does one "rule" override another, and why is it only being treated as mandatory for this FAC and not to the others? I'm sorry, but this is confusing me. – Maky « talk » 14:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that it's purely a question of effort to work on an article until both rules can be satisfied. Samsara (FA • FP) 20:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done my best to fix these. The second photo was low-quality to begin with and didn't look that bad as a thumbnail (after my initial edit to remove the vent in the background). Anyway, the colors seem a little better, and shadows are a little sharper. – Maky « talk » 18:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I overwrote that with a different version. It seems a marked improvement to me that way. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 04:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are my thoughts for now, there may be more later. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just FYI, the MoS says "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left" not that they should be placed so. Sasata (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I'm saying they should be. Samsara (FA • FP) 19:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look, but I find it odd that other successful FAC candidates place 100% of their images on the right without alternating. In fact, I couldn't even find this rule the last time I checked. I will double-check everything soon and try to fix the images I can. If MOS does not mandate that images be staggered a certain way, then I may opt to leave them. I will definitely try to fix the heading issue, though, if that's an issue. – Maky « talk » 11:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scent marking image is not very clear, and can easily be omitted. That will solve your layout problem. Samsara (FA • FP) 02:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand this. I can see how the image is "not clear" if you've never watched lemurs before, but with the way you've moved things around, this image is both staggered and facing the right way. Deleting it would break your staggering "rule" but not the "image can displace level 3 headers" statement. Are you just being flexible in this case and preferring to see it removed because it's unclear? – Maky « talk » 18:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have to rearrange some of the other images, which I've just done - please check that this is okay. It would be great if an unambiguous image of scent marking could be provided in the future - I'm sure such images exist, and someone might be willing to donate, if it isn't already available somewhere under an appropriate CC license. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby I've a very busy few days coming up, so it may be a while before I review properly. Just for now, there appear to be 25-30 duplicated links in the body of the article, excluding the lead, more than I am prepared to list Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't think there was any overlinking (except for repeats in the lead), but I will double check either tonight or tomorrow. – Maky « talk » 11:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've found and removed a few extra links in the body and one in a caption. Otherwise I generally treat the lead, body, and captions separately because people will often read selectively. (Most people I've met or know personally admit to only reading the lead and/or the image captions. If it's important, I can thin out the links in the captions a little bit. However, I do prefer to link the main topic of the caption at a minimum. Between the lead and the body, I generally avoid overlinking very common terms (like Madagascar, grooming, etc.), but will redundantly link the rest so that people have the option to follow the link when the text has gone into more detail on the topic. But just let me know what you think is excessive, and I'll try to adjust. (Btw, I linked the two types of placentation even though they point to the same article because they are difficult to explain succinctly.) – Maky « talk » 17:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On closer inspection, the text has a number of major flaws.
    • The strepsirrhine rhinarium can collect non-volatile, fluid-based chemicals known as pheromones and transmit them to the vomeronasal organ (VNO), - Not convinced we need a definition of pheromones here, when they are also wiki-linked, and most people have heard of them by now.
    When I give talks to the public, most people have not. Furthermore, people (including some primatologists) assume that they are the same as smells and don't realize that they affect different parts of the brain. As a result, many people in primatology generalize by saying that "lemurs have a long snout and VNO, so they have a good sense of smell." The two senses are related and interconnected (in the same way that smell and taste are), but they are distinct. I feel the text needs to clarify this point, especially with strepsirrhines, given that they're the textbook example. I might be able to thin out some of the detail, though, and move it to other articles. As for explaining words that are hyperlinked, that has been a frequent request from other reviewers at FAC for the last two years. I can revert back to removing explanations and just using hyperlinks if everyone agrees. But I not up for making you happy, only to piss off other reviewers. We need standards here... just like the image placement issues. I know that FAC gets progressively more rigid and produces higher and higher quality material, but I've been participating for years, and I can tell you that it's not been a slow, steady climb. Instead, it's been more like the ebb and flow of a tide on multiple issues. I'm just tired of being told to do X on one article and Y on another article, depending on who offers the review and what those reviewers opinions are that particular day. – Maky « talk » 10:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On the point of pheromones specifically, looking around online, it seems that the general perception of these chemicals is that they are highly volatile scents that people can't smell. (Just look at all the ads that offer pheromone products where only a few drops are to be applied to your shirt.) Although this may apply to some pheromones, it appears that the VNO has evolved to detect those that are fluid-based. Given the general misconceptions floating around (and perpetuated by scam advertising), I think this brief explanation is merited, despite the link. Rationale: If people assume that they know what pheromones are, but are wrong, the information presented will be confusing. – Maky « talk » 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I think about this, the more I become convinced that it would be best to leave pheromones out of this entirely, or to alleviate the tautology by mentioning them after the VNO has been introduced. Our own pheromone article does not succeed in giving a good demarcation of what is and isn't a pheromone. While a scientist may have an intuitive sense of what is and isn't a pheromone, the definition offered in the pheromone article does not exclude, for instance, volatile substances that trigger simple revulsion, which can be seen as a negative social response, and hence would meet the definition given in the article. Any of a number of scents associated with disease or lack of hygiene would qualify, and their perception would neither be restricted to the VNO, nor would be VNO even necessarily be involved. Hence, it may be better to avoid the buzzword and simply state the properties of chemicals that the VNO can perceive, possibly with pheromones mentioned in brackets somewhere, e.g. (traditionally categorised as pheromones) or (some of which may be classified as pheromones). Samsara (FA • FP) 14:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, there is a bit of a blur in our understanding of the difference between pheromones and scents, and in humans, we've evolved a secondary way of processing pheromones, possibly using the main olfactory system. Anyway, the discussion of hygiene and body odor is very anthropocentric, especially since we have cultural norms that affect our perception of personal odors. (What's probably going on is that the *smell* is repulsive to the olfactory centers of the brain, but our amygdala processes the pheromones separately. For example, sex odors can be very musky and be interpreted as "unhygienic", but in the heat of the moment, they can be very arousing.) The VNO in strepsirrhines, and probably most mammals, will not detect airborne scents, but fluid-based chemicals, which could only be called pheromones. In fact, the wiring of the accessory olfactory bulb (which we lack) is wired to the brain differently than the main olfactory system that we possess. So I don't think it's really fair to hold this article up against a start-class article that covers pheromones across the entire animal kingdom. And just FYI: all chemical based senses (pheromone, smell, and taste) are closely related in their physiology and the boundaries between them often blur. Anyway, I've tried rewriting that paragraph as you suggested, but I can't find a way to introduce the VNO and indicate its relevance to the subsection until after pheromones are introduced. If I don't discuss pheromones, then the readers won't see the relevance at all. I opted to keep the discussion mostly the same, but used your suggestion "(traditionally categorized as pheromones)". I hope that's good enough. – Maky « talk » 13:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sexually dichromatism - I hope you can see by yourself that this is wrong.
    Do enlighten me. – Maky « talk » 10:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's "sexual dichromatism", as in the title of the wikilinked article. "Sexually dichromatic" only in adjective use. Samsara (FA • FP) 11:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah... a typo. I sometimes can't see my own typos until someone points them out. I was thinking you were referring to a factual error. Sorry. – Maky « talk » 11:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reproduction in most strepsirrhine species tends to be somewhat seasonal, particularly in lemurs. The degree to which their reproduction is seasonal is affected by the duration of the wet season, subsequent food availability, and the maturation time of the species. - The information provided by these sentences can be summarised as "it depends". Suggestion: Try starting with "In longer wet seasons..."
    Couldn't find a way to word it your way, but I did copyedit those sentences. – Maky « talk » 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primates primarily feed on fruits (including seeds), leaves (including flowers), and animal prey (arthropods, small vertebrates, and eggs). These provide lipids, proteins, essential amino acids, carbohydrates, and carbohydrates, including cellulose and hemicellulose. - Basic biochemistry is better covered in biochemistry-related articles. All higher life subsists on lipid, a.a.s and carbs. Primates must be eating a lot of carbs, for them to need listing twice. Look, just cut that second sentence entirely. If you can say something relevant about cellulose (hint: ability to digest it isn't all that common among mammals), make a new sentence for that.
    • Strepsirrhines have diverse diets, so the proportions of these foods and their nutritional components vary significantly between species. Same amount of information: "Diets vary markedly between species."
    • Strepsirrhines also exhibit dietary adaptations at the niche level, comparable to that seen in New World monkeys. More non-information, plus ecology buzzword bingo. Either say something specific, or nothing at all - what you're doing right now is taunting the reader with a promise of more information that doesn't materialise.
The problem is that in many cases I'm limited by my sources. Secondary sources often throw out information like this without specific details and then do a poor job citing specific sources... particularly when they are written by experts in the field and published in peer reviewed books. I will take another look at this case and see if I can dig up anything more. – Maky « talk » 10:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made fixes to the first two, and I am working on expanding on the third point. I now have access to the primary source thanks to a friend. I will see what can be gleaned from it and summarized easily for readers. – Maky « talk » 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the third statement because it turned out to be too lemur-centric and not particularly informative for strepsirrhines, especially if I'm going to go into detail explaining it. – Maky « talk » 21:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diet section reads much better now. Well done. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, these examples show what you've been missing, and you can fix the text to a higher standard by yourself/ves... Samsara (FA • FP) 02:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to work on this either tonight or tomorrow night when I have time. If there are a bunch of issues like the last point, I'll see what I can do. Providing highly specific examples can bog the article down with too much detail and inflate the size of an already large article. As for an earlier point about the latter sections being too short, that has a lot to do the high variability within the suborder. I can talk about the specifics of a variety of strepsirrhines, or I can cover the information that applies to all of them. I usually try to do a little of both, stating the general statements and giving a few examples. If a section is not long, it's not because I'm being lazy. – Maky « talk » 10:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments from Jim An impressive amount of work, but some comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking again at duplicate links, the script overestimated because, although it ignores the lead and captions, it treats the cladogram as text. Clade and Georges Cuvier perhaps could still be reduced to one link in the body of the text
Good finds. Fixed. – Maky « talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the lead heavy going, and I have a science degree. I appreciate that there is bound to be technical language, but is there any way of making the lead a bit more user friendly. This isn't a deal-breaker, just asking you to take a look
It's come up before, so I made some changes. Please let me know if it reads better. I did leave in the list of the technical anatomical traits, only because they are mentioned extensively in textbooks, but very difficult to summarize in layman's terms. However, they are linked, so people can follow those if interested. – Maky « talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (56 to 34 million years ago—mya) — (56 to 34 million years ago (mya)) probably more normal
Sasata and I have gone back and forth on this one. I've switched it back to your suggestion. – Maky « talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • have it supplemented in their diet—reads oddly, obtain it from their diets
Good suggestion. Fixed. – Maky « talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • whether or not adapiforms —do you need the "or not"?
Good point. Fixed. 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • exception of the aye-aye, which has a modified structure—I don't quite follow this, does it have a modified toothcomb, a different dental modification, or some other structure altogether?
More details provided. Please let me know if it's understandable. 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Like all primates, their orbits—I think you need to repeat the subject at the start of a new paragraph
Fixed. – Maky « talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Groves, C. P. and Groves, C. are one and the same, can they be initialised similarly. Or both as "Colin" since we know his name
Fixed in the template. Hopefully it doesn't cause a conflict in other articles. – Maky « talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! – Maky « talk » 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with all the changes (I won't lose sleep if the next reviewer wants "— mya" either!). Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribution map: A brief web search reveals that bushbabies occur at least as far South as Pretoria and the Umlalazi Nature Reserve. I would be very surprised if your source disputes this, but perhaps you need to incorporate newer sources as the range would be expected to currently expand southwards. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything about bushbabies around Pretoria, but I did find mentions of museums and research on them from that urban center. The original map already covered Umlalazi Nature Reserve at its most southern tip. I am uploading a new map based on a different page in one of my existing sources. Apparently the general map I based my map on was hand-drawn, and one species has a range that extends slightly beyond it. Hopefully that covers what you are thinking of. Someday I hope to create an SVG based on the IUCN Red List data, but I'm not sure how to do that. – Maky « talk » 14:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But now you've included the western coastal deserts such as the Namib, which presumably are not suitable habitat. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the Sussman (book) source is not highly accurate—that change to the map was based on another map on page 87. Admittedly, I know less about galagos than any other strepsirrhine, and my familiarity with African geography is far from extensive. I would try to create a map based solely on the IUCN Red List map data, but since I can't export the data (or use it to create an SVG even if I had it), it's very hard to create a perfectly accurate map by simply looking at 18 species' range maps and creating a bitmap range map by hand. Anyway, I will try again, this time excluding the Namib and focusing on the IUCN Red List range map for the Southern Lesser Galago (Galago moholi), since it is that species which seems to be causing most of the problems. – Maky « talk » 15:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better now, thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also recommend that this extremely terse footnote be revised: Considered close relatives of tarsiers, omomyiforms are considered to be haplorhines, yet they may have had a rhinarium like the strepsirrhines. Wikilinking should be considered where appropriate. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify what you are suggesting. Do you want extra (redundant) wikilinks added here? (The terms "haplorhine", "tarsier", "omomyiform", and "rhinarium" were already linked by this point.) Otherwise, I feel the statement is very straightforward. The text for which the footnote applies says that strepsirrhine primates are traditionally characterized by a rhinarium (or "wet nose"), yet the footnote explains that omomyiforms, which are considered haplorhines (the other "dry-nose group" or primates), may have had a rhinarium. In other words, this characterization about strepsirrhines having wet noses and haplorhines having dry noses may be incorrect. – Maky « talk » 14:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I think that a lot of the rather convoluted discussion of character states and taxonomic units should be replaced with an equivalent cladogram. I think that's the one thing that will provide a leap in readers' ability to understand the contents. It's also rather quick to make in any presentation or DTP software, or with Inkscape if you want to go for SVG. Samsara (FA • FP) 09:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are already 2 cladograms in the article, and if we do such things for each key trait (as discussed in textbooks, i.e. rhinarium, fused mandiubular symphysis, postorbital closure, toothcomb, grooming claws, bicornuate uterus, epitheliochorial placenta, etc.), it would be ridiculous... especially given how non-uniform a few of these traits are among strepsirrhines. Not only that, but it may come across as though we are giving these characteristics the same sort of emphasis that Franzen, et al. gave them in 2009 when they tried to use Ida to link simians to lemurs. In its current state, the article goes to great lengths to explain these traits while demonstrating whether or not they are diagnostic for strepsirrhines. If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. – Maky « talk » 22:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem is that you have to mention all the characters in the text, whereas it would be super-easy if they were just mapped onto the cladograms. Here is a schematic example. Samsara (FA • FP) 14:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This could get very complicated with so many traits. Which traits do you suggest covering in the cladogram? Anyway, if I have time, I'll try making one tonight. – Maky « talk » 12:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For an internal cladogram of the strepsirrhines, it seems the rhinarium, toothcomb, and possibly the "[similar] front lower teeth of adapids" are most relevant and will eliminate text that is otherwise difficult to absorb (mostly the two footnotes). Later on, you refer to "distinctive features of their tarsus (foot bones)", which are not explained specifically - you have to decide if that is useful or necessary to include, but I think absorption of the footnotes into an easy visual format would be a great help. If you want to add to the external cladogram, you give a list of things ("long snouts, convoluted maxilloturbinals, relatively large olfactory bulbs, and smaller brains") as well as a brief reference to nose morphology that is never fully explained, and vitamin C production and SINE markers. That's more of a "nice to have" imo, but I understand you want to spruce up the prosimian article next, where that particular cladogram will be more important, and so my feeling is you might as well get it done now.
Last night I tried drawing something up on paper and ran into a whole host of problems. As neat and convenient as the idea sounds, there are several serious problems. First, some of the traits involve soft tissue, so it is nearly impossible to say definitively where such a feature appeared or disappeared from any given lineage. Second, some traits (such as the grooming claw and rhinarium) we simply don't know for certain which fossil specimens had them and which didn't. Third, traits like the fused mandibular symphysis evolved many times in several different families of adapiforms and lemuriforms. As a result, the cladogram would need to be huge to show all of these families, and then compare them to the haplorhines. In short, there is probably a reason why no such simple diagram exists in textbooks. The text may be confusing, but others may need to learn this the way that I did—by looking at the existing cladogram and refer back to it when the text discusses which groups have a feature, which do not, which evolved it independently, and which may have a feature, but it's hard to say whether they all had it or whether it was independently evolved. Too complicated? Honestly, welcome to the world of paleoanthropology! This is the very reason why the early evolution of primates is such a great mystery. Between homology, analogy, insufficient fossils, conflicts between fossils and genetics, and the persistence of outdated terminology and thinking, everything is a big, ugly mess.
A lot of stuff gets passing mentions in the article, but that's for comprehensiveness. For the stuff I insufficiently described, I can try to find sources that elaborate... but they may be overly technical (e.g. the "distinctive features of their tarsus", nose morphology, etc.). It's not a question of whether it's worth mentioning or nice to have... comprehensiveness is needed for FAC. If a paleoanthropologist or primatologist read the article and those points were omitted, they would complain that we're omitting important details. Personally, I'd rather mention the details, no matter how minor, and allow the readers to follow the references to dig up the really gory technical details. If it came down to it, an entire article on strepsirrhine anatomy could be written. – Maky « talk » 03:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised that footnote,[36] but I'm still not convinced that that's the best way to present the information if reader understanding and RU/time are to be maximised. There was a study that suggested that scientists think that science articles on Wikipedia are very well written, accurate and comprehensive, except those in their own field, which they think are terrible. So my suggestion would be not to write for primatologists as a target audience, as, well, by definition of who would use an encyclopaedia, they are not the target audience, or at best a very small fraction of it, but more importantly, as per the finding of that study, you'll never please them. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the revision to the footnote. "RU/time"? Sorry, maybe my brain is fried from work. Anyway, there are several reasons why scientists dislike articles from their own fields exclusively, and most of those reasons tie into policies such as WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Sometimes it's a relatively insignificant pet peeve (e.g. the second "r" in "Strepsirrhini"). Anyway, a high-class encyclopedia would include all the noteworthy details on a subject, but may not go into gory details (e.g. specific tarsal features). For comprehensiveness, these important features are mentioned. What sets strepsirrhines apart from haplorines? Read the article—it lists everything that you would find in basic primatology or physical anthropology textbook. I may be able to elaborate on the tarsal features for strepsirrhines as was done in the last paragraph of Adapidae? I'll just have to check those sources if I have time later tonight. To find out how omomyiforms compared will take a bit more digging, but I'll do it. – Maky « talk » 23:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something else I noticed was that when you refer to the treatment of "less derived" taxa as primitive, you overemphasise this as a feature of the prosimian debate, when in fact it is a recurring feature of all discussions of so-called living fossils, as well as many other "basal" taxa. I think that generality should be expressed. You may also want to be careful when you later yourself use the term "primitive" repeatedly. It may be better to find alternative phrasings so as not to seem self-contradicting. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on the use of "primitive"—I've changed it to "basal" where appropriate. In each of those cases, the most basal (known) members of the clade were being discussed. As for the relevance to many "living fossil" discussions, I completely agree... and I will try to find a good source for that over the weekend. (If you can suggest one, please do.) It's one of those topics in the sciences that needs to be discussed more, but often gets ignored because many researchers are too busy playing with their new toys (e.g. molecular clock dating) that they have largely discarded their old toys (paleontology & anatomical comparisons). Anyway, I'll see what I can do... assuming I can find a reliable secondary source that discusses the article in a professional, academic tone. – Maky « talk » 03:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relevant note User:Sasata has chosen to express his opposition to my recommendation of alternating placement of images in the form of a revert war without constructive consensus-seeking. I was hoping that wikilawyering wouldn't hamper this nomination, but apparently that is what things are coming to. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, you have never responded to my comment about the contradiction concerning this image's placement—see where I wrote: "As pointed out below, MOS:IMAGELOCATION..." I agree that Sasata probably should have commented here first. We can't achieve consensus if people don't reply to one another and if people handle discussions in edit summaries. The edit war was unfortunate, but I'm not going to get involved. I honestly feel that this is a very minor issue, especially given that MOS:IMAGELOCATION only makes recommendations, not absolute requirements. – Maky « talk » 14:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • No spotchecks done - I don't have access to these sources
  • All sources look suitably scholarly and reliable
  • Just one minor point: the format in ref 8 is slightly different from others with similar page ranges, e.g. 36, 43, 47 etc.
Fixed, I think. Thanks! – Maky « talk » 04:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I think the sources are fine. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note about File:Paleogene-EoceneGlobal.jpg: This file was recently deleted from Commons due to a faked email in the OTRS ticket system. However, the file will be restored once I can get some help from a Commons admin and someone in OTRS. After discovering the deletion (which was too late for me to comment), I contacted the owner of the images and secured a release for the files involved. I'm hoping to have this file restored soon. – Maky « talk » 14:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed—Just waiting on OTRS to process the email I sent them. – Maky « talk » 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go (revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and post queries below: on comprehensiveness and prose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence is too abrupt - I thought about combining it with the second but that makes quite a long one. I am thinking I'd rejig it thusly:

