Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2009

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2009[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 SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [1].

Saxbe fix[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a last shot at a March 4 or March 6 centennary WP:TFA. Since the last time this article was here I have augmented the text with a lot of detail. The entire text except for the Background section, which I beefed up yesterday, has been copyedited by Wasted Time R (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk · contribs), Simon Dodd (talk · contribs), and Ruslik0 (talk · contribs). Several others have visited the page to make minor edits in the text. It is deeper and reads much more smoothly than before. We have cleansed the article of most blog content. It is ready, I believe. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support As Tony noted, I've helped out a bit on this article. I did oppose the last time out, on the grounds that it was not comprehensive. I think Tony's taken care of that now. Before, it read somewhat like a list, and I had concerns it was possible he might have missed some. Tony's done a lot of research into it now, and I think it is as good a survey of the Saxbe fix as has ever been done. I think it meets all FA criteria, and I hope it gets through in time to take its place on the main page on the centennial of the first Saxbe fix.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've also done work on this. I opposed it on go-around #2 because I didn't think it was comprehensive and the sourcing was weak in places. I didn't comment during go-around #3 because it was still in motion. The article has improved a lot in all these areas, and I think it's now likely the best general audience treatment of the topic around. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. (I believe this was mentioned in prior FACs; also, see sample edits on MOS issues). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the dabs. I'll leave the MoS issues to Tony or someone else, I've never quite understood some of this article's cite formatting conventions. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think the article is comprehensive (especially for this obscure part of the constitutional law) , well sourced, and well written. Ruslik (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serious image issues as follows:

These should be resolved before promoting them as part of Wikipedia's best works. Jappalang (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues resolved, all images used in this article are verifiably in public domain or under appropriate CC license. Jappalang (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I was skimming the Legality section, checking a few sources here and there to verify claims.
    • I came across "Some proponents of this view, such as Pete Williams,". Surprised to see that a high-profile legal journalist would actively support one view, I clicked on the cited source to find no such thing. Williams is summarizing the views of legal scholars. Rather disconcerting to see the article twist this so that he becomes a "proponent".
      • How about "such as those described by Pete Williams"?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an odd way of framing it. Williams isn't describing proponents (which is what the current wording suggests) but quoting the proponents. I just don't see why Williams needs to be mentioned at all. It's a blog post of a reporter, not the legal views of a scholar. BuddingJournalist 18:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would you rather have Williams totally expunged from the article? He is a former Deputy Secratary and Pentagon spokesperson. He has some knowledge of how things work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not sure what you want so I removed his name and left the comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as a solution to the clause, it should be noted that Congress " Recast please.
    • "Some scholars think that the phrase..." Some scholars? Source is a Volokh post that is just his "very tentative thinking". Nothing about other scholars. If there are more scholars, then the source should be changed to reflect this.
      • Much of the debate is about the two ways of viewing the Clause. Many say one way is right, and and many say another is right. Volokh says both ways are reasonable. The fact that there is scholarly debate means that there is some ambiguity in the wording doesn't it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My issue was with the source used rather than the wording (at the time, I didn't think the source matched what was being said in the article). But I just re-read the source, and I have changed my mind on this. BuddingJournalist 17:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In the latter case the Saxbe fix is constitutional." You'd at the very least at need to ascribe this view to someone. Seeing as how this is cited to Volokh, is this really what Volokh is saying? Seems to me, he's actually saying that "If [it's "on net"], then the question is how you resolve the ambiguity...I don't know what the answer is given all that, but those are the things that I'd think about." BuddingJournalist 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is ascribed to Volokh Professor Volokh suggested [in the e-mail requesting this response -EV] that the clause might be read so that the emoluments of an office “have been increased” only if the salary at the time of appointment is higher than the salary at the beginning of the appointee’s congressional term. See the opinion of John O'Connor. Ruslik (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I don't see this in the article. I'm saying that "In the latter case the Saxbe fix is constitutional" needs to be ascribed to someone ("According to so-and-so, in the latter case..."), and that that sentence doesn't match the source given (at least, not the way I read it, but feel free to correct me). BuddingJournalist 18:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account that Saxbe fix is exactly the elimination of the net increase, the adoption of the "on net" interpretation means that Clinton is eligible (Saxbe fix is constitutional). This plain reading of what Volokh says (he does not use the magic word "constitutional", though). Ruslik (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am having problems with the link for the Bentsen fix. Does anyone know how to get a permalink out of THOMAS for that link. I hope the Clinton and Salazar fixes are permalinks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References comment -- Reference errors found with WP:REFTOOLS