"Strepsirrhini.... is a suborder of primates which includes the lemuriform primates, which consist of the lemurs of Madagascar, galagos ("bushbabies") and pottos from Africa, and the lorises from India and southeast Asia. Also belonging to the suborder are the extinct adapiform primates, a diverse and widespread group that thrived during the Eocene (56 to 34 million years ago (mya)) in Europe, North America, and Asia, but disappeared from most of the Northern Hemisphere as the climate cooled."

Good suggestion. Done. – Maky « talk » 01:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe mention the fact it is one of two somewhere near the mention of "primitive" and prosimians - then you have all the context of the group in primates as a whole in the one segment of lead.
I've done my best. Please let me know if this reads better. – Maky « talk » 01:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
their "wet nose" - why in quotation marks?
Don't know... guess I wanted to highlight it as a colloquial term. Quotes removed. – Maky « talk » 01:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last of the adapiforms died out at the end of the Miocene (~7 mya), - I don't think that sits terribly well where it is, just add the date up to the top as this is evolution-related where as the current threats are more man-made - they're not really related.
Hmmm... not sure if I agree, but it's been moved regardless. To me, that last sentence spelled out the current situation for both major branches of strepsirrhines and fit well together. But this works, too. – Maky « talk » 01:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise lead looks ok. More to come. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Etymology (and probably elsewhere) I think adding a descriptor to a person is helpful for most readers "american naturalist/french explorer/etc."
Done. – Maky « talk » 01:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that this sentence Extant (living) strepsirrhine primates, are not "evolutionary holdovers" of a "primitive condition" from which the simians and their adaptations later evolved. adds anything that the sentence following doesn't explain.
True. Removed. – Maky « talk » 01:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
surprising and disputed divergence dates - the adjectives here - are they needed? Why not let the fact that the genetic evidence antedates the fossil evidence by 50 million years speak for itself....
Good point. Removed. – Maky « talk » 01:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
diurnal, small-bodied - i'd remove the comma here...makes the flow weird...
Removed. – Maky « talk » 01:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary on image placement So we seem to be at a point where, at the bottom of the article, we're just going to limply let the images hang on one side. The reason for rejecting the fix seems to be that there's no policy that says you must do otherwise. I find this notion highly ridiculous and not representative of what some other individuals manage to achieve with "their" articles, without policies telling them what to do. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Widescreen computers and the diversity of screens are making this quite tricky. I think sometimes all the headers make this difficult. The long thin images are tricky. I guess we could place the one in the conservation section on the left. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say, the perfect solution has been proposed (other than adding an extra image) and edit-warred over because of a misunderstanding, by one editor, of what the guideline is trying to achieve. What you propose has also been tried and rejected in the course of events. I still think that true alternating placement with creatures facing into the page can be achieved. Samsara (FA • FP) 06:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored your suggested solution. – Maky « talk » 14:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem now because the subheaders are pushed in because of the left-aligned images. This can be easily fixed by making it right-aligned. Additionally, the placement of the Geoffroy picture contravenes "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text." in WP:IMAGELOCATION. Sasata (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is true: MOS:IMAGELOCATION does note that this applies to "any section or subsection". Also, the part about faces facing the text starts: "It is often preferable..." Preferable doesn't trump statements that explicitly say to avoid doing something. I also don't think the following statement trumps the line you quoted either: "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left." Saying they can be is different than saying they should or must be. Again, I don't see why this is being made such a major issue when the *guideline* is so relaxed. There have been many times that I personally would have liked to have seen my suggestions implemented in an article I was reviewing at FAC, but because it wasn't policy and the editor disagreed, I let it go. Either way, I'm going to leave the images in place pending further discussion. – Maky « talk » 21:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • There are a great many duplicate links in the article. Some are because of tables linking the same items in the same section, and some may or may not be justified on other grounds. I removed a couple but you'll have to go through the rest of the article and see what can go. If you don't have the duplink checker, it can be found here.
I will take another look at the duplicate links in just a moment. I thought the ones that remain were mostly due to tables and how I often treat the lead separate from the body. – Maky « talk » 13:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the dupes are fixed. Those that remain are where different but related words link to the same article, or the links occur first in a caption. – Maky « talk » 14:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note the image placement discussion above. Irrespective of MOS guidelines, it's difficult to achieve the ideal solution for every possibility, and as long as hard-and-fast rules are not being broken, this is not something that will have a significant bearing on promotion.
  • On a more pressing subject, how close are we to resolving any outstanding issues from the oppose above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am hoping this morning to address concern about the lack of details about the following statement in the text: "Adapiformes are distinguished from the Eocene omomyiforms by distinctive features of their tarsus (foot bones)." I've found a source that writes at length about it, so I am trying to understand these fine details and incorporate them. I think that was the last of the explicit concerns... aside from a request for illustrations or a cladogram that could clarify what the text is saying. Regarding that, the topic is too complex and far from black and white, and hence no textbooks have offered similar illustrations. All you can do is oversimplify the anatomical comparisons, and that's the very knot this article was written to untie. – Maky « talk » 13:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Details have been added. Awaiting any further specific comments. – Maky « talk » 15:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nom has remained open quite long enough for any further issues, or for concerns with actions re. earlier issues, to be raised. Thanks to all the reviewers for their time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As a non-expert in all things zoology but a frequent reader of Maky's articles, I found this article comprehensive and easy to read, beautifully illustrated, very well referenced as always (all the journals cited are solid), and firmly up to the high standards of the FA process (and Maky himself). The concerns raised by earlier reviewers also appear to be adequately addressed in my view. - Lemurbaby (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I have examined the comments made above and note that this candidacy is opposed by Samsara on several grounds which Maky has made every effort to address. I do not believe that the placing of the images is an issue that is critical to the success of this candidacy. Samsara states "On closer inspection, the text has a number of major flaws." He then mentions several (in my view minor matters) and adequate responses seem to have been made to these. He then states "Hopefully, these examples show what you've been missing, and you can fix the text to a higher standard by yourself/ves". He does not go on to state any other deficiencies in the text however and leaves his "oppose" in place.

Looking at Samsara's recent contributions I note that he seems to be taking a wikibreak and has not performed any edits in the last eleven days. I think it would be a great pity if this excellent, comprehensive, well written article failed to achieve FA status after all the effort made in resolving the issues raised. I support its candidacy wholeheartedly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 00:31, 8 December 2012 [37].

Operation Barras[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In 2000, the United Kingdom intervened in the Sierra Leone Civil War. When the intervention had mostly concluded, and only around 250 British soldiers remained in the country to train the Sierra Leone Army, a patrol of 11 soldiers was captured by a group of bandits known as the West Side Boys. Six were eventually released through negotiation. Operation Barras was the operation to retrieve the remaining five. The operation was full of military and political risks, but its aims were achieved, and it success had a profound impact on the British government and was seen as a vindication of Tony Blair's policy of "humanitarian intervention". The legacy of Barras (and indeed the entire intervention in Sierra Leone) is overshadowed by Britain's later engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, but is important nonetheless.

It's been a year or so since I nominated anything here, but I'm confident this meets the criteria, and it hasn't had any problems passing an A-class review within MilHist. However, all comments are of course welcome! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Reaper Eternal
  • The sources all look reliable, but I have not done spotchecks because I don't have the books.
  • All information appears to be sourced.
  • Why are the footnotes below the citations?
    • Because that's the way I did it? I don't know. Does it make a difference? It's the same citation style as Iranian Embassy siege.
      • I really don't think it matters—I've just never seen it that way before, and was wondering if it was accidental. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnotes are inconsistent—some give the year of publication while others do not.
    • That's deliberate—I cite two book by the same author and publication year seems to be the best way to distinguish between them in footnotes.
  • Foday Kallay and West Side Boys are linked several times, and Foday Kallay just redirects to the West Side Boys article. Is this a WP:OVERLINK issue?
    • Kallay was redirected after my rewrite, so I hadn't spotted that. Unlinked.
  • Image copyrights appear fine.
  • In note #1: "...or sometimes the 'West Side Niggers', which they changed to 'West Side Boys' as the latter would not be acceptable for use in news reports." - Who is "they", the West Side Boys or reporters?
    • The West Side Boys, but I don't think it's really ambiguous.
      • Oh. No, it's not ambiguous; I just couldn't believe that they really cared how their name looked in the media. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose generally looks good.
  • You mention balaclavas, but many people will not know what they are. You might want to wikilink it to Balaclava (clothing).
    • They're only mentioned once, and in a quote. I'm generally loathe to put links in quotes, and balaclavas aren't directly relevant to the topic.
      • True. I can't see putting it in a "See also" section, since readers wouldn't recognize why it is there, so leaving it unlinked is fine. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since they seem so related, you may wish to join the two paragraphs under the "Conclusion of the assault" section.
    • Done.
  • I found no links to disambiguation pages.
  • The external links resolve correctly.
  • The alt text for the images looks good.
  • Overall this article looks excellent. Good work! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: File:UNsierraleone.PNG should have an {{information}} template (but copyright seems fine). File:Royal Air Force Regiment in Afghanistan.JPG seems fine. File:Gen. Sir David Richards at NATO Summit in Chicago May 20, 2012.jpg seems fine. File:US Navy 080925-N-2074H-085 Marines practice fast-rope techniques.jpg seems fine. File:RAF Chinook.jpg seems fine. File:WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM ANNUAL MEETING 2009 - Tony Blair.jpg seems fine. I'm not very sure about File:David Frost Rumsfeld interview cropped.jpg: can an interview be considered as "official duties"? Doesn't the BBC has the copyright? Cambalachero (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are "my" images, so I don't know anything more about them than you. However, with the last one, it appears that the photo was taken by someone from the US DOD's public affairs unit, so I would imagine that photographing the interview was part of his official duties and since he wasn't employed by the BBC, the Beeb don't have any claim to copyright. Thanks for having a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article review: First, this was not a proper war, campain or battle, with armies on both sides, but a stealth military operation. Perhaps {{Infobox operational plan}} may be better than the {{Infobox military conflict}} currently used. As for the rest, I will go section by section
  • Background: Do we need the first two paragraphs? The description of the SAS and the Parachute Regiment seem unrelated to the conflict. Has they been involved in previous operations of the Sierra Leone cvil war? If not, there is no background for them. "(similar in size to South Carolina or Scotland)" seems a bit derogatory, the country size should be enough. "The West Side Boys[note 1] were a militia group who had been involved in the civil war". You mentioned the civil war in the previous sentence, "involved in it" should be enough.
    • I like to give a little background information. Remember that a reader should be able to print this article out and still have a full understanding of the topic (without needing to click any of the links). A few sentences on the units involved in a military operation is useful for context.
  • Capture of the Royal Irish patrol: Do we have the names of the hostages? Being just 11, it shouldn't be a problem to list them. "...decided to take the patrol to investigate..." Isn't "took the patrol to investigate" better? "British forces in Sierra Leone were operating on the authority of the Sierra Leone government, but President Ahmad Kabbah allowed British forces to conduct the negotiations themselves, as it was apparent that his government lacked the requisite expertise". That seems an important claim, and should have a footnote immediately after.
    • 1) Not full names (the ranks and surnames are in one of the books), but knowing their names doesn't help the reader understand anything more about the subject. There's also a good chance that several are still serving members of the British Army, so I'd rather err on the side of protecting their privacy. 2) The decision itself is of interest, and is discussed alter in the article. 3) Not really, the government was in tatters at the time, but I can add a citation.
  • Deterioration: "The West Side Boys were unstable, possibly due to prolonged use of cannabis and cocaine, and their behaviour during the crisis was erratic". That can easily be misunderstood for a derogatory comment or even article vandalism, so you should provide a footnote right after it, and perhaps even a hidden comment using <!-- -->.
    • I don't think so. Especially not with further reading of the article. They were nutjobs, which is fairly obvious from the context. But again, it doesn't hurt to add a citation.
  • Military planning: I did not see any problem.
  • Deployment to Sierra Leone: So, the press was openly discussing about a covert operation. Wasn't there any known reaction to that? "There was debate among the commanders as to whether the soldiers should wear body armour—some officers feared that the weight would increase the risk of heat exhaustion—but it was decided that the soldiers would wear body armour as the cooler temperatures of the early morning (when the operation was planned to be launched) would mitigate the effects of the weight". You repeated "body armour" in the sentence, which is 3 lines long. Perhaps you should slip it into 2 sentences.
    • 1) The standard MoD refusal to comment. 2) Good point; I'll have a look at this later.
  • Decision to launch: Isn't just "Launch" a better section title? "...that the West Side Boys might decide to move further inland..." try "might move" instead. The important thing in that scenario would be the move, not the decision itself.
    • 1) the section is predominantly about the decision. 2) Quite right; I have a tendency to use more words than are necessary.
  • Assault: I'm not sure if the photo should be used, as it is about a similar operation, not about the actual operation described in the article.
    • There are no images of the event, but to use no images at all would render the article an unpleasant wall of text, so we resort to using images that aren't directly relevant to illustrate certain terms (like fast-roping or underslung loads) and break the text up.
  • Gberi Bana: "the men were used as servants and put through crude military training by the West Side Boys, possibly with the intention of forcing them to fight in the future, while the women were used as sex slaves". That's very serious stuff: provide a footnote immediately after.
    • Not really—it wasn't uncommon in West Africa at the time; but it doesn't hurt to put an extra ref there.
  • Magbeni: Again, a photo that is not from the event.
    • See above.
  • Conclusion of the assault: It's a subsection of "The operation", simply "Conclusion" should be enough as a title. "Fordham visited the men shortly after the operation and stated "they looked remarkably well considering the ordeal they had been through" and described them as being "physically and mentally exhausted"." Provide a footnote at the end of both quotations.
    • I considered that when I wrote it, but I worried that a section just labelled "conclusion" would look like I was drawing my own conclusions rather than describing the conclusion of the operation.
  • Aftermath: "Also confirmed to have died in the operation were 25 West Side Boys". Provide a footnote after proving numbers.
    • There's one in the infobox.
  • Long-term impact: "...in Bangura's words, "take a closer look"." Provide a footnote after this quotation.
    • Done.
Cambalachero (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, having re-read the parts highlighted, I think the referencing is sufficient. Adding more footnotes would only result in redundant footnotes at the end of every sentence. The rule of thumb is one per paragraph, and none of the claims mentioned are extraordinary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
  • What order are you using for your general references?
  • Collins or Coolins? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It started as the order in which they're cited, but I think that got lost after I wrote the lead and background sections; changed to alphabetical. Coolins was a typo; well spotted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is a very interesting and comprehensive article - great work. I have the following comments and suggestions:
  • The first sentence doesn't read all that well. I'd suggest something like "Operation Barras was a British Army operation that took place in Sierra Leone on 10 September 2000"
    • Done
  • The background section should discuss the background to this operation before introducing the SAS and 1 Para given that these units come in later. That said, I'm not sure what the value of the material on the general characteristics and history of these units is here - the key thing is what they were capable of doing in 2000.
    • I've moved the last paragraph to be the first; I'll have a closer look later but the format basically uses Iranian Embassy siege#Background as a boilerplate.
      • It looks a bit stilted here to be honest. I'd suggest that this section be structured as 1) the para which begins with "Sierra Leone is a former British colony" 2) the para which starts with "British forces were deployed" and then 3) a newish para on the characteristics of the British forces in the country (including a brief description of the RIR; eg, that it was a 'line' infantry battalion) and the special forces/para back-up available in the UK if they got into trouble Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's sufficient to say what the RIR were doing in Sierra Leone, since it could have been any regiment that ended up in the situation they did; I go into more detail on the SAS and the Parachute Regiment because they were hand-picked for the mission. I've re-ordered the paragraphs per your suggestion, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "engrossed in a civil war" - I don't think that 'engrossed' is an appropriate term ('consumed by a civil war', perhaps? - though that's a bit dramatic)
    • I'm inlcined to agree but I can't think of a better word to describe the situation; I'm open to other sugestions
      • 'Consumed' works; engrossed is now normally used to describe something people are deeply interested in (eg, I'm engrossed in the history of medieval Briton I'm currently reading). Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowed British forces to conduct the negotiations themselves" - what these negotiations were need to be introduced here
    • Done
  • "the three rangers and two of the corporals" - what's a ranger in this context? (the RIR equivalent of a private, I presume?)
  • "The West Side Boys told the British negotiators that the officers and NCOs would not be released until the West Side Boys' remaining demands were met." - watch out for duplication here
    • Fixed.
  • "However, several specialist units from elsewhere in 1 PARA were attached to A Company in order to bring the company group up to the required strength, including a signals group, snipers, heavy machine gun sections, and a mortar section." - the 'however' seems unnecessary given that, by definition, a company group includes elements from other parts of a battalion (also, did the group include multiple heavy machine gun sections as this states?)
    • I'll have to check the source for this and I'm away from home so it might be a couple of days.
      • I take it that the multiple MG sections is correct? (it's certaintly feasible) Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There were three according to Fowler.
  • "The additional firepower was included in order to maximise the options available to the planners and operational commanders, given that additional resources would not be immediately available should the operation run into difficulties, and that the West Side Boys had a numerical advantage" - this is a bit wordy
    • I've tweaked it slightly
  • The sentence which begins with "The purpose of the Magbeni assault" is a bit lengthy; I'd suggest splitting into two sentences
    • Also tweaked slightly
      • That reads really well now Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a water-borne insertion using the same method with which the SAS observation teams had been inserted" - this could be rephrased to avoid duplication
    • Tweaked
  • " At around the same time, the SAS observation teams, which had been in place near the West Side Boys' base for four days, had seen no sign of the captive soldiers in that time." - this is a little bit awkward and unclear (how about " At around the same time, the SAS teams near the West Side Boys' base reported that they had seen no sign of the captive soldiers during the four days they had been in position" or similar?)
    • Done
  • " with Claymore" - I'd suggest adding 'mines' after 'claymore'
    • Done.
  • "The paras were flown to RFA Argus, where they spent the night, and flown back to the United Kingdom the next day" - the tense should change in the middle of this sentence (eg, the second 'flown' should be 'flew' or something along those lines)
    • Re-worded slightly
  • Do we know why Marshall asked to be transferred from the RIR? Was this linked to the criticism of his actions? Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments are now addressed. I'd suggest slightly expanding the early material on the RIR to explain why they were unable to rescue their own personnel, but this is fairly self-evident from the article's content (and will be obvious to people with any knowledge of this kind of topic). Nick-D (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Agreed with Nick's comments, and I have a couple more:
  • "it is rumoured": Understood that there are good historians who say this, but they mean something different than WP's writers or (most) readers understand from that. WP:WEASEL more or less disallows this. Say who said it, and then we'll see if it needs a tweak.
    • All the source says is that there were rumours. The MoD doesn't comment on special forces (or anything that has potential to embarrass Her Majesty's Government).
      • "were involved in at least one operation directed by British officers and, it is rumoured, special forces": The question is how reliable you believe this source to be, and what this source typically means when it says "it is rumoured". If you trust this source, and if the source has a habit of saying "it is rumoured" for things the source knows are true, then the best way to assert the truth of the statement is to drop the "it is rumoured". If the source literally meant that there were rumours, or if you are less than positive what was meant, then omit this less-than-credible information. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The source literally means there are rumours. They're credible—I don't think the source would mention them if they weren't—but there's no official confirmation. But it's not crucial to the article so I've taken it out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's the safer and cleaner way to handle it. I think if you just asserted it as truth, we'd probably need a footnote to explain. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the cocaine made them paranoid": "paranoid", as it's loosely used in the media, means nothing; for the psychiatric diagnosis, anyone competent to diagnose that wouldn't try it on someone they'd never met, and they wouldn't diagnose the cause, either. Probably just drop this bit; the first part of the sentence is fine, and you've mentioned cocaine use already at this point. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Paranoid" is the term used in the source (though the author is a military historian, not a psychiatrist) and I think it's important to mention the effect it had on their behavior. Do you have a suggestion for a different term? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be fine to say that they were distrustful, particularly after drug use, if you believe that's what the source or sources meant. Casual use of the word "paranoid" is out of fashion in serious writing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. The paragraph that begins "The Parachute Regiment" repeats the word "regiment" more than it needs to, and "the Parachute Regiment contribute" doesn't sound right to me after many uses as a singular noun in the same paragraph.
    • Copy-edited slightly.
  • "(27,700 square miles) (similar in size to South Carolina or Scotland)": (27,700 square miles), similar in size to South Carolina or Scotland
    • Replaced the parentheses with an emdash
  • "In 2000, the country was engrossed in a civil war, which had been ongoing since a coup in 1997": Nick was correct, "engrossed" is the wrong word. "consumed by" or "engaged in" would work. Our article on the Sierra Leone Civil War says it began in 1991; I don't know.
    • 1997 must have been a typo (it was 1991); "engrossed" change to "consumed by"
  • "was brought ashore in order to assess the soldiers": was brought ashore to assess the soldiers [but the "in order to" in the previous sentence is fine]
    • Done
  • "were attached to A Company in order to bring the company group up to the required strength": remove "in order" here, too
    • Also done
  • "With the operation becoming more likely to be launched": with+noun+"ing"; maybe "as the need for an operation became more certain"
    • Would it work if I just removed the "with"?
      • How about "As the operation became more likely"? - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several purpose": several purposes
    • Already fixed, but well spotted
  • "By 5 September, the likelihood that an operation would be mounted to free the remaining six soldiers had increased, and the British media was openly speculating on the possibility": First you describe a lot of planning for the operation, as if it's quite likely ... then you say the odds have increased, now they've increased again; at some point, readers get skeptical about odds-making. This would probably work better if you shorten it to: "By 5 September, there was open speculation in the British media on an operation to free the remaining six soldiers".
    • Tweaked
  • "several of the paras ... the Paras focused": consistency in capitalization
    • Fixed
  • "the tropical heat of the area": the tropical heat
    • Done
  • "The DSF attends COBRA meetings during crises which may require the use of special forces": This feels like it's inserted out of sequence; it should probably be shorter and earlier in the paragraph.
    • Copy-edited slightly to improve its flow.
  • - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not commenting either way on Nick's suggestion at "It looks a bit stilted". - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tinnion was posthumously Mentioned in Despatches": lowercase, or: Tinnion received a posthumous Mention in Despatches. (Some writers believe that there's such a thing as a "proper verb", but I can't find support for that.)
    • I don't know about this—"Mentioned in Despatches" is the proper name and (bizarre capitalisation or otherwise) I'm inclined to stick with the proper name. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ask anyone who uses the phrase regularly at FAC ... Ian, Nick, Hawkeye, etc., and we'll talk more if people aren't sure. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Harry, Dan has it right, the consensus now is lower case for "mentioned" (verb form) and title case for "Mention" (noun form) -- if this seems like WP conventions are overriding common usage in the real world, well it wouldn't be the first time... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tend to think we should follow the conventions used in the real world, because to do otherwise would be getting very close to making it up as we go along. But for the sake of a quiet life, I've changed it to the noun form. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem is that "Mentioned" isn't a name at all; it's a verb. I can't think of another "proper verb" that a copy editor would accept, apart from a few proper names used as verbs ("xeroxed" used to be uppercased, but it's not a very common word any more). I think it goes without saying that we don't want to write an encyclopedia in militarese ... when it gets to the point that they're not just making up words, but making up new parts of speech (which they do), copy editors don't generally follow their lead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query - did the spotcheck of sources ever get done? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No; I think it's because almost all of it is sourced to books. (If it makes any difference, spotchecks have been done on my previous FACs). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true, Harry, although I think the last time was Baron Dannett in August 2011 -- I like to see even experienced FAC nominators spotchecked at least once a year to keep 'em on their toes... ;-) Moreover, even if there was a more recent one, we couldn't automatically assume that Reaper would drop it as a condition of his support. I notice Tim Riley is back on the scene, and he's been very helpful with offline-source spotchecks in the past -- will give him a shout. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, before we do that, the Dorman and I think the Osprey-published books are available on GoogleBooks preview, which might suffice for spotchecking -- any volunteers? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to check the two Fremont-Barnes cites, but the Dorman and Fowler (2010) Googlebooks previews were too short to be useful, and I was unable to find the other sources online in any form (with the exception of the Connaughton piece, which is behind one of the most shockingly priced paywalls I've seen). I just checked my local library catalog and none of these sources are available on short order. Hope Tim or someone else can help. Maralia (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for having a go, Maralia -- I'll try Tim in that case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right ho! I've ordered Collins, Dorman, and Fowler (2010), which will be available later this morning. I'll report back this afternoon. Tim riley (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks indeed. If there are problems getting hold of the books, I can take "my" (most of them actually belong to Wikimedia UK, who kindly footed the bill for my research) copies to the London meetup on Sunday and get someone there to do the checking. Just FYI, Tim, I built the article around Fowler (2010) and used the other sources mainly for detail and background. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks – done on three books and one online source. May I make a general point about page-ranges in references? It is fair enough to use ranges of several pages when the matter cited is a broad theme (e.g. note 57) but I cursed a bit at having to search seven pages to verify one short, self-contained factual statement, such as 18a, which should, I think, have referred to p. 23 rather than to pp. 21–27. (I admit that the average reader won't care, but still…)
  • Fowler (2010)
    • 3 a and b: fine
    • 14 a–e: fine
    • 16 a and b: fine
    • 18 a–c: fine
    • 25: fine
    • 28 a and b: fine
    • 31 – I couldn't find the information quoted on the page cited
      • Fowler says "At Seaview Hose, the British military HQ above the High Commission in Freetown, the DSF with his small HQ including CO 22 SAS and OC D Squadron had been in place with secure radio links to the observation teams since Thursday 7 September. DSF was also in communication upwards with PJHQ and CBR [sic]" (paragraph two) and "A critical part of his HQ were the three members of the Tactical Communication Wing, RAF who would coordinate the operation of the attack helicopters and the Chinooks" (paragraph four)
    • 33 a and b: fine
    • 34 a and b: fine
    • 37: fine
    • 38: fine
    • 41: fine
    • 42: fine
    • 43: fine
    • 44 a–d: fine
    • 45: fine
    • 46: fine
    • 48 a and b: fine
    • 52: fine
    • 53 a–d: fine
  • Collins
    • 32: fine
    • 50 – I couldn't find reference to Marshall here, or to there being two men moved to Home Service units
      • He's mentioned by his position rather than by name and buried in Collins' rather colourful way of telling his story, but it's there.
  • Dorman
    • 12: fine
    • 17: fine
    • 20 a and b: fine
    • 24 a and b: fine
    • 54: fine
    • 55 – Unless I stared through it the statement referred to is not on this page
      • Dorman says "Issues about casualties, proportionality and the decision to use force were inextricably linked with concerns about potential winners and losers from the deliberate assault. A great deal was at risk for the British government. Its' [sic] attitude towards ensuring the its hostages were released and the manner in which they were released sent signals to the RUF and and to other groups within Sierra Leone, the African continent and globally. If the assault had indeed failed and there had been a significant loss of life then the policy of the British government towards Sierra Leone would have been forced to change and almost certainly involved the complete withdrawal of British forces". And I removed the "inextricably linked" quote as I can't figure out where I got that from. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 57: fine
  • Connaughton
    • 15 a and b: As far as I can see, the statements referred to are not on this page
      • For "a", Connaughton says What Kallay did concede after five days of holding the hostages captive was the release of five of the eleven British hostages in exchange for a satellite telephone. I added a citation to Fowler (2010) for the medical supplies.
      • Couldn't find "b", so I've removed that.
    • 27: ditto
      • Connaughton says [...] enabled models and a replica camp to be made up, which greatly assisted the briefing and training [...]; Fowler goes into more detail, but I added that in case somebody found it easier to check the journal.
    • 47a: I think this should read p. 116, not 117
      • Quite right; fixed
    • 47b: I think this should read p. 111
      • Also fixed
    • 47c: as for 47a.
      • And fixed.
Note that I checked these four sources at the British Library, and being back at Château Riley I cannot now comment further on any amendments or explanations put forward by the nominator of this excellent article. Quibbles, above, notwithstanding, I have full confidence in the accuracy of the statements made. – Tim riley (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: I should have added, and now do, that I detected nothing that looked even faintly like a crib or close paraphrase; indeed, the facts have been most skilfully and freshly re-presented. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking these, Tim, and thanks for the compliment. I'm travelling at the minute, so I'll look at your queries wrt Dorman and Fowler in a day or two (Collins is fresh in my mind and I have a copy of Connaughton on my laptop). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to the specific queries above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And replied wholly satisfactorily in my view. I have no further quibbles, and look forward to seeing this article on the front page at some point. Tim riley (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:50, 6 December 2012 [38].

13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently undergone significant improvements through GA and MILHIST A-Class, and I believe it now meets the criteria for FA. It is a little known but very interesting Waffen-SS division in which most of the rank and file were Bosnian Muslims. Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments

  • Map needs more comprehensive sourcing
    • The map corresponds to the description in Lepre, for which I have added an inline citation. Essentially the AO was marked by the river boundaries as mentioned in the article text. Do you think it needs a ref for the district arrangements as well? Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I agree with the use of a non-free image, as it doesn't seem particularly important to the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image of Hampel and the Chetnik leader was included to show both Hampel, one of the two important commanders of the division who is otherwise not shown, as well as the relationship with the Chetniks, who fought alongside the division during four of the eight anti-Partisan operations the division conducted. Despite the fact that they were clearly opportunistic, the Chetniks were the main local auxiliary force used by the division, and I felt it was appropriate to include this photo to illustrate that fact. Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • No spotchecks possible (all print sources)
  • Sources look high quality, comprehensive and reliable
  • Why is citation 3 formatted differently from other Tomasevich (2001) citations?
  • Citation 100 should be "pp." not "p."
  • In what language is the Böhme book?
  • In what language is the Čorak magazine article?
  • Same question re the second and fourth "Further reading" sources. (all non-English sources should be labelled)

Otherwise, no further sources points. The article looks well worth reading, and I wish I had a bit more time to do a full review. It is a shame that such a thoughtful article should languish unattended at FAC, but maybe someone will pick it up. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brianboulton. I have addressed all of your review comments per [39]. Thanks again. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • To the lay reader, this article appears well researched, well written, neutral in tone and appropriately referenced. The prose is generally excellent. However, it seems overly long in relation to the (un)importance of its subject. When I'm reading long articles on WP, I expect them to be about subjects that are either of contemporary (Mitt Romney) or enduring (Betelgeuse) importance, or of such public prominence that they generate extensive interest, secondary sourcing and commentary (Cher). I can't bring myself to read this much text about a single element of one of the armed forces of one of the allies of one side of one war. How would I cut it back? Hard to know where to begin, as military history isn't my thing, but in the subsection on Operation Hackfleisch/Rübezahl, there is a list that seems of inconsequential detail: "The columns were allocated tasks and composed as follows". Surely this could be deleted entirely and the reader would lose nothing? If someone wants this kind of stuff, they should simply read George Lepre's book. I think most text within the subsections on each operation, that does not directly bear explicitly, directly and significantly on the ouctomes of the 13th Waffen Division's major actions could be removed. Examples: under Osterei: "attacking positions held by the Partisan 3rd Vojvodina Brigade at Gornji Rahić on 26 March, killing 124 Partisans and capturing 14." Under Maibaum: "The deployment south of the Spreča, and therefore outside the security zone, during Operation Maibaum was ordered by the corps commander, Phleps, despite opposition from Sauberzweig. This caused friction between the two that eventually required Himmler's intervention". Under Vollmond: "Soon after Hampel's assumption of command, he became aware that local Chetniks were scavenging the Operation Vollmond battlefields for divisional equipment. He met with the Chetnik leader Kerović and arranged for the return of the equipment in exchange for small arms ammunition and boxes of hand grenades". I think a ruthless cull would improve the article.
  • Another unnecessary list: the names of each officer executed in 1948 (none of them wikilnked, so seemingly not particularly notable in their own right).
  • One specific, that perhaps reflects the distinctive culture of milhist articles, I don't know: I have no idea what an "order of battle" is, it isn't wikilinked, and it constitutes a heading with a list of names (again, none of them wikilinked, so seemingly not particularly notable in their own right).
    • That is not the purpose of an OrBat! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I've sounded pretty negative, so I should re-emphasise that it appears beautifully crafted: it just seems more something out of a book for a military history enthusiast and less from an encyclopedia... hamiltonstone (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your interest, Hamiltonstone. I am concerned that I may have erred on the side of too much detail. Of course, relevance is (naturally) relative and context-driven. For the Muslim people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, this article may be of great interest, but I concede that for others outside the former Yugoslavia (and Germany) the interest may be limited. Alternatively of course, within the niche area of Yugoslavia in WWII, it is actually reasonably important, as it goes to the ways in which Bosnian Muslims sought to assert their independence from domination by other nationalities in the region (something which echoed through the 1990's into today). A difficult call to say the least, and I struggled with what to leave in and what to leave out. Some aspects, Operation Maibaum in particular, were far more significant than the communist government allowed them to be in the wake of the communist victory of 1945. It's a tough one. I certainly am willing to look at trimming some parts, and without minimising your comments, I am interested in a wide range of views on this, particularly from those in the MILHIST community. I will look at some trimming while I await some further input. Thanks again. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Tentative oppose. It's perfectly natural for writers to seek review and visibility for their work, so no one should be denied at FAC for problems that are arguably unactionable. I'm happy we worked on this at A-class, I think you can be proud of your work, and I'm happy you brought it here for review by the larger community ... but the fact that you've only got one somewhat skeptical review so far underlines for me that this article just doesn't succeed in keeping the general reader interested in this much detail about this one unit. Granted, I might feel different if I had grown up in the Balkans or I were Muslim; I can only say that, from my imperfect perspective, this doesn't feel like a good fit with other Featured Articles. I'm not competent to judge what should stay and what should go ... and you may very well not want to get rid of anything, it might be better to leave it as an A-class article. - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I accept that it may have maxxed out at A Class, it's to be expected that will happen with obscure topics in such an obscure subject area. I'm pretty happy with it at A Class. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's any consolation, I think biographies, such as the one you've got at A-class currently, may fare better at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't rule it out as being viable as an FAC. I almost only write about subjects that appear to many readers as obscure biographies, so I have a vested interest in obscure subjects being FA-able :-) I'd be happy to see 13th Waffen as an FA, but i'm not sure the article I'd want at FA is the one you want to write, because it would be shorter. The article does appear basically sound, so it's your call. Good work, anyway. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Or, to put it another way, a first rate A class article is better than a Featured Article'. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong disagreement with these opposes FAC requires that an article comprehensively cover its subject. If that means that it contains more information than some reviewer who knows nothing about the subject wants to know, so be it. This is not the simple English Wikipedia. We are not writing articles for them, but for people who genuinely want to know about the subject. It has been reviewed by the Military History Project editors, and rated as an A class article. I am not going to accept that an A class article cannot be promoted to FAC because it meets the FAC requirement of comprehensibility! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is, it's going to need some supports to pass, and an oppose of an oppose is not a support. In attempting to figure out why it doesn't have any supports, I found that I had a hard time following the narrative. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are always judgements to be made in the applying of the FA criteria, and one of those judgements is the balance between criteria 1(b) and (c) on the one hand, which require comprehensiveness and a thorough survey of the literature, and criterion 4 on the other, which requires that the article "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". The view I expressed was that this appeared to go into unnecessary detail. That fact that Dank "had a hard time following the narrative" may also point to criterion 4 problems; given that the actual prose is pretty good, i doubt it's an issue with the quality of writing per se. I'm willing to hang around and see how this plays out, and keep reviewing if the text can be trimmed. But the nominator may prefer to let it stand at its current level of detail. As i said earlier, that's their call, and i certainly respect their hard work done to create authoritative text on the subject. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye, here's some detail. Let's look at just the first sentence: "The 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) was a Waffen-SS mountain infantry formation used to conduct operations against the Yugoslav Partisans in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) from March to December 1944." Readability (without clicking) is important at FAC. No one expects a FAC to be trivially easy to read; readability involves assessing the number of things that a reader might not understand when they first get to it. Too much too fast means low readability.