  • O'Connor, p. 94 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
    • This is using a named ref. for the multiple occurrences. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either you fixed it or the script is acting up.--TRUCO 21:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fixed it. This and the other problem were related because the ref <ref name=TEC94>O'Connor, p. 94</ref> appeared twice.
  • TEC94 | Multiple references are given the same name--TRUCO 21:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward end of 2nd paragraph "No attempt has been made to enact a fix for a member of Congress appointed to a federal judgeship and court challenges to such appointments have failed." -- Subject of sentence is muddled; first half it's appointments of judges, second half it apparently is all Saxbe Fix appointments. Perhaps it should be "No attempt has been made to enact a fix for a member of Congress appointed to a federal judgeship. All court challenges to Saxbe Fix-enabled appointments have failed." I'm reluctant to make this change myself because I don't know whether "all challenges" is accurate. CouldOughta (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the 'court challenges failed' refers only to those appointed to the federal bench. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the sentence to: "Members of Congress have been appointed to federal judgeships without any fix being enacted; court challenges to such appointments have failed." Is that any better? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misunderstood. The original sentence was correct but the new wording is better.CouldOughta (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have been through this article several times, looking for ambiguities, inconsistencies, and anything else I could find to criticize. It is on a complex and relatively obscure but fascinating legal issue, and the article is clearly written and well referenced. Not something I would have ever known about in such detail without this careful presentation. I am impressed. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article takes a complex and obscure topic and explains it articulately, providing a rich context of both historic and contemporary relevance. It clearly explains meaning with thorough sourcing, and it provides unbiased explication of multiple points of view. This is exactly what people come to Wikipedia looking for, and the contributors should be awfully proud of it. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [3].

Ælfheah of Canterbury[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

I am nominating this for featured article because... It just may be the shortest article I ever nominate at FAC. Mainly, Ælfheah is known for getting his head bashed in by some Scandinavians, which habit of not ducking well earned him sainthood. Definitely a "good-bishop", he has the canonization papers to prove it. As usual, copyediting by Malleus. It's so short, there wasn't much I could do to ruin the prose...Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - dash tool has been requested, I would love to have a pic closer in time to him but have been unsucessful, and if the two Saints sites are too borderline for folks, I can remove the information easily. He's only 946 words! Wow! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: singular image is free by GFDL. No issues here. Very weird image though... it looks like he is putting up a "V" sign with his would-be murderers about to bash his head in... Jappalang (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not take the image or carve the thing.. I agree, it's very .. odd. (Of course, what do you expect from a guy who refused to be ransomed?) But it's the closest I've gotten to an image of him. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peace, baby. Morenoodles (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. A lovely article. Yes, this should be an FA (and then I want to see Rumwold an FA too). Although I feel compelled to add that I know nothing about the subject so can't really judge. Morenoodles (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Life section
    • It would be easier for uninformed readers if you said who Dunstan was, rather than requiring use of a link. From the Dunstan article I gather that by 984 he had retired from Canterbury. So I suggest you say: "Probably due to the influence of Dunstan, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Ælfheah..." etc
Actually, Dunstan was archbishop until his death in 988. Our article on him sucks, those headings are misleading. I have, however, clarified and added in Dunstan's dates as archbishop. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...elected to the Bishopric of Worcester" is wordy; why not "elected Bishop of Worcester"?
Malleus got this. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...that same year" – "same" is redundant
Malleus got this too... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He went to Rome..." - why did he go?
For the good ole pallium. Explained what that was and why he went. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should lose the comma after "While at Canterbury", or the one after "Saint Dunstan", but you shouldn't keep both. Incidentally, why has it become the style to write out "Saint" instead of "St"?
Malleus fixed this. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest add "which was" before "composed"
I believe Malleus got this. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He introduced..." For clarity this should be "Ælfheah introduced..." –
I'm not seeing where this is, did Malleus get this? Yes, he did, I see. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...but there are problems with this sentence, which conjoins two quite unrelated clauses (liturgical practices and St Swithun's presumably decapitated head) with an "and". In fact, the whole paragraph reads rather bittily, and could do with some reorganisation. How about this:-

In 1006 Ælfheah succeeded Aelfric as Archbishop of Canterbury, taking St Swithun's head with him as a relic. He went to Rome in 1007 [say why] and was robbed during his journey. While at Canterbury he promoted the cult of St Dunstan, ordering the writing of the second Life of Dunstan, which Adelard composed between 1006 and 1011. He also introduced new pactices into the liturgy, and was behind the Witenagemot's recognition of Wulfrige of Sherbourne as a saint in about 1912,