  • "Waffen": Most readers will have no idea what this word means. It probably should be italicized and followed by "(Armed)". See WP:Checklist#clarity: if most readers won't have a clue what you're saying at this point in the sentence without clicking, and most won't, then you need more than just a link to make it readable. Same goes for "Waffen-SS" and "Partisans" later in the sentence.
    • Someone coming to the article is looking for information on a particular division, so the answer is be "almost certainly". It probably should be italicized. I do remember that there was a lot of fuss when I was at school about Ronald Reagan's visit to Bitburg, and everybody seemed to know about them. I would have no objection to inserting "Armed" but it doesn't tell you as much as the link, and there is a danger here of playing into a widespread misconception that the Waffen did all the fighting and the other branches did all the dirty work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SS Handschar": In the title, there's no reference to German or to WWII, so unless the reader knows what "Waffen" means, they might easily think you're talking about the good ship "SS Handschar" until they read further.
    • It should add "during World War II"". You missed the really big oversight though; the article fails to say why the name Handschar was chosen. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(1st Croatian)": I can't think of any FAs that give three different ways of describing the same thing in the page title. Readers recoil at being asked remember three different foreign-sounding names for the same thing all at once.
    • The title is a literal translation; I might have phrased it slightly differently, but we need a consistent form for all 34 Waffen-SS divisions. The divisions all had numbers and names, and sometimes an ethnic identification. We have to ask: what search would the readers be using when they want to look it up? It might be "13th SS Division", or "Handschar Division", or "Croatian SS". (These should all be redirects) So the title helps the readers identify what they are looking for, and therefore is a good one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't think of another FA that gives three different ways of describing the same thing in the page title; can you find one? This is a novel theory of what a page title should be; we could run it by WT:TITLE and see if they agree. [Btw, thanks for all the work guys, I'll come back to this in the morning.] - Dank (push to talk) 05:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The title is the final version of the official name of the division, translated from the German. I've now added a redirect for "Croatian SS", but the others are already in place. I've tried to find every shorthand for it and have incorporated the short versions as redirects. One of the difficulties is that the divisional name format of the "non-German" SS divisions was different from the "German" ones. ie 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS (1st Croatian) rather than 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. This division had a sister division 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian), which explains the (1st Croatian) bit at the end of this one's title.
  • "mountain infantry formation used to conduct operations": "formation" and "operations" are words with very little meaning, so they don't help the struggling reader much at all. They're perfectly good words after the reader is on firmer ground.
    • No, "formation" and "operations" are technical terms, with very precise meanings. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Independent State of Croatia (NDH)": The article uses a lot of acronyms, which is fine when you need them, but acronyms reduce readability, so short descriptions are often preferred to acronyms, especially less-obvious acronyms (most readers won't know that "Croatia" in Croatian starts with "H"). It might be better to define "Croatia" as meaning the Independent State of Croatia, and go with "Croatia".
    • Heh, I got there and wondered why all the cars had "HR" written on them! This should be in Croatian as well as English. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have now added an explanation that it is commonly known as the NDH (along with the translation). Calling the NDH "Croatia" is sensitive for Croatians, and is used by other ethnicities in the region to equate modern-day Croatia with the NDH. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "March to December 1944": Pretty obvious to me that we're talking about WWII, but the clues you've given in the first sentence are sparse ... no mention of Germans or WWII. I'm pretty sure most English-speakers in 2012 aren't aware of what was going on in the Balkan Peninsula in WWII, and all you've said is that we've got a "formation" and "operations" there ... readers who don't know what the Waffen-SS was, even if they get that it had something to do with WWII from the dates, might easily think that you're talking about some local power struggles.
    • Precisely why this article is so badly required! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so that's all in the first sentence. There are similar things that will slow most readers down and trip them up and force them to backtrack before they understand throughout. Is my objection on readability any clearer now, Hawkeye? - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll make an additional comment at WT:MHC about why I'm opposing that doesn't belong on this page, since it's not about this article per se. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I get the objection on readability now. I will get started on improving that aspect at least. I've reviewed the first para of the lead, and wondered if you could give me some feedback on whether the readability has improved? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, striking my oppose, the lead is much better. I won't have time to finish this one, though. I'll ask people at WT:TITLE to have a look at our discussion here. - Dank (push to talk) 05:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. "Hackfleisch/Rübezahl": See WP:SLASH.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 05:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I probably won't post a full review, but I do have some comments about sourcing:

  • Are you sure that Amber Books is a reliable publisher? Unfortunately their website is down (it may have been hacked according to warnings at Google), but the books attributed to this firm at Amazon.com are largely low-quality titles written by little-known authors which I've only seen being sold cheaply in really bad mass market bookshops. Do the books published by this firm have a reputation for accuracy?
    • Amber Books appear to be a part of Zenith Press and MBI Publishing. Chris Bishop was certainly prolific, mostly with books like "German Infantry of WWII" and "German Panzers of WWII" which focus on orders of battle, unit and formation lists etc. As an aside, the article doesn't rely on Bishop much at all, and alternative references for that information are probably available. I'll start looking. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, does Schiffer Publishing have a reputation for accuracy? I have a degree of familiarity with this firm, and its books seem to be mainly written by enthusiasts rather than qualified specialists.
    • Is it your experience that they have a reputation for publishing military history books that are not accurate? They are obviously not a university press, and publish a wide range of books on a broad spread of topics, some scholarly, some not. Many of the military history books they publish are on obscure topics. The book itself has all the hallmarks of a scholarly text (heavily footnoted, good use of quality primary and secondary sources, detailed bibliography with all the texts you would expect, seven appendices with detailed lists from divisional order of battle, award recipients, rank conversion chart, glossary, even an index of names of unit members mentioned in the text). It mentions it received the Rutgers University Sydney Zebel History Prize, but I think that is an undergrad rather than post-grad award... The book is cited by various historians working in the field, including in several articles in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies by historians like Melson and Mario Jareb of the Croatian Institute of History. Jareb also cited it in "The Independent State of Croatia, 1941-45" (2007) edited by Sabrina Ramet of which I have a copy. I really don't see any serious questions about its reliability unless you have the impression Schiffer's have real issues with lack of accuracy in the military history books they publish. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • From memory, this firm's books are hit and miss - some are quite good, and others rubbish, so I don't think that they apply much quality control to the manuscripts they choose to publish (much like Stackpole Books and, to a lesser extent, Osprey). If you've checked this book out and it's cited in the journal of Slavic Studies it should be fine. Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remove 'The East Came West: Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist Volunteers in the German Armed Forces' from the 'further reading' section. Anything published by Axis Europa is not a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • "Partisans" is linked in the Origin section but already used in the Background section
    • Himmler put Artur Phleps, commander of the 7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen (7th SS), Consider removing "(7th SS)", which adds nothing.
    • Is Herbert von Oberwurzer notable? Red links are just fine if the subject is likely to be created.
    • SS-Standartenführer (Colonel) Karl von Krempler, a specialist in Islam who also spoke Serbo-Croatian as well as what? Considered deleting "also"
    • The SS ignored the demand and von Krempler continued recruiting, including both Muslim and Catholic deserters from the NDH armed forces. "including both" sounds awkward here. Can you re-phrase? (Especially as up to now you have been talkling only about recruiting Muslims.)
    • The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust states that "The Germans made a point of publicizing the fact that al-Husayni had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo for the sole purpose of giving his blessing to the Muslim army and inspecting its arms and training exercises". According to Aleksa Đilas in The Nation That Wasn't, al-Husayni: "accepted, visited Bosnia and convinced some important Muslim leaders that a Muslim SS division would be in the interest of Islam." Instead of quoting and attributing, could this be paraphrased?
    • The Mufti insisted, "The most important task of this division must be to protect the homeland and families (of the Bosnian volunteers); the division must not be permitted to leave Bosnia" Did he say "of the Bosnian volunteers"? If not, use square brackets instead of parentheses.
    • Despite the support of al-Husayni, recruitment of Muslims for the division fell well short of the numbers needed, This is contradicted by the next section, which gives it a good strength for a division.
      • The issue is with the reduction in prescribed strength, I have clarified a little. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider merging the "Composition" section into the previous section, so it comes before "Croat Catholic recruitment"
      • I've left it as a section, but moved the sentence about Catholic recruitment up. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caption: Security zone corresponding to local district subdivisions highlighted in green"". Could this be rephrased to something like the "13th Division's area of responsibility (in green)"?
    • in which the 7th SS was also involved. Does not tell us anything we want to know; consider dropping.
    • Under the command of V SS Mountain Corps, the primary tasks I think you mean to say the the 13th SS Division was under the command of V SS Corps?
    • Would prefer if you used "7th SS Division" instead of "7th SS" etc
    • At the conclusion of Operation Vollmond, the commander of the 27th Regiment, Desiderius Hampel, was appointed division commander rank?
      • Clarified, he stayed at Standartenfuhrer until Jan 45 when he was promoted to Brigadefuhrer. Weird really, because you'd think he should have been promoted when he took over the division, but he'd only made Standartenfuhrer in April 44, so maybe it was too quick for another payrise. They also stripped out some of his div troops, so maybe that was also a factor. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Radivoj Kerovic notable?
      • Good point, probably not, I can always go back there if he appears in other articles - delinked. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cooperation with local forces in the security zone" Suggest removing or reducing this header
    • SS-Standartenführer Desiderius Hampel confers with a Chetnik commander – summer of 1944 Suggest in the Summer
  • All in all, a really impressive article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Veit Scherzer, author of Ritterkreuzträger 1939–1945 Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchives (in German). Jena, Germany: Scherzers Miltaer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2, all five presentations of the Knight's Cross to members of the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar are disputed and connot be verified at the German National Archive. I think this should be mentioned. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well done :) Regards, Kebeta (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only looked at the lead ... the division ... the division ... the division ... the division. Please try to vary the prose. There are six uses of "however"; an overused word and not needed in most instances here; the overuse of however at FAC is as pervasive as copyvio at DYK. [40] That's all I looked at. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have addressed the issue with division in the lead and have checked the rest of the article. I've also removed all the "however"s. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I would like to see an independent review from someone not involved in the MilHist Project before closing. Graham Colm (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently doing a review. ceranthor 17:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Prose is pretty good. A very detailed and long article. Nice work!
Lead
  • Composed of Bosnian Muslims with some Catholic Croat soldiers and mostly German and Yugoslav Volksdeutsche (ethnic German) officers and non-commissioned officers, - double use of officers is redundant
    • There is no redundancy here: "officers" and "non-commissioned officers" are two quite distinct groups. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • The Muslims received little protection from the Croatian Home Guard, the regular army of the NDH, whom the Germans described as "of minimal combat value". - citation for this quote?
Origin
  • I know you're trying to limit citations, but the two orphan quotes in this section really require some citation. The current reference only has one mention; it shouldn't be a big deal.
Operation Herbstlaub
  • Again, quotations at the end of the "unreliable" sentence.
Sources
Are you sure that Amber Books published all of those sources with a different original publisher? For example, in the secound source, SS: Hell on the Western Front, it looks like they were only responsible for the editorial and design according to this page.
General
A niggling concern, but per the MOS ten should be digits, not spelled out. If you have time to fix this, feel free. ceranthor 17:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Ceranthor, pretty sure they are all done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
To continue a little bit on a theme someone raised earlier - the opening paragraph uses both the term "formation" and "division" to describe this - surely this could be streamlined to lose the extra more generic term?
Also, soon afterwards, it says that the division was "named" Handschar, italicized and linked, but not bolded. I'm not a native speaker, but it seems odd to me that we first implicitly name something and then say it's named something else. The verb name may imply that this was its proper name, whereas it might have been just an additional name or even a popular nickname - this needs to be clarified with a subtle change in wording.
The opening paragraph also says: It was one of thirty-eight divisions, and the first to be formed using non-Germanic peoples, fielded by the Waffen-SS [...] - this is also an example of less than brilliant prose, I'm afraid - it looks like the order of notability of those factoids is off - if you want to say that it was the first non-Germanic Waffen-SS division, presumably because that is its primary source of general notability, then just go ahead and say that without as many clauses and commas, which make the statement needlessly convoluted. Also, do we care that there were exactly 38 Waffen-SS divisions, is that number significant enough in the intro? Particularly if that number was still growing at the time of the founding of this division.
The Lepre source visibly stands out in the References section. I see some concerns have been raised about its reliability - I think it would be best to explain this in the article text, referenced to another secondary source that confirms its value. Certainly the first mention of George Lepre in the text could easily get tagged with {{who?}} right now, and it wouldn't really be unwarranted when we're talking about a featured article.
I see a single full copyedit tag on the article talk page. Another copyedit specifically oriented toward reduction of excess verbiage would be best.
--Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed "formation" from the lead and reduced the use of division further. I have also partially implemented your suggestion and have split up the non-Germanic and Waffen-SS description in the lead. Lepre is the core source on this division, is cited by people like Charles L. Melson in a scholarly journal specialising in Slavic military history and by Mario Jareb in a wide-ranging scholarly text on the subject of the Independent State of Croatia edited by Sabrina Ramet, and I believe that addresses the reliability issue adequately, per Nick-D's conclusion. I respectfully disagree with the need for a further c/e. This article has had a full GOCE c/e, and Dank (among others) has supported it on prose after his own c/e. There will always be editors that don't like something about the prose in an article of this length. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see the opening paragraph change... yet?
I still think you should make a legacy section or something of the sort to explain why Lepre is the main source exactly in those words. Heck, if the division song has its own section, such a basic note on relevant historiography should, too.
I'm certainly not an expert on military formation articles, but featured articles need to be accessible to all, not just experts on military formation articles. Again, following up on an earlier complaint, some of those details don't really seem necessary. For example, in the description of Operation Hackfleisch, there's a bulleted list of tasks that includes three items for the 13th and three items for the 7th. Why not omit (or make more concise) the detailed tasks of the other off-topic units, leaving them for a separate article (Operation Hackfleisch)? It's more important to help readability than to be perfectly precise given that the whole thing is on the order of 10K words. Furthermore, it's hard even for myself, who has some knowledge of Bosnian toponymy, to make sense of all this without a map and with some of those looking like typos - Klandanj (Kladanj?), Bratunaci (Bratunac?). Do you see my point? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another quick example of a problem with the level of detail is a twofold problem in the Villefranche-de-Rouergue Mutiny section:
  • Cohen's claim of 150 murders is significantly larger and curiously non-specific compared to the two others (a number divisible by ten in the context of dead people simply sounds off-the-cuff to my ear), and the article doesn't explain why it lists it or indeed it doesn't elaborate the discrepancy - what were the primary sources used by each of those secondary sources that in turn caused the confusion?
  • The article mentions that "Five soldiers, including Ejub Jašarević and Adem Okanadžić, were also decorated". Why are those two singled out of the list of five?
I hope that illustrates the kind of thinking that leads me to believe there's still work to be done on the prose. And I didn't even read the entire article yet. *shrug* --Joy [shallot] (talk)
Sorry about the lead, I've done it now (something about late night editing across two screens I think...). I'm not against the idea of a Legacy section (or something similar), but haven't seen one before. Can you point me to an article that has such a thing? There is probably some scope to spin off a few content forks from this article, the mutiny has been suggested, and a couple of the major operations might also be candidates. The query about the numbers executed seems to have the potential to stray into OR, if the secondary sources don't agree, are we in a position to say why unless they address it themselves? The point about picking out two non-notable soldiers is well made, I will delete them. As I say, I think there will almost always be "work to do" on the prose of any article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what exactly you're asking about the legacy section - I can't name a great example off the top of my head, but there's probably many articles that make an explicit mention of the secondary sources used to also compose them. WP:FURTHER says that editors may include brief annotations, so that's a possible avenue to address this. WP:MILMOS#SOURCES doesn't account for this possibility explicitly, but it does make a point of encouraging editors to survey any available historiographic commentary, so it stands to reason that there's no harm in actually noting some of that in the article.
Assuming the glaring number discrepancy didn't arise very recently, it's likely that another secondary source addressed it, so that should in turn be referenced there.
In any case, after reading some more of it, it seems to me that the real readability problem in the 1944 sections about Bosnia is the lack of geographical illustrations. The map File:Handzar.PNG is overly detailed because it shows not only the relevant area but all those other counties in NDH, and the color coding and captioning on that picture is fairly confusing for this article. I would recommend adding some illustrations, even very simple ones, such as those on 1992 European Community Monitor Mission helicopter downing or Bleiburg repatriations. You can superimpose the dots of the various mentioned locations on a map of Bosnia. Even if an anachronistic (modern-day) border is shown, it'll still be more informative than the present lack of illustration.
BTW, you should go through the article linking the toponyms - I just noticed that the first instance of Brčko wasn't linked, and there could be more. It'll also be a kind of a guard against typos. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to put something together today along the lines of a Historiography section, let me know whether you think it addresses your concerns? I agree that more graphics would enhance the article, especially around the major operations, and will also ask the map guy to tweak the context map that shows the area of operations. And I'll check for duplicate links and non-linked items too. Will note when I think I've addressed all of your points immediately above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked each section for wikilinking and did some minor sp and grammar c/e. I'm hesitant to use an anachronistic map due to the significant differences in the NDH-Serbia border, and the fact that all blank location maps available have the Dayton Agreement entity boundaries on them. I have asked the author of the map already in the article if they could help, but I'm largely in their hands as to timeframe. The last thing is the "Historiography" section, which I will hopefully add sometime today. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've annotated Lepre and Redzic in the Books and Further Reading sections to indicate they are the principal texts in English and Serbo-Croatian respectively and have also annotated that Lepre is cited by Jareb and Melson. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's better. A few notes:
  • Bosanska Rača does actually seem to exist, it's across the river from Sremska Rača. Since the point of the sentence is river crossing, you may want to stay close to the source, also possibly linking Rača Bridge.
  • Rajići is pipe-linked to Milići, which is a modern-day municipality; Rajići is a standalone village (listed also at bs:Demografija Vlasenice) so it would make more sense to link that, disambiguated to Rajići, Bosnia and Herzegovina (there's another eponymous village in Croatia), and then optionally redirect that with {{R with possibilities}} to its municipality of Milići.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK done, but you'd better check I've got it right, I haven't done the "redirect with possibilities" before. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates closing comment - I have decided this article is ready for promotion. Any remaining issues can be addressed on the article's talk page. I thank the nominator and all the reviewers for these intelligent, constructive discussions and observations. Graham Colm (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:31, 6 December 2012 [41].