Malleus fixed...Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Raided into England" is odd wording. Suggest "raided England"
Fixed. I believe I was aiming for the connotation that they didn't just raid the coast, but inland, but it's not needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check spelling: Ælfheah has acquired an extra "a". This might be an alternative form, or just a typo.
Typo. All his alternate spellings drop the silly Æ. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "who" is necessary before "managed to escape"
fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death Section
    • It's a bit odd to have a section called "Death" when the actual death is recorded in the previous section, called "Life". Why not make the last sentence of the Life section the first sentence of the Death section?
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is meant by "E version"?
Strictly speaking the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is actually several different chronicles. "E" is one version, sometimes called "Peterborough Chronicle". I can try to explain it (which will take a bit of time in the article) or I can change "E version" to "Peterborough Chronicle version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Veneration: I find the sentence beginning "Along with Augustine of Canterbury..." very awkwardly phrased. In the first place, one can't be the only something along with someone else. The beginning needs to be: "Ælfheah and Augustine of Canterbury were the only Anglo-Saxon..." etc, but the rest of the sentence needs sorting out, too.
Malleus played with this, let me know if that works for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally (this isn't a comment or criticism of the article, just an expression of surprise) I am amazed to find that they had church organs in the 10th century. I had not previously heard of one nearly that early. You certainly live and learn with WP. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All the fixes were OK except one and I've now done that myself. Thank you Æaldgyth for another scholarly contribution. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—it's a bit comma-crazy for my reading tastes, but that is really a subjective matter since none of the commas are ungrammatical. One request for clarification: Can you provide some explanation of why he would bring a saint's head somewhere? Was that a normal practice in those days? --Laser brain (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It states he brought it as a relic. Yeah, it's kinda gruesome, and it was indeed common (they also snuck into shrines in the middle of the night and stole relics...) but movement of saint's relics was pretty common. Would linking to relic help some here? I'm afraid most of my sources just presume that folks know all about relic trading and movement and how they were venerated in the Middle Ages... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A link to relic would help. I just went off and learned that a body part of a saint is considered a "first class relic". Well, color mine the opinion of the uneducated masses. --Laser brain (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to relic and also added a bit more on the sentence. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he was just a wild and crazy guy. What the masses want to know is: Where are the references in popular culture? Which episode of the Simpsons is based on his life? But this is a pretty good article as is. Yes, first St Ælfheah, then St Rumwold, and eventually St Hubbins. Morenoodles (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Comments - five nitpicks actually. I do not like "probably thanks", "While Bishop" (During his time as ), "for its operation", (to operate it), "as well as" (and), "Also captured during the sack, (passive voice how about, Godwine (Bishop of Rochester), Leofrun (abbess of St Mildrith's), and the king's reeve, Ælfweard were also captured during the sack.) Graham Colm Talk 11:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited all but the "while bishop" one, which is a wording I prefer to the wordier "during his time as bishop"... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You "FAC" people are a funny bunch. One person objects to the use of the passive--for no reason, and I hope not because an unreasoned dislike of the passive is a distaste faithfully passed on [passive!] by generations of mediocre teachers of English prose--and suggests its replacement by, ahem, a different use of the passive: and the long-suffering author unquestioningly obliges. Morenoodles (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS

  • <ref name=DNB>Leyser "[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/181 Ælfheah (d. 1012) (subscription required)]" ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography''</ref> | Does not use a citation template--TRUCO 21:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an error. It's how the ref is formatted. All of the citations use that sort of hand formatting, and citation templates aren't required. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [4].

Sunderland A.F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): Sunderland06 (talk)

This article failed it's previous FAC because of prose and tense issues. However, I think through the feedback from the FAC, and a copyedit from User:Skomorokh to resolve the tense issues, this article is now ready for another shot at FAC. Comments welcome, and I'll get round to responding ASAP. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot to mention, I am competing in the WikiCup. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Images have not changed since the last FAC, which Awadewit had reviewed. Concur with her assessment. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I felt we were over the line prose-wise last time and still do now. It is comprehensive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - As someone who opposed at the last FAC, I think it's looking much better. Here are some minor issues I saw while reading most of the way through.

  • The Taylor Report PDF is showing up as a dead link on the link checker tool. Done - Replaced with new link.
  • The "wonderfully fine team" quote in the lead could use a source; generally quotes are the only things that should be cited in a lead. Done - Referenced.
  • Further league championship titles: "The point was won after a match against Middlesbrough". After the match? Done - Changed "a" to "the".
    • I worked on it a little further and am happy with it now. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and they finally won the FA Cup the following season". A lot of people here consider "finally" to be POV, so I recommend a change to "and they won their first FA Cup the following season". Done - Removed "finally".
  • Financial troubles and cup success: "Sunderland required only a draw for their final game against promotion rivals Chelsea". Change "for" to "in"; reads better that way. Done
  • "By winning the 1973 FA Cup final". Check capitalization of final. Done - Capitalised "final".
  • "The club celebrated their 100 year centenary...". Hyphen for "100 year". Done - Added a hyphen.
  • The badge logo is pushing the Stadiums heading toward the middle of my screen (I have a widescreen monitor). The easiest fix might be to add a line or two to the section. Also a similar issue in the next section. Comment - Couldn't this simply be solved with {{clear}}.
  • Stadiums: "By the 1990s, the stadium was no longer large enough for the club, and with no room for possible expansion." I don't like "with" here, because it appears as if it's leading into another part of the sentence when it isn't. Perhaps use "had"? Done - Changed "with" to "had".

I'll come back and have another look after these are checked, but for now I'm very happy with the progress that has been made here. Tenses, a key issue last time, are consistently plural throughout, and the entire piece feels more refined for the most part. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redundancy: "Sunderland moved to their present stadium, Stadium of Light". Notice the double stadium? Done - Changed first usage to "ground".
  • Supporters and rivalries: Two 2007-08 Premier League links in the section. Done - Delinked second mention.
  • Nicknames: Comma after "received the majority of the 11,000 votes"? Done - Added comma.
  • Second paragraph of Nicknames: Is the quote covered in the subsequent reference? Just checking. Comment - I would think these match up, as bishopwearmouth is a relatively small area, and the book focuses around the same years as the Napoleonic Wars, it would seem suitable to mention the defense system. Also the Sunderland Loyal Volunteers article uses the same book to source a similar thing.
  • "Sunderland were also known as the 'Bank of England club'". Getting rid of that one word would make this a bit tighter. Done - Removed "also".
  • Link Drumaville consortium? Also flip "dub" and "jokingly" in the last sentence. Done - Switched them around.
  • There is already a link in a previous section, which I missed before. I did make a capitalization fix, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all done. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this article was tantalisingly close to FA at its previous nomination on which I commented and during which I offered a little copy-editing. Tenses with teams (and all manner of collective nouns) can be a pain, but I think that this version satisfies all the FA criteria. There will always be room for tweaks and improvements (in all featured articles—after all this is Wikipedia), but I see no reason not to promote this good contribution to a featured one. I would not be the slightest bit embarrassed to see this one the Main Page—quite the opposite; I would be pleased—and this would be a small reward for the hard work and dedication that has been put into this article. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support- I supported the last FAC, which failed due to a lot of issues with the article holding it back. Currently these issues have been delt with and the article has been prepared well for this time round, no reason to oppose. Mackemfixer (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comment -- Errors found using WP:REFTOOLS.

  • rokerpark | Multiple references are given the same name--TRUCO 21:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference formatting found up to speed.--TRUCO 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been watching this one since the last FAC and giving pointers, and its about there now. Just a couple of things in the Supporters and rivalries section.
    • The reference to Leeds ought to be dropped, there's no significant rivalry there. Look at the cited Football Fans Census data for the number of other teams which mention Leeds more prominently than Sunderland do. Done - Removed.
    • It should be mentioned that rivalry with Newcastle and Middlesbrough is geographical in origin, and perhaps that the strength of rivalry with Newcastle is greater than that with Boro. A couple more sentences in total which shift the weight to that rather than the Sunderland Albion one which was far shorter in duration. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to a wholehearted Support. The high standard of the article reflects the amount of work that has been put in. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this seems to have been unresolved from the last FAC. There are flags used in the player list. Per MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names, the names of the countries should be next to them since they are used for the first time in this article. Jappalang (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure as to how I'd manage this except from modifying the template. However, it is a masively used template so it would go down very kindly. What do you think? Sunderland06 (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the benefits to readers pointed out by the MOS are too good to pass up. You might want to bring notice to the WikiProject and the Template to discuss it, so far the discussions on the Project's and the Template's talk page show a lack of wide discussion in this area. Jappalang (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was finalised at the last FAC that the use of flags does not breach MOS:FLAGS#Use of flags for sportspeople. Peanut4 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of flags is not the issue here. The issue is that on the flags' first use, they must be accompanied by the names of the countries. This is for accessibility and clarity to the readers as outlined in the guidelines. What is asked for is to put the country's name next to the flags, and this was not done. Jappalang (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but MOS:FLAGS#Country_can_sometimes_be_omitted_when_flag_re-used covers the fact that country names do not need to be used alongside flags in lists such as sports teams and so are unnecessary here. Peanut4 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the very first line in the guideline you quote: "The country name may be omitted if a flag appears with its country name earlier in a list or table." The flags did not appear with a country name before the list of players; hence they must be named. Jappalang (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Time to re-write that MOS in that case, as it's not sustainable when it comes to most sports. The flags already link and alt text to the country — CHANDLER#10 — 09:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS is not the problem; the guideline is there to make the article accessible to a greater audience, including those who are blind, color blind, and unable to tell apart icon-sized flags. Forcing them to navigate away from the article just to know what the graphic represents is not desired. Jappalang (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty flawed imo, because if the people aren't able to tell the flags apart or are blind what good would it do them?
Most of the times the country flag isn't needed to be there, it gives a little depth, but they're not vital, so even if you can't tell what the flag is you don't lose much, I think rather people will start to find it strange why the country name which has nothing to do with the list in reality always is mentioned. — CHANDLER#10 — 21:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I think this is pretty close, but not quite there yet.

**It's difficult to get the verbs right with teams, but although I can happily accept "Sunderland" as being plural, perhaps even at a stretch "team", I can't accept "club" as being anything other than singular. Thus I'm not happy with this kind of thing: "The club were sponsored ...", or "... the club were once again implicated ...", or "... the club were promoted ...".

      • I'll probably get round to this later, however it means replacing it with "they", "their", but I guess it has to stay consistently plural throughout the article. Cheers for the comments. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just got caught in an edit conflict with you, so could you say when you've finished making changes. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bearing the same name in a different language as Benfica's Estádio da Luz ("Stadium of Light") in Lisbon, Portugal, Sunderland's ground originally held 42,000 supporters; the capacity was increased to 49,000 after redevelopment in 2000." I think I understand what the first part of the sentence is trying to say, but it seems unnecessarily awkward. The second part of the sentence, however, seems to have no relation at all to the first.
    • "This increased the pool of players, thereby enlarging the amount of funds the club could draw on." Seems to be a non-sequitor. In what way did enlarging the pool of players increase the funds available?
    • "... at that time the rent for use of the ground was £10." It would good to have a present day conversion for these monetary amounts. How much was £100 worth in 1904? Or £18,000 in 1949? I've done a couple as examples in the Early years and league triumphs section.
      • Cheers for that, I'd have had no idea how to do it otherwise. :) Sunderland06 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done all these, I've had a play around with the rounding parameter, so some figures might need a slight tweak.
--Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this is just about there now. I made a few copyedits amd removed the Benfica link from the lead because I just can't see its relevance. As I understand it the name Stadium of Light comes from the miner's lamp outside the ground, nothing to with whyever Benfica's ground has a similar name. Anyway, a nice piece of work. Deserves to be promoted IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I supported on the last FAC (at 23:34, 5 January 2009). I think I helped out with the page before in copyediting some things last time, and there is a lot of improvement from what I remember in the current version. I don't see anything major or that needs to be addressed that would keep this from FA, and I would like to support again. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [5].