Harold Larwood[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to its submission here, this article received copious talkpage reviews from knowledgeable editors—which is just as well, since I am somewhat out of my comfort zone with sports articles. But I've always been fascinated by Larwood, a cricketer of my father's and grandfather's generations whose stellar career was stalled when he became the instrument of the cricket establishment's dark designs, after which they callously dropped him...or so I have always believed. After all my researches into Larwood's life and career, I have to take on board the possibility that he was to an extent a willing or even eager accomplice, and that the shy, honest-artisan exterior perhaps concealed a cruel, even sadistic streak. Of course, encyclopedic neutrality prevents expression of such private thoughts; whether they have any substance, you can judge for yourself after reading. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I commented extensively here at an earlier stage of this article's development, and am happy to fully support now. I suspect, with some bitterness, that this may just have raised the bar for cricket articles in future! There is certainly nothing missing from a cricket POV. I've just a few last nit-picks and suggestions from a final read-through, all of which may be allowed to pass harmlessly outside off-stump (or perhaps leg-stump) and do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Larwood and other bowlers were severely punished by Bradman during Australia's victorious tour of 1930": Is "punished" a little sports-speak? Someone may take it literally! Perhaps "dominated" would work better.
  • Something stronger than "dominated" is called for, but to avoid overcolourful phrases I have made it "completely dominated". Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still have a niggling feeling that the lead is light on his achievements. It mentions his early career, the controversy and his retirement. Why not a sentence, before Bradman is mentioned, that he had great success in county cricket for the rest of his career. Also, maybe worth mentioning that Larwood was personally successful in 1932-33, not just the tactic.
  • Although perhaps light on specific achievements, the lead does announce Larwood as perhaps "the finest bowler of his generation". That should signal his quality for readers. I have added that he "rapidly acquired a place among the country's leading bowlers", and that he continued to be successful after his Test career ended. I think his personal contribution to the 1932-33 tours is adequately covered by "With Larwood as its spearhead..." Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a match against Lancashire Seconds": Will a non-cricketer (or non-sports person) understand "Seconds"?
  • Well, the term "Second XI" has been used earlier in the sentence, so I don't honestly think there will be confusion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and took the wicket of Vallance Jupp, an experienced former Test all-rounder": Nit-pick, but Jupp's Test career was not over in 1924.
  • "the former England bowler Percy Fender was convinced": Perhaps a better description is needed of Fender. Former bowler does not make it seem that his opinion really matters. Perhaps identifying him as Surrey captain, or as a cricketer-journalist may be better?
  • "has been characterised by commentators as "probably the most unpleasant [Test match] ever played"": Not sure what Swanton is up to here, but this is a direct quote from the Wisden report on the third Test.
  • Swanton attributes the wording to Wisden. I agree it 's better to cite directly to the original source, and have now done so. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Bodyline: I think that there may still be a little missing for those unfamiliar with the tactic. The prelude section mentions Bradman's apparent dislike for short bowling, then the leg theory tactics. Then the tour section mentions the application of the tactic, and Hobbs' comment on bumpers. But no-where does it mention the linking of the short-pitched attack (which also was not a new tactic) and the leg-side bowling.
  • I think, here, there is a danger of the article becoming too much focussed on the bodyline question generally, rather than on Larwood. The quotation from Larwood in the "Preamble" section links "sharp rising balls" (another term for short-pitched bowling) with the legside fielding trap; I'm inclined to think that further descriptions may confuse, rather than enlighten. I feel we may have to disagree on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a big point, but a greater number of bowlers than those listed here used Bodyline in 1933. I think one of the clinchers was when Ken Farnes used it in the University Match. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, I want to focus on Larwood, rather than providing further examples of bodyline practitioners. There is a WP bodyline article to which those interested in the wider practice can link. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your earlier review of the raticle and for the many helpful points which I have largely taken aboard. Also for your support and kind comments. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Due to lack of internet time, I did a talk page review rather than standard PR. A glance shows it to be fully worthy of the star.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support, and earlier comments, provided notwithstanding your rationed internet time. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I was another of the reviewers who previously commented on the article's talk page, and I came away thinking that it fully deserved the star. Everything I pointed out has been addressed, and I'm confident that all of the FA criteria have been met. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely better free images are available for the infobox than one from a cigarette card?—indopug (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most unlikely. There are no pre-1923 images, so we are dependent on what was published in Australia during Larwood's tours there, in 1928-29 and 1932-33. Some very thorough searches have failed to come up with anything better. If you can suggest something, I'd be very pleased to consider it. There are plenty of good non-free images, naturally. Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a few minor queries, none of which affect my support for this comprehensive and balanced article.

  • Test cricketer
    • "series' decisive match at The Oval" – I think this is the first mention of the ground, and a blue link would be appropriate. The WP article on the Oval does not capitalise the definite article in the middle of a sentence (and nor do I, but de gustibus).
      • Link now in place (an earlier mention, with the link, got edited out). And you're right: "the Oval" is normal, and appears as such later in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Larwood did not join the MCC's weak team which toured South Africa in 1927–28" – did he refuse an invitation or wasn't he asked?
  • Prelude to bodyline
      • I'm not absolutely sure. South African tours were very much a B feature in those days (this one was captained by an army officer who'd never played in county cricket - he averaged 2.6 for the series), and many established Test players didn't tour. I suspect that it was a case of them not being expected to go, rather than their refusing, but the sources are not explicit. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He headed the bowling averages in 1931 and 1932" – domestic, rather than international I imagine; might be worth specifing.
  • Australian tour, 1932–33
    • "In reply, MCC refuted the Australian Board's charges" – "repudiated", or "denied", or "rejected", but not refuted (i.e. "disproved", according to the OED)
    • "the Australian prime minister… the governor of South Australia … and the British Dominions Secretary" – inconsistency of capitalisation here; seems hard on the prime minister who doesn't get any capitals when a mere secretary of state gets them.
      • It was only the prime minister of AustraliaDecapitalised, best Guardian style
  • Note 5: Not 1940: the Rawalpindi Express wasn't born until the 1970s. – Tim riley (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Tim. I've no idea why I wrote 1940 - I must have been thinking of something else (quite a common fault these days) and have corrected the year. Other fixes also made. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Afterthoughts. In note 5 perhaps "upper 90s" rather than "late 90s", which might seem to refer to dates rather than speeds. And I am not a dab hand at the MoS, but I think block quotes, as in the delightful envoi, didn't oughter be in italics. – Tim riley (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of Sources
  • Missing bibliographic info for Swanton
  • FN30: location?
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
  • FN122: formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - the article has seven images, six of which are freely licensed and one of which (the bodyline photo) is used under a fair use rationale, which I find valid given the prominence of the bodyline in the article (and life of Larwood). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fo doing this - much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I can see no issues with this at all. A great article. -- CassiantoTalk 00:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 15:40, 4 December 2012 [42].

Banksia grossa[edit]

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This makes the 22nd nomination for featured article of Banksia species. It came together well and is comprehensive as can be apart from one record about a bee pollinator which is proving elusive (and may be an unusable pers. comm.) Anyway, it's short and I'm around. Have at it..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Maky:

  • "Visitors to inflorescences" – Wouldn't "pollinators" be simpler, especially for the lead?
Good point - I've been careful to reflect the sources. We know they are likely pollinators..actually I'll put that in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead only mentions one mammalian pollinator, whereas the "Ecology" section mentions that species and several (other) dasyurid marsupials.
the other species visit other banksia species elsewhere. Only one has been confirmed for this species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems a little short given the wealth of information contained in the article. It doesn't need significant expansion, but some more interesting details that could be included are details about the flowers (i.e. when the bloom, etc.), a very general overview of the taxonomy/phylogeny, etc...
added a bit -the phylogeny gets a bit complicated so hard to see which fragments can be added that add any value on their own Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • link to Abietinae occurs long after it's first mention
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
something's happened to the formatting there....fixed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it not typical (for plant articles) to include the distribution map in the taxobox rather than in the body of the text?
I've usually up them in the taxobox for animals and fungi, I think I've just followed on from older Banksia FAs when we stuck them in the distribution section.....not fussed either way...did have a mild concern that it makes the taxobox pretty long... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the article looks pretty good. I did not do a source check. – Maky « talk » 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check good – All images with suitable licenses and descriptions. – Maky « talk » 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Choess: I was GA reviewer on this article. I edit many articles about plants, although generally not Australian flora, and I'm a reasonably skilled amateur botanist from eastern North America. I anticipated that this would go to FA, and tried to give close attention to the prose when I did my GA review. I tried to spotcheck, but I don't have easy access to most of the sources.

While I do understand botanical language reasonably well, I'm not personally familiar with banksias. I felt that the description gave me a good sense of the plant and what it would look like if I ran across one (subject to a few caveats below). As a sort-of-expert, the taxonomy section was clear to me: I can understand why George and Thiele & Ladiges made the placements they did, and why Mast's phylogeny gave different results.

A few things occur to me on re-reading:

  • A slightly more extensive description of the flowers would be nice. It doesn't need too much detail—to some extent it's covered by Banksia, and that needn't be repeated in extenso—but it isn't clear from reading what the flower shape is. (It looks tubular from the photos.) We jump right from "color" to the styles without really describing the rest of the perianth.
tried to expand a bit - better? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The leaf margins are described as "linear". I would associate that term with leaf shape; I'd expect an untoothed margin to be simply described as "entire" (or "without teeth", to be less jargon-y).
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it a little harder to picture the seeds. Is there an illustration of a generic Banksia seed available? I'm trying to picture the wedge-shaped seeds with wings and a woody separator between them and not succeeding particularly well.
    Linked seed separator, so this is taken care of. Choess (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have to go now, but I'll see if I can add more material later. Choess (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support, with a few minor comments below. I can testify in particular to criterion 1c: article is a thorough survey of the relevant literature.

  • "Many stems rise from a woody lignotuber." Should this read "Its many stems...", with reference to the shrub in the previous sentence? As it stands, it's not clear whether it means that, or that many, but not all, of all Banksia grossa stems arise from a lignotuber.
changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At anthesis the flowers produce unusually large quantities of nectar...": Unusual in comparison to what?
well, most other flowers...but the word doesn't add anything that isn't covered by "large" or "copious" Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The auricles are 2 mm long." The auricles of what? The cotyledons?
yes. tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of "Ecology", make clear what effect animals eating seeds will have on reseeding. "Resprouting plants benefit more from longer intervals": benefit more than what?
yes. tweaked both. It is the populations that benefit by there being more seed.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Choess (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Usual thorough job, so just a few mini-nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed one overlink of the common word "nectar"
  • and were the basis of its species name — "are"?
changed to present tense Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found in sand or sand over laterite among heath — reads oddly to a Brit, perhaps amongst heath on sandy soil, or sand overlying laterite — feel free to ignore, I don't much like my version either
Reads fine to me....maybe I've been reading too many botanical texts.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flowering occurs over the cooler months of March to September. — "in" or "throughout", rather than "over"
changed preposition Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 follicles — I think MoS is to spell out the number
changed to word Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The woody separator — I'm not sure what we are talking about here, is this the woody central column?
it's a tiny disc-shaped piece of wood that has the silhouette of the seed, and splits two seed. All three are in the follicle. I will think how to reword... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inflorescences... — overuse of "recorded in this para
verbs diversified Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support above now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, very strong. A few quick comments-

  • "entire and inrolled" Jargony.
de-jargonised Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "styles loosely curling around the infructescence (although this trait was reversed in micrantha)," Can you refer to species by specific name only?
whoops/fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we perhaps have some "for instance"s in the pollinators section?
were you thinking of anywhere in particular as no spots jumped out at me at first glance Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The purpose of coloured nectar is unclear, especially as many pollinators appear to be insects or nocturnal mammals." Perhaps explain why these statements are linked?
rejigged - hopefully clearer Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence in the article has no cited reference.
whoops/added Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, great. I made a few tiny tweaks. J Milburn (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a very good article. I'm not familiar with the scientific/botanical language used to describe plants, but was generally able to make sense of the more technical parts of the article. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "it was described as a distinct species in 1981" - I presume that this is the technical way of saying that it was first formally classified in 1981. Is there a more reader-friendly translation of this term which could be used?
I've linked "described" and just left out "as a species" as that is somewhat redundant. Is the link enough? Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • "it grows as a many-stemmed shrub to 1 m (3 ft) high " - the first para of the 'Description' section states that the size of the plants can differ, so this wording seems overly specific
I'm not sure I follow - in the lead? I think some idea is good as technically shrubs can be up to 4 or 5 metres tall in some definitions, or as short as prostrate ground covers. Hence some sort of number to immediately give the reader a picture is good. The shrub usually grows to 1 m but occasionally 1.5 m, so was deliberating about the number to use. Is this what you meant? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though some flower spikes are terminal" - is there a less technical way of expressing this?
added parenthesised bit Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around 40% of plants occur on road verges." - do the sources offer an explanation for this? Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not with this but the situation is this - much of the land has been cleared for agriculture, so there are often strips of native vegetation between the road and field boundary which harbour rare and unusual plants. However these are vulnerable to things like road widening by councils etc. and weeds. Anyway, many many discussions on plants from WA touch on this. I'd have to find a different source to elaborate, or link it somewhere and discuss there with a general statement. I will think about it Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A general statement would do the job if its fairly common for WA plant species. Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
aha! Road_verge#Rural_roadsides....nice link Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That works, but dedicated text would be better if sources ever discuss this. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • Didn't see a source check above. Going through them myself, I see no reliability issues but there is some inconsistent formatting:
    • Some page ranges have "p."/"pp.", others don't (I prefer to see the "p."/"pp.").
it's been the convention to have books with the 'p's and journals not to. I've just followed the templates, so rather than tweak them for this article alone I think it's better to look at referencing globally as all my other FAs are like this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some retrieval dates are in day-month-year, others yyyy-mm-dd (much prefer the former). I realise these inconsistencies may be arise from using different citation templates, but there's usually ways around those.
changed to words. the old formatted one was a relic and has been removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for not getting back sooner; tks for your responses/actions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 15:40, 4 December 2012 [43].