Deinosuchus[edit]

Nominator(s): FanCollector (talk)

I've been working on this article for a while, with help from J. Spencer, Casliber, Orangemarlin, and others. (Apokryltaros provided a nice illustration for the article as well.) At this point, I believe it is comprehensive, well-written, and well-sourced, and I'm nominating it because I think it meets all the FA criteria. It's already been through a peer review and the concerns brought up there have been addressed. FanCollector (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ealdgyth, the dml.cmnh.org mailing list is amazing - it has many if not most of the worlds' paleontologists on it. I think of it like a block written by a multitude of notable people in paleontology :) (I think we may have discussed this before somewhere) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ealdgyth, I removed the link to alligatorfarm.us for the Erickson paper, as I was not able to verify whether they had permission to reprint it. As for the Dinosaur Mailing List post, it is by Christopher Brochu, who has published several peer-reviewed papers on crocodyliform phylogeny (including some material that addresses Deinosuchus specifically). This meets the requirements of WP:SELFPUB, which states that "material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Moreover, the underlying fact (that the osteoderms of Deinosuchus are highly diagnostic) was also mentioned in Schwimmer's book and cited to there. I only cited the Brochu post because I liked his use of the phrase "bone granola" and wanted to add this to the article. FanCollector (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Double cite it to the book too and you're good to go. (Bone granola??? EEEW! Give me a medieval bishop ANY day.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral support - Since I reviewed this article and made some edits, I don't feel comfortable giving out a plain old support. However, if I didn't think it was a good candidate, I would have said so at Peer Review. J. Spencer (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks impressive, especially the prose. What are those italicized phrases next to the page numbers of Schwimmer? If they're chapter titles, I'd recommend putting them in quotation marks rather than italicizing them (or, if using citation templates, use the provided chapter= parameter for formatting). BuddingJournalist 22:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the chapter titles to use quotes instead of italics. FanCollector (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (Moral or otherwise) like J. Spencer above I chipped in at Peer Review and gave the text a bit of a massage. Still, I think it fulfills all criteria now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not happy about the Schwimmer article references. Reference #1 sort of establishes all the information for the other Schwimmer references. What if somewhere down the road #1 needs to be changed? Then all subsequent citations won't make sense. One of the reasons we moved on from superscripts and such was so that Wikipedia articles could "live." I'm going to try something different for #2. If you guys hate it, just tell me, but it's an idea. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made some changes to the citations to make them cleaner. Also there were a couple of errors in links that I corrected. If you all dislike my revisions, please revert. Otherwise, a great article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review —

  • File:Deinosuchus hatcheri.JPG and File:Kritosaurus BW.jpg — I am not familiar with the particulars for Wikiproject Paleontology, but as far as I have noticed, most other subjects at FAC would prefer a source for any derivative images used (I presume it would be for a close reflection of what reliable sources depict the subjects to be). Should references be provided for these two images?
  • File:Deinosuchus size estimate comparison chart.svg — the chart states references by author names, but there is not a reference list in the description page. This would not be a useful image if it was used outside the article without those references or if an editor changes/removes those references from the article. I suggest placing the references in the image page.
The rest of the images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately CC licensed. The two above issues should be simple to resolve. Jappalang (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No response on the image issues ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added the full citations to the size chart, and a source for the head reconstruction used for the Kritosaurus image (hadrosaurids were conservative in their postcrania, so the body is generic hadrosaur; if that's problematic, an image of another herbivorous dinosaur that shares a formation with Deinosuchus could be substituted). I can't speak to the taxobox image. J. Spencer (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a review throughout of logical punctuation, per WP:PUNC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [6].

Jupiter Trojan[edit]

Nominator(s): Ruslik (talk), Serendipodous (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article is about a significant population of objects of the Solar System and, in my opinion, is ready to become a featured article. Ruslik (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link was a book citation, so removed. Serendipodous 15:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well-worked. I've helped marginally on this one, but all of my requests were fixed during PR. Good luck, again! Ceran→//forge 19:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No major problems, and pointless listing minor nitpicks since going on hols shortly jimfbleak (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments — I gave the article a quick copy edit and was pleasantly surprised at its quality. I'm not an expert in astronomy by any means, but it's excellent work as far as I could tell. I did have a few questions, however:
  • The "As of" templates appear to be capitalizing the "as". I also added January to the 2009 ones, since we're in 2009 right now, and a month helps.
    Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the nomenclature section, wouldn't it be better to use the names of the asteroids (including the number) rather than just the names of the people?
    Can you clarify what you mean? Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that no Lagrange asteroid was found until more than a century after Lagrange's hypothesis. Was a Trojan asteroid the first of these found? If so, I'd suggest explicitly writing that. If not, then I'd suggest removing that last sentence of the first paragraph of Observational History because it doesn't add to the understanding of this particular subject.
    Wrote explicitly. Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the graphic of Earth's Lagrange points, are Jupiter's different in any way? If so, I'd suggest stating that they're similar in the caption. Otherwise, you don't draw any direct connection between the subject and the graphic.
    They are qualitatively similar. I added sentence to the caption. Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this context, what does "semi-major axis" mean?
    Replaced with average radius. Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When talking about horseshoe orbits, how do we know that they can follow these orbits without having observed it? Is it mathematically derived?
    Clarified. Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd strongly suggest eliminating ambiguous terms such as "very small" and the like. I killed quite a few in the copy edit, but you might want to take another look to see if I missed any.
  • I threw a red link in for Maxwellian function. That's something that probably should have an article of its own, based simply from the way you used it. Don't feel as if you need to stub it out, though.
    I changed the link to Maxwell_distribution. Ruslik (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do red spectra indicate?
    I added an explanation. Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "The Trojans' spectra are similar to those of the irregular moons of Jupiter and, to certain extent, comet nuclei, though they are spectrally very different from the redder Kuiper belt objects", what does "they" refer to?
    Replaced "they" with "Trojans". Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "It was triggered by the passage of Jupiter and Saturn through the 1:2 mean motion resonance.", does "it" refer to planetary migration or the capture of the Trojans?
    I changed "it" to "the migration". Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as a final question, do these have any connection to Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9? If so, it might be worth mentioning simply because of the well-known nature of that comet.
    There is no connection, as that comet originated in the Kuiper belt, not among Trojans. However added it to See also. Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for producing an excellent article, and don't hesitate to drop a line on my talk page when you get a chance to read through these. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, the comments you provided were very useful. Ruslik (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but please add a note which explains what happens at L1, L2 and L3 for Jupiter. Is there anything known about them? Nergaal (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note. Ruslik (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref comments -- Errors found with WP:REFTOOLS.

  • Yoshida2005 | A named reference is used but not defined
  • Nicholson1961 | A named reference is used but not defined
  • Yoshida2005 | A named reference is used but not defined
  • Jewitt2004 | A named reference is used but not defined--TRUCO 22:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are actually defined at the end of the article. Ruslik (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the references, like Jewitt2004 is used as <ref name="Jewitt2004"/> but there is no original <ref name="Jewitt2004">(ref content)</ref> reference defined.--TRUCO 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Source list}} is used instead. Ruslik (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. That's something I've never seen before. I guess I'll have to search for that in future FACs. Ref formatting found up to speed.--TRUCO 22:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All of my comments and concerns have been addressed, and I believe this article is comparable to the rest of the solar system FAs. Excellent work by everyone involved. The prose is clear and concise, with only a minimum of necessary technical jargon. Even to me, someone with limited astronomical experience, it's understandable. Great work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns as follows:

  • File:Max Wolf.jpg — I doubt this file is in German public domain, much less US public domain (both required for Commons storage). German copyright is simply 70 years after the author's death, regardless of publication. The image is listed by Britannica to be credited (copyrighted) to Archiv fur Kunst und Geschichte, Berlin. There is no date on when this was taken. However, by noting the similarities of this photo with the one on this page, they should be around the same time (especially when considered to this). The nafa image is listed as taken in Königstuhl, July 1918.(Turns out the date was for the letters, not the image.) If this was taken at the turn of the century and the photographer was 20–30 years old then, he might only have passed away 40 years ago; thus the image is very likely to be still copyrighted in Germany.
    • Just in case, this image cannot be proven to be PD, I suggest this. This 1890 work by Langbein & Cie, Heidelburg, was published on p. 246 of Astronomers of Today and Their Work (1905). Hence, even if it is not German public domain (have to prove both Langbein and Cie were dead 70 years past), it can be stored on Wikipedia (not Commons) as US public domain material (published in US before 1923). Jappalang (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:AnimatedOrbitOf624Hektor.gif — sources should be provided for the orbital patterns of Jupiter and its satellite.
Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can get the J2000 orbital elements for 624 Hektor from the small-body database: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=624%20Hektor;orb=0;cov=0;log=0;cad=0#elem - which is where I get asteroid/comet/KBO orbital data from (the same data is published in other places though). Jupiter's J2000 orbital elements are from Murray and Dermott's Solar System Dynamics, which was published in 1999 by the Cambridge University Press. Cheers, WilyD 15:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added sources, thanks for the info. I can't upload the alternate Max Wolf picture, though. Serendipodous 20:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images used in the articles are now verifiably in public domain (US at least). Jappalang (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment—I performed a PR on this article and all but one of my concerns have been addressed. I gave it another read through just now and I think it deserves FA status. My one issue is regarding the statement about, "this disparity is probably due to observational bias from their respective positions relative to the Milky Way." Intuitively I'd expect the Lagrange points to spend equal amounts of time along the line of sight to the galactic plane, so this leaves me a little perplexed.—RJH (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the source says:

Given that the best characterized (brightest) Trojans show the smallest deviations of N4/N5 from unity, it is reasonable to suppose that the larger values of this ratio are produced by observational bias in favor of one cloud over the other. Such a bias could result from unequal observational coverage of the L4 and L5 clouds, perhaps due to their placement with respect to the Milky Way, making the detection of faint Trojans more difficult in one cloud than in the other. A careful experiment to determine N4/N5 free of the effects of observational bias has yet to be reported and is urgently needed.