Terang Boelan[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a short (but solid!) look at a film very few of our readers have ever heard of. Terang Boelan was the most commercially successful film produced and released in the Dutch East Indies, what is now Indonesia. Although its casting process didn't feature a car chase like Balink's earlier film Pareh, it did feature singing by future National Hero Ismail Marzuki. The film has been lost since the 1970s (at least) and as such the plot section is reliant on advertising material from the period, reprinted in two of the sources. I look forward to addressing any comments, and if passed this will likely be our first FA on an early non-Hollywood production.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. All the issues I raised have been addressed or explained, either below or now moved to the talk page, so I'm pleased to support this. It's well-written and interesting, and I enjoyed reading it. The only thing I should mention again is that I can't read the Indonesian-language sources, and they are the main sources (Biran, Said, Esha et al, and Anwar), but I'm happy to trust what Crisco says about them. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. Good luck with the rest of the nomination. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi Crisco, I enjoyed reading this. A few points:
(Note to delegates: some copy-editing comments that were here have been moved to the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Citations: Citation style is consistent so far as I can see, except that Foreign Exchange, NYT doesn't have its date in brackets, but the others do. Personally I'm not keen on multiple footnotes after sentences, or footnotes inside sentences, because it makes the text untidy. It's up to you what citation style you use, but maybe you would consider bundling some citations, esp when there are three in a row, or moving some footnotes to the end of sentences.
  • Hmm, I'll merge them. All the references use the cite family of templates, so any differences are intrinsic to said templates (the NYT source uses cite news, while the others are cite book and cite journal). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merger completed, now no sentence has double footnotes — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: I can't check Biran, the most widely used source, because it's in Indonesian, as are Said, Esha et al, and Anwar. The other sources seem fine: Van der Heide expresses the confluence-of-influence issue well on p. 128; I wonder if the article could make that point more clearly. Foreign Exchange, NYT is a dead link.
  • The NYT FX link is working for me, it's just a subscription-required link. I'll double check Van der Heide. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get "Page Removed. We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page, but we don’t want to lose you." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's odd. Perhaps it's area specific? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must be. It's a minor issue (the exchange rate) anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a sentence clarifying the "indigenisation" concept. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: Could use some alt text; alt=photograph, or alt=poster, is fine. The main image, File:Terang Boelan p311.jpg -- the copyright issue looks fine to me. It's one of those claims of PD that relies on it having been PD elsewhere at a particular time, and they are complex. Crisco, I see you've discussed it here on Commons. The second image, File:A Wong Brother KR 30 April 1947.jpg, would look better inside one of the sections, rather than straddling them. I can't tell whether it's PD; it was first published in 1947, so again it's complex. The third image, File:Siti Akbari postcard 1.jpg, I would have claimed fair use for, but it may indeed be PD according to the rules cited on the page, I don't know. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified the PD-ness. It's like Poland: copyright protection was extended after the URAA, meaning that it stayed PD in the US. I agree that copyright in these situations is complex. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem familiar with these rules, so it's fine as far as I'm concerned. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: Some concerns about how clear this would be to someone with no knowledge of the geography and history. The lead doesn't say what language "Terange Bolean" is. It doesn't give the nationalities of the people mentioned. It says it was shot in the Dutch East Indies and Singapore, was aimed at native audiences (native linked to native Indonesians, but not explained in the text), and that it earned a certain amount in British Malaya. This revived the film industry in the colony (British Malaya?), and inspired native-oriented movies there (the same "native" referent as above?). Is there a way of writing this without making the reader work hard to follow where it's all happening, but without being so detailed that the lead gets bogged down? I added a suggested edit here (and reverted myself), but it still left a few things unclear that I wasn't sure I could explain properly without introducing errors.
Generally, I think it would help if you could go through the article and try to read it through the eyes of a reader who knows nothing about this. For example, "Biran considered the film a turning point in the history of Indonesian cinema, showing the possibilities of the medium ...". Why was it a turning point, which possibilities did it show to whom (other filmmakers, audiences?), and in what ways did it achieve that, as opposed to Pareh, i.e. what exactly was special about this film? If you could go through the article checking for issues like that, I think it would help. None of the sentences or paragraphs should leave attentive, but uninformed, readers puzzled. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try and do that but, regarding your example, there are a couple issues. First, we have articles on most of the major figures behind this film (Balink, the Wongs, Franken, Saeroen [fl. beginning in the 1920s, not born, btw], Mochtar, Roekiah...) so birth and death dates are not necessary for most readers. Those who are interested could easily click through. Secondly, I am not sure conflating Indonesia's independence with Singapore works as Singapore likely would never have been included in the country. Third, I'm not sure of the value of indicating what language Terang Boelan comes from, as it can be made implicit by saying that it is from the Dutch East Indies (modern day Indonesia); none of our current FAs on Indonesian films say that the title is Indonesian. Much of the wording is nice, however, and I'll add it.
  • That's good. The only thing there I'm not keen on is "However, complaints have been targeted at the later films which followed Terang Boelan's formula without modification." It sticks out as a little disjointed. First, it's not about the film, I don't think complaints are targeted at things, and "without modification" could be expressed differently. I think the sentence should be removed, or rewritten and filled out a bit. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. I considered replacing it with the fact that the industry grew rapidly afterwards, but we already have that earlier in the paragraph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think each article should stand alone as a summary of the topic, rather than relying on readers to click through, which most won't. Regarding birth and death dates, it's standard in encyclopaedia articles to do that on first reference (for the deceased, anyway; I don't know whether it's also done for the living -- I would have to check). It's up to you, and no one can insist on it, but it does help the uninformed reader to orient herself -- otherwise it's just a mass of names (Smith did this, Jones did that, McDonald did the next), and when the names are not English ones it's even harder for an English speaker to keep track). Anything that helps the reader to pinpoint the name and remember it when it next appears (dates, description) is good. But I won't go on about it; it's up to you.

    I would say you do need to say which language Terang Boelan is in; nothing is implicit for a reader who's not familiar with that region. You give the literal translation in English, but you don't say which language it's translated from, and that sticks out as an omission. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... "Indonesian for Bright Moon"? (drop the literally)
One of the issues we're facing here is that the sources expect a certain level of familiarity from the readers, thus allowing them to draw conclusions for themselves. To the best of my recollection, Biran does not explicitly state why The chose action and mythological films (it's implied that he worked with what he knew, one, that his films were targeted at Chinese audiences [who also wanted what they knew], two, and that both genres could be worked with fairly cheaply). Because of our policy against original research, explicitly stating what is left between the lines in the sources is a Catch-22: without such statements readers may lack knowledge to understand the issue as well as they could, but with such statements the article would fall afoul of the policy.
I could give a bit more about Pareh, for example, which can be supported by sources. However, I think it's a little tangential to talk about the casting difficulties that production faced. Its budget and that The Teng Chun targeted native audiences afterwards may be useful. I've tried to define the key terms which may not be clicked through, like "keroncong (traditional music with Portuguese influences)" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take the point about OR; yes, I've come up against the same issue. It can sometimes we worked out. For example, some sentences can be written so that there's no suggestion of a gap in understanding, e.g. "During 1934 and early 1935, all feature films released in the Dutch East Indies were produced by The Teng Chun, who focused on low-budget, but popular, films based on Chinese mythology or martial arts." That makes it clearer that this is just what he did (forget why). But next sentence: "This situation ..." makes it sounds as though he was doing this (focusing on Chinese mythology) because of the Great Depression. So you need to go through the article looking for things like that -- gaps in understanding, or wording that gives the impression of a gap where there isn't one. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope my recent edits could have addressed the issues of the background. I'm going to campus now, so I'll continue working on this later today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified some of it and left notes for further developments when I get home. I may be blind to further things which are unclear to those without background knowledge (admittedly common in academia) so I would appreciate any further suggestions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got those notes I made earlier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweaks:
  • Better to say the film targeted, or was aimed at, not was targeted at. "Was aimed at" is best.
  • Careful with "... Terang Boelan was partially inspired by the 1936 Hollywood film The Jungle Princess. The film, shot in the Indies and Singapore ..." Sounds like Jungle Princess was shot in ...
  • "This revived the faltering film industry in the Indies and inspired native-oriented movies in Malaya, several of which stuck closely to ..." (instead of semi-colon)
  • Changed to a period. Both are stand-alone clauses, so I don't think a comma would be correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way you've done it is fine: " This revived the faltering film industry in the Indies and inspired native-oriented movies in Malaya. Several of the films which followed stuck closely to ..." But a comma and "several of which" would be fine too: "This revived the faltering film industry in the Indies and inspired native-oriented movies in Malaya, several of which stuck closely to ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reordered again. I avoided saying "several of which" as I was worried it would be understood to mean that the films in the Indies did not follow the formula, but those in Malaya did. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I see what you mean. I like the way you've done it now. Suggestion: "... romance which was followed for decades afterwards" is fine, but "romance that was followed for decades afterwards" would be better. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like your suggestion included that, so done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the turning point issue being clarified? (I assume it's that a film industry emerged after this film, but it's not 100 percent clear.)
  • Having double checked the source, it appears he is referring to boom in productions following Terang Boelan. Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you wrote is good, but needs a tweak: "catalytic effect on ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " though targeted at ethnic Chinese" --> although aimed at ethnic Chinese
  • "As such, during this period cinemas ..." --> As a result, during this period ... And actually I would lose "during this period" because it's implied.
  • "The Teng Chun was only able to continue his work as his films often played to full theatres" --> "The Teng Chun was able to continue his work only because his films often played to full theatres."
  • "The film cost several times as much as a regular local production ..." Do we know why?
  • It's explained in more detail at the Pareh article. Gave a much shorter version here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film cost several times as much as a regular local production, owing in part to Balink's perfectionism ..." I would say "in part because of Balink's" SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Armijn Pane wrote that Pareh was seen as looking at the native population of the Indies only through European eyes, which native audiences considered a large fault." Not wrong, but could use a tweak. "... which its native audience did not appreciate," "which did not go down well with its native audience," or something like that.
SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not could not (who knows whether they could) but did not -- "which native audiences did not appreciate." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead again: copyediting has produced a repetitive structure: "Starring Rd. Mochtar ..., it followed .... Written by Saeroen ..., Terang Boelan was partially inspired ... Shot in the Indies and Singapore, Terang Boelan was aimed at ..." It could use some tweaking to smooth out the flow. Sorry if I'm torturing you. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the lead still confusing regarding place names? We have that Terang Boelan is Indonesian for Bright Moon, that the film was shot in the Indies and Singapore, and that by native audience we mean native Indonesians. Then we have that it was a commercial success in British Malaya, that it revived the industry in the Indies, inspired movies in Malaya, and the infobox says the film's language was Malay. Is there a way to smooth this out so readers don't have to click around? Even a map in the background section might help. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We also note on the first instance of "Dutch East Indies" that it is what is now Indonesia. I added another bit of clarification after the commercial success bit. I've also changed the infobox to say Indonesian, which is how the film was advertised and how the Indonesians referred the language. Whether it was truly a separate language by then is something for the linguists to argue. Oh yeah, changed the second native to "Malay" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco, I've moved some of the early copy-editing comments to the talk page to reduce clutter, but feel free to move them back if you prefer to keep them here. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... because Mochtar was unable to perform, the musician Ismail Marzuki – who also composed the film's score – sang while Mochtar lip synced." Mochtar didn't have a good singing voice, or something else? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "because Mochtar's voice was ill-suited to the task," to make it clearer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reviewed these changes and reverted some. My rationale follows:
  1. "go down well" is rather idiomatic and non-formal. I've replaced it with a third option
  2. Kota, Jakarta, is the old Batavia, as in several hundred years ago. By the time Terang Boelan was released Batavia had expanded to, at the very least, what is now Gambir.
  3. The source doesn't support that he was angered, instead it states "sangat kecewa" ("very disappointed"). I've changed it to the latter.
Otherwise they are all peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works cited: Minor thing -- you start with the author where there is one, and the title where there isn't. You might want to consider starting with the publisher where there's no author. So The New York Times would be under N, or under T if you prefer, rather than under F for "foreign exchange": The New York Times (8 June 1938). "Foreign Exchange" (subscription required). That's just a suggestion. I do think it's a bigger issue (in terms of consistency) that you sometimes don't have the date in brackets. Can you use a template throughout that writes the dates the same way? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think any templates are available that put the publisher first. Even in my offline work I keep the titles first. I've tried to get the NYT source to have the date in brackets using several different templates, but it's all failed so far
  • Okay about the titles first; that's a preference issue. As for dates, I don't use templates, but I thought the newspaper templates put dates in brackets. Perhaps not. If there's no way round it, it can't be helped. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments from Jim Fascinating article about a subject about which I know nothing. A few tiny nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rd Mochtar — not sure why he's not given his full first name here, or why the initial should be "Rd" rather than just "R"
  • "Raden" is actually a Javanese honourific, not a given name. His given name was simply Mochtar. He was generally credited as Rd Mochtar, which is why the article is there and why his name is written as such (Rd Ariffien, as mentioned in Berdjoang, is another example). If you think it confuses the issue, I'll be glad to drop the Rd or add a footnote explaining this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hollywood film The Jungle Princess. — I'd put a comma after film, but ignore if you prefer as is
  • I'll take the second choice there. It reads more easily without the comma IMHO. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kasim (Rd. Mochtar), and revealed to be an opium dealer, — not sure that we need the wikilinks so soon after the first mention in the lead, especially as neither is an obscure technical term
  • Regarding the name link, it appears to be common in film FAs (compare Ruma Maida and ?, or Manhunter for one not by me); I think it has something to do with the practice of applying WP:LINK to the lead and body separately. Agree about opium, so I've removed that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • director The Teng Chun. — I'd put a comma after director, but ignore if you prefer as is
  • as a regular local production, — The article seems to be in BE, usage of "regular" here is more like AE
  • How's "as usual for a local production"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Franken opened the Batavia- (now Jakarta-) based Dutch Indies Film Syndicate (Algemeen Nederlandsch Indisch Filmsyndicaat, or ANIF). — clunky, what about Franken opened the Dutch Indies Film Syndicate (Algemeen Nederlandsch Indisch Filmsyndicaat, or ANIF) in Batavia, (now Jakarta).
  • Agree, done (with a few minor typographical changes) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawaii — link? It's not a country
  • Fair enough, although OhConfucius' tool delinks it automatically. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review and I'm glad you found the subject interesting. I think I got all of your points. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning support: I reviewed this article at GA, where it already looked good. A fascinating article, as usual. Although my subject knowledge is growing with each of these articles, I'm still extremely unknowledgeable on the topic so my (minor) comments are mainly limited to prose, where there are a couple of clunky parts. But excellent work overall, and this explains the subject (and its background) extremely well. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This revived the faltering domestic film industry…": "This" is slightly ambiguous. Was it the success which caused the revival or the amount of money earned?
  • "inspired films targeted towards Malay audiences": Not sure about targeted towards; what about "inspired films which targeted…"?
  • "He then begins fighting with Musa. When it looks as if he will lose the fight, he is saved by Dullah, who had followed him back to Sawoba.": This limps along a bit, particularly the first part, where "then" and "with" seem superfluous. And repetition of "fight" in the second sentence.
  • I trimmed a bit, although I'm not too sure about this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As written, the plot section seems to suggest that the villagers just spontaneously changed their minds. What convinced them? The fight? Kasim's words? Dullah's arrival?
  • He tells them of Musa's dealings in opium, which is haraam. Added "to his side" after "rallies the villagers". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His low-budget yet popular films were mostly based on Chinese mythology or martial arts…": Not sure about this phrasing. Perhaps: "Many of his low-budget yet popular films were based on…" or "His low budget but popular films were mainly inspired by…"
  • "As a result, cinemas in the colony mainly showed Hollywood productions, while the domestic industry nearly died out…": Perhaps "and the domestic industry declined/decayed/suffered"
  • "The film cost several times as much as usual for a local production": Can we be more precise here? And maybe "several times more than an average local production".
  • It cost 75,000 gulden, although Biran doesn't give a figure for the "average" domestic production. I chose this rather than a specific number because it makes the point much more much more succinctly: the price was astronomical for the time, hence why those involved were bankrupted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Indonesian writer and cultural critic Armijn Pane wrote that Pareh was seen as looking at the native population of the Indies through European eyes, which was poorly received by its native audiences": Maybe "…wrote that native audiences were unhappy that, in their view, Pareh examined the native population of the Indies through European eyes." But there is a rather uncomfortable "native … native" but I can't find a better way to phrase it.
  • Changed to "had performed poorly with native audiences as it was seen as looking at them through European eyes," which avoids the native ... native issue — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think "as it was seen" is a little convoluted, but not a big deal. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and resulted in a less ethnological approach.": This is rather ambiguous.
  • Added "attempting to show them not from a European perspective but as they viewed themselves" to the sentence just before that
  • "The cast of Terang Boelan mostly consisted of actors who had appeared in Pareh": Perhaps "mainly" rather than "mostly"
  • "Terang Boelan made its premier in 1937…": Maybe just "premiered"?
  • "or the application of a national understanding of borrowed concepts": While I understand the thrust of this, I'm not sure about "national understanding" here.
  • D'oh, that should be "to", not "of". How's "sensibilities"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both in the Indies and internationally": Based on the information here, internationally is stretching it. Only one other place is mentioned, and internationally suggests worldwide.
  • Made more specific. I haven't found evidence of release outside Malaya. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the studio's cameramen, an Indo man named Steffens,[c] suggested that ANIF's management preferred works of non-fiction as a more intellectual medium": What makes this cameraman an authority, particularly if his first name is unknown?
  • I found his initials (not much more help, sadly) and the direct source: Steffens, who worked for the company around the time, was interviewed (possibly by Biran, although he doesn't indicate this) in 1973. I'm assuming Steffens was chosen as, at the time, many of those involved had become untraceable; the actual backers do not seem to have been available. If you think Steffens' opinions are not valid, I'll comment them out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I think it's OK if that is all there is. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "led to an exponential increase": Literally?
  • "but suggested that copies of the film may have survived until the 1970s.": Does he give any evidence for this opinion?
  • The preview cuts off before he can go in further detail, if any. Perhaps outside of Indonesia this has more of a preview? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such luck! I can't see it either. A pity, and worth including if anyone can ever get hold of it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I think I raised something similar at GA) I'm assuming that this article includes everything that is available, but just for form's sake, some last questions (to which you can answer: sorry, nothing in the sources!): Any dates/details on filming? Any critical commentary on the actual film (rather than its influence or significance)? Why was it so popular (we say why other films failed; why did this one succeed?)? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing further indicated in the sources, except that the formula went over particularly well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A thorough, impressive piece of work. More than happy to support now. (NB: I also reviewed at GA, where I did a limited spot-check of sources, which were fine). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I reviewed this one during its peer review, was quite happy with it it then and the subsequent GA process and above comments have only improved it further. As side notes, previews for the elusive source above don't work in Ireland either; and I'm an active member of WP:FILM, the scope of which includes this article. GRAPPLE X 22:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Grapple (I should probably formally join the project, eh? This will make four five film FAs if passed) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