I can't go into any more detail than that. Serendipodous 20:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is a perplexing statement, but if Jewitt claims as much, it is probably true. The only guess I can make is that the limiting survey(s) were arranged in time such that this is the case (e. g. if the survey that determines the limit was January 23rd 1995 - February 17th, 1995, the backgrounds would definitely be different). WilyD 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search turned up Freistetter (2006) which (to me anyway) appears to indicate there may be more to the discrepancy than observational bias. But I don't have full access to this paper; just the abstract. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the statement about Milky Way and replaced with the statement that L4 swarm may be more stable than L5. Ruslik (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure this is really the right approach. Jewitt may well be the authority on minor planets these days, ignoring his statement seems like a misstep. WilyD 14:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this claim about the Milky Way background originates with Shoemaker '89 (so sayeth Freistetter), Freistetter then claims that this should've been resolveable by now, and Freistetter definitely isn't claiming his answer is correct. He lists 5 different possible causes, three of which he doesn't investigate at all. It seems like a mistake to change this in this way. WilyD 14:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{de-indent} It sounds like this will require a consensus decision to resolve, but I don't expect the result will effect the article quality. As my concern WRT the FA status was satisfied, I've changed my preference to support. Thank you for putting together another high quality astronomy article!—RJH (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "See also" section is quite lengthy; are some of those, or can some of them be, worked into the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what can be done about this, but I can't even see these numbers in the resolution on my computer (which is high):
  • ... from its rotational lightcurve is significantly higher than that of 617 Patroclus—2.480+0.292
    −0.080     g·cm−3.

Can the sentence be recast to avoid all those different dashes, and I can't read the numbers in the plus or minus construct at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Same here (can't see the numbers in the superscript):
  • ... as being less than that of water ice (0.8+0.2
    −0.1     g·cm−3), ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to do that is to remove the margins of error, which leads to a less exact but more readable figure. Serendipodous 22:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps over time you all can find a new way to do that, since it's not legible perhaps somehow remove it from superscript)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [7].

Hurricane Daniel (2006)[edit]

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone, ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)

I've copyedited and cleaned up the article, although Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) wrote most of the current content. It passed WPTC A-class review a while ago. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As author of the article, I added myself as a co-nominator. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done (not sure why I have such trouble with those italics...) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually you'll not have to be reminded. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Link named storm in the lead
  • Initial predictions suggested that the cyclone would through the Hawaiian Islands as a tropical storm. I think something is missing
  • It tracked across the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea with little associated convection, and on July 12... Link convection
  • On July 19, the eye of Daniel became apparent on satellite imagery, which organized into a pinhole eye. explain what a pinhole eye is
  • It underwent an eyewall replacement cycle as it turned to the west-northwest... link eyewall replacement cycle
  • After completing the cycle, Daniel attained its peak winds of 150 mph (240 km/h) early on July 22. After maintaining peak winds for about 18 hours... After...After... repetitive, try to change the wording for one of the two sentences

Just a few minor things, mainly with linking technical or uncommon terms, otherwise the article is very nicely done. Cyclonebiskit 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, Support :) Cyclonebiskit 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Guyinblack25

I've never reviewed a weather article before, so I hope you forgive my ignorance with the material. Overall, though the article is short, it is informative and well sourced. The images look to be very appropriate and significantly improve the topic in my opinion. My only concern is the prose seemed more suited for those familiar with weather.

  • "Tracked" is used often, but sounded weird to me ("It tracked across..."). I assume it means that it moved or was tracked by someone. If this is the case, then I suggest saying so to give more variance to the article's words and make it more accessible to general readers.
    • This is pretty standard amongst tropical cyclone articles, but I'll change it if you still feel it's necessary. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the beginning of "Meteorological history"- "A tropical wave moved off the west coast of Africa on July 2." I think adding how this connects to the hurricane would give context to this awkward sentence. Maybe add "Hurricane Daniel began as..."
  • Is the "by" really needed in "By later that day"? Seems redundant to me.
    • Most of the events in the hurricane's history are simply estimations by the NHC; thus, if an intensification was estimated to have taken place on Tuesday evening (as an example), there's a possibility it occurred prior to that time. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some references are placed in the middle of sentences. I think it makes the sentence harder to read by inserting an unnecessary break. I normally place such references at the end of the appropriate sentence for ease of reading.
    • References in the middle of a sentence are allowed, and I believe they cause less of a disruption than a block of footnotes at the end of the sentence. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is precipitation dropping on the East Maui watershed beneficial to Maui?

Not prose related but two of links have issues

Other than the above list, I don't see any major problems. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the comments, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gave it another sweep and two minor issues stood out to me.
  • In the first paragraph of "Meteorological history", what kind of "development" happened south of Mexico? Is it the same kind mentioned in the second paragraph (Tropical cyclogenesis)? I think some clarification would help readers understand the article.
  • Very minor issue, the first two sentences of the third paragraph both use which. Just seems a bit repetitive. Maybe get rid of the second one and put "temporarily halting its intensification trend" between em dashes.
Other than those last two, I'm pretty much sold on the article. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
{{done}} –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 07:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My issues have been addressed. The article is short, but informative, well sourced, and makes good use of images. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support - on my first read-through, I almost wanted to complain about a few jargon-y terms. However, on a second pass, I found that any terms that I didn't know were wikilinked. I couldn't find anything else big, so a full support. Good work again, Julian.