  • I'd just like to point out that you use "the" when introducing people in instances like "the American-educated Chinese-Indonesian director The Teng Chun" and "the Dutch documentarian Mannus Franken." Is it necessary? I'm asking this because it makes the wording sound a bit clunky. Simply "...had been made by American-educated Chinese-Indonesian director The Teng Chun" sounds smoother, although you are free to disagree.
  • That has been my style in (almost?) all my solo FACs so far, be they film or other. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...also returns to his Sawoba and rallies the villagers to his side by telling them of Musa's opium dealings." – why "his Sawoba"?
  • Dur, that's left over from "his hometown". Good catch! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an attempt to show that locally produced, well-made films could be profitable, the Dutch journalist Albert Balink, who had no formal film experience,[4] produced Pareh (Rice) in 1935, working with the ethnic Chinese filmmakers the Wong brothers (Othniel and Joshua) and the Dutch documentarian Mannus Franken." – instead of breaking the sentence up, maybe a nicer-flowing "...produced Pareh (Rice) in 1995 in collaboration with..." perhaps? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with the responses. Great work on the article. It was an enjoyable read. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brief look from SandyGeorgia;
  1. I see the query above from Sarastro1 about the use of "exponential" (increase), and the response; I continue to question the use of the term. The author's response amounts to original research; how do the sources characterize the increase? If they don't call it anything, we shouldn't be characterizing it at all, much less with such a dramatic term (original research), and in a way that readers are likely to have the same reaction that Sarastro1 and I had (since nothing is provided to back that up, and the claim raises eyebrows). Please provide a direct quote from the sources to justify that adjective-- or any adjective. An alternative would just be to drop the original research adjective and give the numbers as you did in the response above.
    As this point has been raised several times I've trimmed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote, if you think the article's better with an adjective, is "... pada tahun 1938 film Terang Boelan tiba-tiba membuat ledakan. Dunia film telah menemukan resep yang bisa digemari oleh setiap penonton. Pembuatan film mendadak ramai dilakukan dengan menggunakan resep Terang Boelan." (Biran, p. 25) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for removing exponential; if we are to use an adjective, please translate the quote to English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "... in 1938 the film Terang Boelan suddenly caused an explosion. The film industry had found a recipe which could be well received by every viewer. The industry suddenly became filled (also, crowded) with productions following Terang Boelan's recipe." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "explosive" for the adjective then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I like it, but I would probably put it in scare quotes as it is being used figuratively. However, earlier SV disagreed with the scare quotes (the discussion is on the talk page now, I think) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. See WP:RED-- are our articles on Indonesian topics really so well developed that this article has no red links? For example, why isn't Pemandangan redlinked? There are others. Anything that meets notability and could be an article should be redlinked.
    WP:REDLINK states that we should only create redlinks to "articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve treatment beyond a mere dictionary definition and topics which should obviously have articles." There are several terms that could be redlinked, including E. T. Effendi, Algemeen Nederlandsch Indisch Filmsyndicaat, Pemandangan, Salim Said, and Fatima. However, they should not be linked as none of them fulfill the automatic notability criteria, I currently have no intention on creating them (not to say I won't, it's always possible), and they are not quite "technical terms". This thus fulfills the current guidelines, although I won't force the issue if you insist on redlinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The newspaper does not meet notability? How long was it in publication? Is it still in publication? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It may meet notability, but notability is not guaranteed. It closed in 1942, thus finding sources would be a pickle (haven't found when it opened). Those which I am fairly certain could support articles (although they are not inherently notable) are ANIF (although most of my sources discussing the company focus on Balink), Sallim Said (although right now I only have his biography in his books; his family name makes finding sources a nightmare), and Fatima (for reasons implied in the current Terang Boelan article). E. T. Effendi might, as he acted in six films and directed one, but I've yet to find any biographical information on him. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Again, seeing things in the article that were raised above ... "The film cost several times as much as an average local production,". The answer given above seems to be original research; please provide an exact quote from the source.
    "Anggaran f 75.000 itu hampir 20 kali anggaran film yang wajar masa itu." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You altered the text from "several times" to "20 times", which is quite a difference. Please translate the quote to English so we can know what the source says. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "The film's budget of f. 75,000 was almost 20 times that common for films of the time". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've replied to your points above. Thanks for taking a look! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome; in the future, I prefer responses below my numbered points so we don't end up with hanging sigs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see WP:NONENG (the section about providing the supporting text and a translation in the footnote). Something like a 20-fold increase in cost (which is quite a bit more than "several") is likely to raise eyebrows, so providing the text and translation above in the footnote would probably be indicated. That's good practice for anything that might surprise a reader who doesn't speak the language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I've added the quote as you've suggested, although I'm not sure on the formatting. Template:Sfn does not give a suggestion for multiple lines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 15:40, 4 December 2012 [44].

Mauritius Blue Pigeon[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been extensively reviewed and copyedited, and should be quite close to FA quality now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this article at its GA review. It seems to me to be well written and covers the subject as comprehensively as possible considering the limited number of sources available.

Questions and suggestions

  • Is there any discussion available of the implications of having an extinct type species? Any problems arising from this would seem to be exacerbated this case by the poor state of two of the three surviving specimens, and all of them being apparently female. As an ancillary suggestion, is there an agreed symbology for marking the type unit in genus, family, etc. articles? It may be useful to indicate the t.s. in Blue Pigeon. Samsara (FA • FP) 23:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You indicated in two of the figure captions what the relationship of the artist was to the bird - in one case, you write "Illustration of a stuffed specimen from Sonnerat's 1782 description" (which, I mused, might need to read, "Illustration of a stuffed specimen from Sonnerat's 1774 collection" if it was the stuffed specimen rather than the description that the artist worked from), in another, "1811 illustration by César Macret after Madame Knip", leaving it unclear whether Mme. Knip had earlier produced her own illustration which this is a copy of, or whether she gave a written or verbal account of the bird that the illustration is based on - maybe this could be clarified. But what of the other three illustrators - did they see the bird? Live? In a museum? It would have important implications for which of the reproductions we regard as most reliable. The first illustration gives the information in the image description, but confusingly in the caption - I think "Illustration of a male displaying its head feathers, ca. 1790, from life" might be clearer, as artists wouldn't usually aim to give the likeness of a bird in its dead state - with the obvious exception of a hunting still-life, which you conclude with and is well captioned imo. ("Live male" could be interpreted as an attempt to draw a live male, but from a dead specimen.) Samsara (FA • FP) 23:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think the name of the artist should be given for each of the six topmost images, for consistency? (Currently 3.5 out of 6, with Sonnerat leaving it open whether he illustrated his own volume.) Samsara (FA • FP) 23:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've never read anything that indicated an extinct type species would be a problem. As long as there are specimens or descriptions of them, there is something to compare with. For a somewhat related example, Psittacula echo has at times been considered a subspecies of Psittacula eques, an extinct species which is only based on a drawing and some accounts. As for type species in a genus taxobox, see Triceratops for example.
On illustrations, Sonnerat's is worded like that because the image was published along with his description of the bird. I'll see if I can clarify that. The Madame Knip image is ambiguous, some sources only mention Knip, others that it was based on her drawing. I'm not sure what is meant. The only images drawn from live specimens are the two of the 1790 male, the rest are from stuffed or recently killed specimens. So apart from the live ones, the 1601 one is probably the most reliable. I personally have a suspicion the live specimen may simply have been a Seychelles Blue Pigeon, since it was not sent directly from Mauritius, and red tail feathers are neither shown in the image or mentioned in the old description, but that's irrelevant to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest that I have knowledge of Sonnerat's not illustrating his own work, in case that was misinterpreted. As far as I'm concerned, the phrasing "Illustration of a stuffed specimen, by Pierre Sonnerat, published with his 1782 description" would be fine. Unless you know of something that would throw doubt on that course of events. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources again, there's actually no indication that Sonnerat himself made the drawing... As for the Knip image, a book source states it is an engraving by her and Macret, yet the website I downloaded the image from says what I have put in the caption. A third source only mentions Knip... Maybe she drew it, and he coloured it, there's no way to be sure from these sources at least. Maybe I can track down the original 19th century publication, may have more detail... FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments from Jim Nice article, and there's nothing in Gibbs, Barnes and Cox that I can add to what you have here. Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to give imperial conversions for all your measurements, not just one. Personally I'd prefer the metric all cm or all mm, rather than a mix, but that's up to you.
  • Blue Pigeons. — "blue pigeons" is incorrectly capped throughout. We only capitalise species, not higher taxa like pigeons or blue pigeons. In fairness, the linked genus article was also incorrectly capped, I've now moved it.
  • larger and more robust than any other Blue Pigeon. — add "species"?
  • "Mollusc" should be linked at first occurence.
  • Tricolore — The English word is Tricolour, and I don't think tricolore is capitalised en francais anyway
  • File:Pavillon Hollandais.jpg shows what appears to be a juvenile as well as the adult, shouldn't this be mentioned?
    • Maybe I can jump in here - I understand that there was only one bird available that both individuals were drawn from. Therefore they are the same age, both adults, one with the ruff raised, the other with it in resting position. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fruit Doves also incorrectly capped
  • mainly arboreal, but other mainly frugivorous pigeons — repetition of "mainly"
    oops; fixed --Stfg (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Pender need four links?
  • the gizzard of the former is so strong that seeds are digested. — implies, but doesn't say, that the seeds are very hard
  • Ref 24. Do they really take 93 pages to say what is claimed? For journals, normally give the article page range. For books give the specific page or page range for the content you are quoting.
  • Ref 14 pp, but only one page
  • Cheke, Anthony S. (January 1987). — you've not given month for other refs
Thanks for the comments, I'll fix those issues soon, but there are a few issues. The birds in File:Pavillon Hollandais.jpg (as Samsara also mentioned) were both drawn from the same male specimen (don't know if the article makes it clear enough). As for seeds being hard, the article doesn't specifically say hard seeds, can I add that anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough with the image. My quick search didn't find an obvious source for the seeds being hard. Nevertheless, the gizzard of the former is so strong that seeds are digested. is still problematic. Digestion is mainly a chemical process, the gizzard is mechanical. Could we have something like the strong gizzard of the former helps in the digestion of the seeds.? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All issues should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice article, in overall good shape. Not much to comment upon, or even nitpick. I've dropped in a couple of redlinks.

  • In the Description section, "scapular feathers" should be linked to something (or redlinked) - not necessarily clear to someone who doesn't know a lot about birds. I would have linked it somewhere myself but scapula didn't seem right. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world, the feather article would go through the feather types and related terminology. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound like a very difficult project. Grab a few standard ornithology textbooks and Bob's your friend. :) Samsara (FA • FP) 18:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's redlinked now, so I've struck my comment. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I gave this article a look through between the GAC and the FAC, and I am happy that it is of featured quality as long as the sources are all utilised; I'm happy to accept that that is the case if neither Jim nor FunkMonk have found anything else. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all completely fine. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only extra info that could be added from the sources I have is more detail on who the people mentioned throughout the article were, when and where each stuffed specimen was transported; stuff that isn't directly related to the bird itself. Most of the modern sources echo each other anyway, and the 2012 book compiles the old and latest info. FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- structure-wise, just one thing: I don't think the list you provide under Citations should be headed that, rather Sources or something similar; Citations is sometimes used to label what you've headed Footnotes, but I wouldn't expect it to be used the way it is here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it, no problem with me personally, it was Br'er Rabbit who implemented this style back in the day. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literature check – I noticed that several articles came up in a Web of Knowledge search that weren't used in the article. Have these been consulted? Sasata (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title: AN OLD RECORD OF A BLUE PIGEON ALECTOENAS SPECIES AND SEA BIRDS ON FARQUHAR AND PROVIDENCE
Author(s): STODDART D R; BENSON C W
Source: Atoll Research Bulletin Volume: 136 Pages: 35-36 Published: 1970 link
Title: NOTES ON THE EXTINCT PIGEON FROM MAURITIUS ALECTROENAS-NITIDISSIMA
Author(s): TUIJN P
Source: Beaufortia Volume: 16 Issue: 218 Pages: 163-170 Published: 1969
Title: The true Pigeon Hollandais (Alectroenas nitidissima).
Author(s): Renshaw, G.
Source: Avicultural Magazine London Volume: 9 Pages: (159-160) Published: 1918 link
Title: The Pigeon Hollandais.
Author(s): Renshaw, G.
Source: Zoologist London Volume: 10 Pages: (49-52) Published: 1906
The first one refers to potential (hypothetical) blue pigeon species on other islands, not Mauritius. The rest seem so old that I'm sure they're summarised in the newer literature, but I'll try to track them down. Renshaw states the French common name "Pigeon Hollandais" was used to refer to the Seychelles Blue Pigeon after the original had gone extinct, but apart from this, no new info is provided. FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to Renshaw 1918, Sasata, there is a (tiny) photo of a stuffed specimen that might be used... I'll have to see when Renshaw died. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any date of death. Anyone know? FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Renshaw, d. Jan 13, 1952 JSTOR 25377998 Sasata (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Seems I'll have to upload the image locally then, it's only PD in the US. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 13:49, 2 December 2012 [45].

Arthur Gilligan[edit]

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Gilligan was a fairly mediocre cricketer who captained England because he was an amateur. He may have been good, but an unfortunate injury at the height of his powers effectively ended his career. But the real interest is that he was a fascist. No, really. He probably tried to set up fascist groups in Australia while he toured there as captain in the 1920s. On the other hand, he was highly supportive of Indian cricket when few others were, but was (very) indirectly involved in the clash between the cricket establishment and opposition to Apartheid in South Africa. A bit of a mixed bag really, and quite hard to get a hold of. This article is currently a GA and has been peer reviewed by Mark Arsten and Brianboulton. All comments welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As usual, a good all-round article. Reading through it, a few little quirks have caught my eye:

  • Does "England" really need to be linked in the "Born" and "Died" sections of the infobox?
  • "..which was never as effective afterwards.." and two sentences later "His cricket was less effective in following years.." is a little repititious.
  • "All of his teams became good fielding sides under his direction. As a fielder, he inspired his teams to become good fielding sides." is very repititious!
  • "..he played in the school first Eleven.." Does "Eleven" really need to be capitalised? Could also be linked to First eleven, though it is a very short stub.
  • I think it is justified to have First Eleven in this sense, which is probably how they would have written it, and seems to be common enough in the literature. I've gone for First/Second Eleven throughout now, although if anyone pulls me up on this, I'll go back to first eleven as I don't feel too strongly either way. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, he was selected to play.." The use of the word "However" seems odd to me here: it is generally used to contrast in some way, but here his success for his school seems to logically lead on to being picked for representative cricket, and he appears to have done reasonably well.
  • Whoops, left over from a previous version. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..invited him to play for their Second Eleven during.." Irrespective of whether you want to keep "Eleven" capitalised, there is inconsistency here between the school's "first Eleven" and the county's "Second Eleven".
  • "His Test debut came on 23 December 1922 in a match which England lost, but team were more successful during his second appearance." Missing a word here after but?
  • "..and his batting at a crucial stage of the match—he scored 39 not out in the second innings—was crucial in a victory.." crucial, crucial.
  • The "On the field" section of the Tour of Australia flogs the same points over and over in my opinion. The tactical inadequacies are particularly repititious, and the word "fielding" gets four mentions in two lines.
  • Can't argue with that. Hopefully better now? Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..the ideology of the British Empire and fascism." On every instance of "Fascism" and "Communism", except this one, they are capitalised.
  • "The team, the first MCC team to tour India, was very successful." Repitition of "team".
  • In "History of the O.U.C.C." (full ref details on my bookshelf) Bolton says on page 227 that "Knight and Naumann were going well when Arthur Gilligan went on for the second time and brought of the first of those electrifying bowling spells for which he afterwards became famous." If there was nothing about these spells in any of your other references, maybe Bolton is exaggerating things, but it might be worth including if it ties in with anything else you have?
  • I've never seen this anywhere else. He was pretty good for about a season and a half, where he and Tate decimated a succession of batting line-ups, but I've not really seen these called "electrifying bowling spells" before. I think they were one-offs, and I can't say that other sources suggest that he was famous for these. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting read, and particularly interesting are the apparent contradictions: a member of the British Fascists, and yet his attitude towards the Indians and the professionals at Sussex suggest a different set of beliefs. Nice work. Harrias talk 11:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I've addressed everything, unless I've indicated otherwise. Thanks for the review. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: thanks for the fixes, good work! Harrias talk 23:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: All sources look reliable, and all citations and reference appear correctly formatted, except for the missing acute accent in "André Deutsch".

Support: I was one of the peer reviewers. I also provided some information relevant to the "D'Oliviera affair", and did a little (not much) copyediting. I think this is an excellent account of the cricketing life of a not noticeably nice man who knew a lot of even less noticeably nice men. On the matter of Gilligan's fascism, I don't suppose his MCC confrères even noticed; their social and political attitudes were formed in the Jurassic era and remained that way until at least the 1980s. Two very small suggestions:

  • Mention M.A. Noble's account of the 1924–25 tour (Gilligan's Men) as "Further reading".
  • Briefly say why Sussex CCC demolished the Gilligan Stand (probably just a question of ground improvements, rather than a blow for liberal values).

Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both of these done. Thanks for the support and earlier review. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I've reviewed about half of the article so far, and it looks solid as usual.

  • Early life: Does "First Eleven" require the capitalization it currently has?
  • You're the second person to comment, so switched to lower case. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cricket at Cambridge: Typo in "A few day later".
  • "Gilligan left Cambridge and joined a General Produce Merchants in London". Is "Merchants" meant to be singular, or am I not reading this right?
  • I'm almost certain that is ok in BrEng, but perhaps someone will correct me. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • England captain: "Gilligan played in the next Test match, without much success, and played for the Gentlemen at Lord's." I'm thinking that the second "played" should go. It's a redundancy, and removing it can be done without changing anything else in the sentence.
  • On the field: Remove "on" from "which may have impacted on the series result"? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think in this case, BrEng sounds a little better with "on", but others may disagree with me, in which case I would change it. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Political concerns: I don't think that Communism requires the capitalization it has in multiple places.
  • "were members of the British Fascists. The British Fascists...". Repetition from one sentence to another, such as this, is best avoided.
  • Remaining cricket career: "He bowled in the first four game of the season". "game" → "games".
  • Personal life: Comma needed after Harold in the first paragraph of the section.
  • "but when a player withdrew with injury". In the U.S. we would have "an" before "injury", but perhaps it's handled differently in British English. I think it's at least worth bringing up.
  • Ref 12 publisher (MCC) could be spelled out.
  • All caps in ref 60 shouldn't be there. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All these done, thanks for the review. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK ("PD-Australia", "PD-1996") copyright-wise. Source provided, author unknown. GermanJoe (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page
  • Support on prose. Fairly easy to follow, even for one with a bare understanding of cricket. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – After my long list of comments, and the others, were taken care off, I think this article rises to the level of the other great cricket bio FAs we have and am happy to back it for FA status. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 06:54, 2 December 2012 [46].

Vidya Balan[edit]

Nominator(s): S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Vidya Balan is one rare Indian actress who has dared to step beyond the boundaries imposed by a male-dominated Indian film industry. I have worked hard on this article (it recently passed a GA nomination) and I think it meets the FA criteria. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Dharmadhyaksha

  • Actor or actress? "Her parents were supportive of her decision to become an actor." Else everywhere it is actress.
Done.
  • So she starred in Hum Paanch while she was 16. And then she went on to do her bachelors? That's the normal chronology i suppose. But this is not clear through the article.
Done.
  • What was her role in her first film Bhalo Theko?
Added.
  • "The film, based on the Jessica Lal murder case saw Balan play the first real-life character of her career, that of Sabrina Lal, Jessica's reticent sister." But she played Safdar Hashmi's wife in 2008's Halla Bol.
She she did not play his wife in the film. Her character was fictional. Does that point require clarification in the article?
She played Devgn's wife, who in turn plays Hashmi. Ofcourse, he doesn't play Hashmi, but is named as Khan in the film. When writing Devgn's biography it will be written that he played Hashmi. In that relation Balan played his wife Moloyshree Hashmi. Anyways... i suppose your objection to this inclusion is based on the fact that the film was inspired from Hashmi's life but was not a real biopic. Hence your hesitation, right? In such case i would avoid calling Balan's portrayal of Lal as "the first real-life character". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see the point. There's a bit of a confusion. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her co-starts winning awards is missing. Rani won in No One Killed Jessica. Amitabh won many in Paa. Arundathi Nag won NFA for Paa. The article gives impression that she alone won awards for these films.
I don't see how her co-stars winning awards is important to her biography. Maybe I can incorporate the fact that Paa won four National Awards and such.
Its important in the sense that it gives wrong impression that the film was successful all because of her. Paa's success credit goes to BigB, his makeup and acting. For NOKJ Rani's return after 2-3 yrs, her bold and beep-full dialogues and all played quite a role in it's commercial success. Currently it looks like the commercial success is all due to Balan. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It never says that Paa or for that matter No One Killed Jessica was a success only because of Balan. I agree that Paa was Mr. Bachchan's film, but it was a career-defining role for her as well. In the articles of the respective films, it needs to be noted that all the actors contributed to the success of the film. But her biography is about how she individually contributed to the film. If you look at other actor/actress biographies, they all follow the same policy. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sort of gives that impression. NOKJ released - alongside Rani Mukerji - role description - film's contrasting reviews - but Balan was all good good - commercial success - absence of a male lead - FF nomination. Mukerji? Hogi kisi naach gane mein. Wikipedia says that film was all Balan's!! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Balan did win a lot of praises for the film. And if you see Mukerji's article you will see the comments that she earned for her portrayal. And I must add that a lot of critics did not like Mukerji's performance in the film. I still think that it is a bit unfair to praise a co-star in someone's biography. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you wish! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel her "Gooooooood Moooooooorninnnng Mumbai!" needs to be mentioned.
Is this notable?
Probably not needed. The dialogue is not one of the very famous ones in Bollywood. The phrase deserves mention in the film article, but not in her biography.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Ignore this comment. But speaking of dialogues, is her "Entertainment! Entertainment! Entertainment!" dialogue worth noting then? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is that same old Khalid Mohmed and Taran Adarsh. What did south Indian critics say about Silk? What did Bengali critics talk about Bagchi?
Included a local Kolkata review for Kahaani.
I actually removed the mention of the local Kolkata publication, and retained the review itself. Again, the article of this film will definitely need to mention Kolkata based reviews as the city plays a major role in the film. However, in her biography article, whether the critic is from Kolkata or Delhi does not matter. On the other hand, the point raised by Dharmadhyaksha is justified that the critics Khaled Mohamed, Taran Adarsh etc have Ben used many times. So, other noteworthy critis' reviews are definitely good addition.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dwaipayanc is right. Publishing place does't matter. I was actually expecting some critic who works in those regional films. Maybe there won't be any such reviews for Kahaani as Balan herself did not play a Bengali woman. But her Silk should have been commented by some. Try getting help from Vensatry or SoS or others who might search reviews in regional languages. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, The Dirty Picture itself is a "Hindi" film and not a Tamil/Telegu/Malayalam film. Out of all the praise that she received for the film, Khalid Mohamed's review was the most precise and to-the-point. And that's why I included it. I don't see the need to include more reviews for that. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her weight fluctuations" comes suddenly after her religious affiliations. Any better place to park that?
  • Her role in promotions of films is missing. Kahaani, The Dirty Picture and Ishqiya had seen her promoting films in the same getup.
Mentioned the promotions of Kahaani.

Might come with more points. But over all the article looks good. Best wishes for the FAC. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the comments, Dharmadhyaksha. Some points had totally skipped my mind. Will incorporate them. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No probs! More point below.
  • For FA, i suppose her every work should me mentioned in words. Maybe a single liner about her cameos in various films would do, especially the only item song of her career.
Mentioned the notable extended cameo appearance in Urumi. S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sixty television commercials"!!! I did not know that. I don't think they were all pre-film career. Do you think so? The source says that, but still. I only remember the Krack Cream. Shouldn't selective few ones from her earlier career be mentioned?
There are other sources which mention that she has done around sixty commercials before Bhalo Theko.
  • I don't find it necessary to mention her small appearances on television shows for promoting films, like talent hunt shows and such. But should Kaun Banega Crorepati and Koffee with Karan be mentioned? For KBC i would guess she must have donated her winnings. That definitely is worth mentioning.
Every Bollywood actor/actress who has appeared on Kaun Banega Crorepati has donated their money for charity. Hence, not notable enough. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And to whom is also non-notable i suppose. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this topic warrants a larger discussion. Though, I don't see why this should hamper the nomination. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you wish! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • She has walked few ramps also. Isn't any of it worth mentioning?§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't see how ramp walks are important to her biography. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just for the sake of comprehensiveness, may be it is worthwhile to just mention in a sentence or two that she has done (honorary?) ramp-walking in a few fashion shows, like many other Indian actors (so, implying that there is nothing unique about that?). However, I am not really sure if appearing in KBC or Koffee with Karan is notable enough. Probably not (Film stars and celebrities do appear in so many shows as guests). Regarding the quote "Entertainment! Entertainment! Entertainment!", I figured out it is from The Dirty Picture (I did not know as I have not see the film, yet). In my opinion, it is not that notable. Also, that one item number in Ferrari Ka Sawari may be mentioned in the text, as it was the only item number in her career so far. Thanks Dharmadhyaksha for drawing attention to some greater details.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know if they were honorary or paid ones.
Some media usages: SOTY is Bollywood’s adaptation of “Gossip Girl” on 35mm — entertainment, entertainment, entertainment!, I'm entertainment, says Vidya Balan, Entertainment, entertainment, entertainment - at IPL 5 opener!, Entertainment, entertainment, entertainment… and a raw nerve, Four days of entertainment, entertainment, entertainment!, Ekta Kapoor - "Audience wants - entertainment, entertainment, entertainment!". I won't prove how it is used on blogs, twitter, other forums, comedy shows, chat shows, etc. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see why this quote is so extremely important. It was a fun quote, along with a large number of similar ones used in "The Dirty Picture". Why single this one out? --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you wish! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category check needed. Some are redundant in presence of others; at least per my interpretation of those category titles.
If she is in Category:Indian television actors and Category:Indian film actors, she need not be in Category:Indian actors.
If she is in Category:Tamil actors, she need not be in Category:Tamil people.
And does she qualify under Category:Bengali television actors? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing these out. Done. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - only a few random comments.

  • The linking of "Hindi" to "Bollywood" in the lead intro is quite WP:EASTEREGG-ish. She acted in several non-Bollywood Indian films. This was probably already discussed and i have no perfect solution to offer, but maybe just link to Hindi language or even to "Cinema of India".
  • avoid idioms and informal terms (f.e. flak, nerd).
  • "Due to these circumstances, film producers labelled her as a "jinx" and replaced her in all the twelve films that she had been contracted for." - this statement appears not completely accurate according to the source. The "jinx"-factor is only mentioned for a few of her cancellations, other cases have various other reasons. Some may have been influenced by the first event aswell, but the actual sentence omits all other factors and details. Obviously you can not mention every single detail, but it would be worthwhile to mention, that she was refused for various, different reasons and maybe add 1-2 details about the most notable rejections. It's an interesting phase of her career. GermanJoe (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your comments, GermanJoe. In the lead, Hindi cinema refers to Bollywood films, while the other Indian language films that she acted in - Bengali and Malayalam - redirect to their respective film industries. However, I have addressed your other two issues.--S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jesse V.

I see, but the links are fully functional. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Greatuser

  • I am in favor of article becoming a Featured article, Every info about her, is provided with a reliable source Greatuser (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I did the GA review for this article. The article meets nearly all the criteria for FA. I am saying "nearly all" because I do not think I am competent enough to judge the article against crieterion 1a (whether its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard); my knowledge of the language is not that good.
Otherwise, the article is well-researched, comprehensive, neutral, pretty much stable, has appropriate lead and structure, follows consistent citation style, and is of appropriate length.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check all OK. 1 "Cc-by-sa-3.0-FilmiTadka" and 2 "Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama". Source and confirmation by OTRS-member provided. GermanJoe (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comments. This was a really interesting article, and I enjoyed reading it. My review concentrates on prose (nearly there), content, and MOS. I did not evaluate source reliability on a large scale because I am just not familiar with the non-newspaper sources used.

  • does the lead need to include where she lives?
Removed.
  • Do we need to know the occupations of her sister and brother-in-law? Seems more like trivia.
Removed information about brother-in-law, but retained her sister's profession.
  • Do we know what about Shabana Azmi and Madhuri Dixit appealed to her? I am not familiar with Indian films, so this means nothing to me.
Re-worded. Both Shabana Azmi and Madhuri are leading film actresses in India.
  • "Balan auditioned for and starred briefly in " - would it not be reasonable to conclude that if she starred briefly in a show that she had first auditioned? This writing appears elsewhere in the article too - too many words, in my opinion.
Agree. Re-worded.
    • Why was it a brief starring role? Did the show end (why?)? Was her part written out?
Re-worded. She acted in only the first season of the show. Second season onward, she was replaced by another actress. However, no reliable source explains the reason for her leaving the show.
  • Any more information on why people thought she was a jinx after Chakram?
So, the Indian film industry is largely a male-dominated one and Mohanlal (the lead actor of Chakram) is an extremely popular actor. So, when a film starring him was shelved, film producers labelled Balan as the "jinx". Should I include this explanatory note?
Yes, if you have good sources, please include that information. That also helps to tie together the information about changing the perception of actresses. Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation added. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after shooting for the first schedule" - what is the first schedule?
I meant first shooting schedule. Re-worded.
  • Do we know why she was dropped in Run?
She was dropped without reason. Added.
  • Bhalo Theko wasn't first first starring role she was signed on for, per the paragraph before.
Changed.
  • "directed by debutante Abhishek Chaubey" - ??? in my culture, a debutante is a rich teenage girl with a foofy skirt
Haha, I meant debutant.
This is not a common word in American English, but I can't think of a short way to rewrite this. Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reference does not explicitly list the source: See Kumar, Alok. "Film review — Parineeta". Retrieved 27 October 2007. I checked PlanetBollywood but cannot tell if it is a reliable soruce or something like IMDB.
Changed the reference.

Karanacs (talk)

Thank you for the comments Karanacs. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments. Think this will be okay. Some early text is wobbly, as are a few referencing issues, but overall it appears thorough and the text is engaging.
Lede:

  • "dressing sense" - Indian Eng? (my google search suggests possibly yes) I would have expected "dress sense"
Changed to "dress sense".

Early life

  • "a mix of Tamil and Malayalam". Don't need quote marks for something so unremarkable, just make it 'both Tamil and Malayalam'.
Changed.
  • "an experience which she describes as "truly memorable"". This seems to be neither engaging prose nor very enlightening. "Truly memorable" could mean good, bad or wierd. I don't think it helps and, unless there is some clarity in the sources about why it was memorable for her, I would omit that.
Removed.
  • "She later pursued a master's degree in sociology from the University of Mumbai." - I don't see this in the source. I'm also not convinced the source is reliable as it appears to be a story by a reader / listener of their knowledge of the person - not sure about quality / editorial control. Source #10 (not cited for this sentence) does cover the MA, but not which University.
Added a new source that mentions both the degree and the university.

Career

  • reference 17 mentions Mumbai University, but appears to be incorrectly titled.
Thanks for pointing this out. Corrected.
  • radio-jockey hyphenated, then later in the para, not hyphenated.
Removed the unnecessary hyphen.
  • "semi-biographic" - I'm not what this means and it isn't good prose. One of the sources (though not cited for this sentence - it appears two sentences later) says "a more than obvious but unacknowledged biopic".
Does semi-biographical sound better?
  • "multi-starrer". What??
Means an ensemble cast. Changed.
  • "skilfull" (in a quote) is I believe an incorrect spelling (accepted are skilful and skillful). Check the source?
Yes, my fault. It is "skilled".

Media image and artistry

  • ""she has toppled all dominating hero," can you check the quote? SHould this not read ""she has toppled the all dominating hero,"?
Corrected.

Good job. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you liked the article. And thank you for all the comments. I've made the necessary changes. Cheers. S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes -- Smarojit, I don't think we've 'met' so if this is, as I'm assuming, your first FAC, welcome. Couple of things:

  • All award wins and nominations listed in the filmography are mentioned/cited in the main body of the article except the Filmfare Award for Best Actress nomination for Ishqiya -- this should be cited somewhere, and the main body makes sense for consistency.
  • I'll want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- if one of the current reviewers can undertake, that's great, else we can list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian. Yes, this is my first FAC. Thank you for your comments. I mentioned the Filmfare nomination for Ishqiya in the main body. :-) --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, should I ask the reviewers above to do spot checks for the article? S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed a request at WT:FAC, so let's see how we go there first. Worst comes to the worst I'll do it myself but I've other noms to walk through before we get to that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. :) --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks (not sure how many is enough, but here are some):

  • Article: Balan lives with her parents in Khar, a suburban neighbourhood in Mumbai.
  • Source: Vidya Balan is no more a Chembur resident. A couple of weeks ago, the actor moved into a plush 4-BHK in the western suburb of Khar with her parents. Vidya's new house also has an office (for her meetings), the entrance for which is separate from her residence.
Conclusion: fine.
  • Article: Rediff.com added that "her hesitant body language, her faith, her helplessness, her rage, her sorrow and her gratitude all come across beautifully".
  • Source: It makes Vidya Balan's [ Images ] stand-out act -- her hesitant body language, her faith, her helplessness, her rage, her sorrow and her gratitude all come across beautifully; you don't even notice her pared down dialogues -- all the more commend-worthy.
Conclusion: fine, although I don't know about Rediff from a source perspective. Notable? Is "Rediff.com" in the main text appropriate?
Rediff.com is one of the leading entertainment websites in India. So, I think it is notable enough to be mentioned in the main text. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's well known, couldn't we say "entertainment website Rediff" (not sure about the italics? not my best-known part of the MOS). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If "Rediff.com" is its official name (and not only its colloquial web name), it should be used. But i agree with Grandiose, that a brief qualifier like "entertainment website" (or whatever describes it best) would be helpful for the international reader. GermanJoe (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see. But I am not sure what can be used to describe Rediff.com. It isn't only an entertainment website, but also a provider of news and shopping servies. It's something of an Indian counterpart to Yahoo! Do we really need to elaborate on that? --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the author for the quote and rediff.com is already mentioned previously as review source, so should be ok. GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks GermanJoe. :-) --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: "She was later cast as Isha Sahni, a single mother, in Sajid Khan's Heyy Babyy. Co-starring Akshay Kumar, Ritesh Deshmukh, and Fardeen Khan, the comedy film was a box-office success,[30] but garnered negative reviews from critics, as did Balan's performance. CNN-IBN's Rajeev Masand mentioned her as the "sore thumb" of the film, and members of the media criticised her wardrobe and make-up.[35][36]"
  • Sources: [30] accounts for "the comedy film was a box-office success". [35] says "The final straw comes in the form of Vidya Balan who plays the baby's real mum as a sort of Cruella de Ville character."... " but Vidya Balan sticks out like a sore thumb...Her wardrobe, her make-up, her hair - if I didn't know better I'd assume her staff had conspired against her for not paying their salaries on time." [36] is some sort of poll in a magazine where she "wins" 6.2% of the vote for worst actress.
Conclusions: well as a close paraphrasing check this isn't a problem. However on a more general point, I think this couple of sentences is badly constructed (as against FA standards - it's still pretty good!). I think we should have a straight-forward source for "She was later cast as Isha Sahni, a single mother, in Sajid Khan's Heyy Babyy." (actually missing - we have "the baby's real mum" but that's it). Perhaps you could says "She was later cast as Isha Sahni, a single mother, in Sajid Khan's Heyy Babyy, alongside co-stars Akshay Kumar, Ritesh Deshmukh, and Fardeen Khan.[New Ref]" Then we have the "the comedy film was a box-office success", which is fine. The final section, despite running across the last two sentences, is really "but garnered negative reviews from critics, as did Balan's performance. CNN-IBN's Rajeev Masand mentioned her as the "sore thumb" of the film, and members of the media criticised her wardrobe and make-up." I can't identify what [36] adds, so that just leaves this passage as a summary of [35], i.e. CNN-IBN. Can't work out what "sore thumb" really means here. In the article, it is impliedly related to costume and make-up, but I think it would be much easier to just say firstly, that she garnered negative reviews (perhaps another source can be found, perhaps [36] would do), and, secondly, one aspect of this was costume/make-up, referenced to the CNN-IBN article.
Source [36] also votes Balan as one of the "worst dressed" actresses of 2007 (due to Heyy Babyy). Anyway, I re-worded the sentences and specifically mentioned Rajeev Masand's criticism towards Balan's wardrobe and make-up in the CNN-IBN Review. --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comments, Grandiose. :) --S.M.A.R.O.J.I.T (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not a news aggregator. Bollywood Hungama is a leading entertainment website for Hindi cinema. --smarojit (talk to me) 04:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boxofficeindia.com is a RS. Refer earlier discussion here. (Also you had asked the same question here also.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. BoxOfficeIndia is the "only" reliable source of information for box office figures in India; much like what BoxOfficeMojo is for Hollywood. All the Hindi cinema articles on Wikipedia use this website to quote their revenues. --smarojit (talk to me) 04:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
dnaindia.com is Daily News and Analysis (DNA). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a newspaper source, quite like The Times of India, The Hindu and Hindustan Times. --smarojit (talk to me) 04:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/December_2012&oldid=648271428"