Support with the caveat that I'd like to see just a little bit of explanation in this article as to what an annular hurricane is? I'm unfamiliar with the term, and I suspect most people will be. Karanacs (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence explaining the term. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: just one issue, please point to the page hosting the image, not to the image itself for File:TD Daniel (2006).JPG. Jappalang (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I did that. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference formatting is not consistent: sometimes the publisher is listed before the title, as an author; other times, it's listed after the title. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed the author vs. publisher thing (changed CPHC, etc. to publisher). --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [8].

Edmund Herring[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it satisfies the criteria, although I have not done this before, so I could be wrong. It has previously been peer reviewed and passed an A-class review from the MILHIST Task Force. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Hi Hawkeye, welcome to FAC, nice article. Can you globalise "an Intermediate Certificate (ie graduated from Year 10)" I suspect its somewhere between a qualification that almost all Australian school leavers got and the certificate the small minority of 18 year olds who were gong to university had to achieve. Sorry to be pedantic but the meaning of the paragraph would be very different from one extreme to the other, WereSpielChequers 00:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a footnote (with appropriate references) which says: The Intermediate Certificate was awarded for the successful completion of four years of high school. This was at around age 14 — what is called Year 10 today. A student who wanted to enter University also needed a Leaving certificate, for the completion of another two years. Both were based on external examinations. The Intermediate Certificate was abolished in the 1960s." It was called the Intermediate because it came between the Qualifying Certificate (at the end of Primary School — Year 6) and Leaving Certificate (Year 12). (Sir Edmund would be rather tickled by the fact that the automated tools reckon that you need an Intermediate Certificate level of education in order to read the article!) Hawkeye7 (talk)


  • Support This is a great article which meet the FA criteria. My only suggestions are that the article should identify which 'B Battery' Herring assumed command of in Oct 1918 and clarify why NZ and British gunners served under Herring's command in Greece (was he the commander of the Corps Artillery at this time?). Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was B Battery, 99th Field Artillery Brigade. I have clarified this.
The Corps Artillery was commanded by Cyril Clowes. The normal practice was to reinforce the artillery of a division in the line. In this case,. Herring also had the 2nd Regiment, RHA and 64th Medium Regiment, RA under his command. The 6th Field Regiment, RNZA also served under him for a time. Added some text to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

I'm not a social historian, so I cannot tackle this topic. I have hived it off into its own article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new article for Intermediate Certificate rather than attempt to deal with finding references for the subject, which is largely off-topic for the article. Of course, I know full well what it was — you only have to talk to someone over fifty — but writing about the history of the education system in Australia is quite another matter. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Converted them all to the Cite form. You should update WP:CITE#Citation templates to explicitly say not to mix them. At the moment all it says is that "For consideration of article consistency bear in mind that these two families produce slightly different citation formats" which has to be read in conjunction with "Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 22 (Long, Gavin...) you need to give the link a title per the MOS.
Removed link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 32 (Barcan..) is a book, and should be formatted as such.
Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did it need to be removed? It just needed switched from {{cite web}} to {{cite book}} and a page number added. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per the point above, Intermediate Certificate is now its own article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
The publisher of a newspaper is pretty meaningless. For example, The Canberra Times was originally published by C.J. Shakespeare for the Federal Capital Press in the 1920s. The paper was sold to the Fairfax group in the 1960s by Arthur Shakespeare. It was later sold to Publishing and Broadcasting Limited, which in turn sold it to Kerry Stokes in 1989 for $110 million. Rural Press Limited bought the paper from Stokes in 1998 for $160 million. Rural Press Limited then merged with Fairfax Media on 8 May 2007. Someone with a copy of the paper will find the editor but no publisher. I think its still Rural Press, which doesn't exist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lost here though. I don't honestly care if the publisher field is filled in, I'm just asking that the newspaper titles be in italics, which you use the "work" field on the cite news template for. That's all. If you like, you can list the actual publishing company also, but the important bit is the newspaper title. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the paper (The Age) is in italic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 62 (Fifty Australians..) needs a publisher
It is not published. It was a famous exhibition. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who put the information out on the web, that's who the publisher is. (As I recall, this is the Australian War Memorial?) We have to know who put the information out, or "published" it, on the web. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that has been added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images check out okay. They are in the public domain for Australia and US, being verifiably created or published before 1945. File:Edmund_Herring_by_William_Dargie.jpg, File:MacArthur and Herring AWM150813.jpg, File:Senior AIF officers (AWM 057633).jpg, and File:Mary Herring.jpg can be moved to Commons. Jappalang (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very well-done article. Two comments:

  • In the Chief Justiceship... section, there are a few places were he is referred to not as Herring but as "Sir Edmund" or "Sir Edmund Herring". This should be changed to always be Herring. Also, please check in this section that all quotes have a citation at the end of the sentence (even if that means duplicate cites in subsequent sentences).
Changed references to "Herring". Checked all quotes, and added one extra duplicate cite.
  • Did anything come of the 1978 controversy?

17:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by karanacs (talk • contribs)

Not really. It permanently damaged Herring's reputation; no biographical sketch omits it. The death penalty had been abolished in Victoria only in 1975, yet incident displayed that public opinion had moved a long way by 1978. It is also of interest to students of civil-military relations in Australia. The whole issue blew up again in September 2007. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bit more to it, including a good reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Excellent article; I should be able to support with a minimum of changes, though a few minor things are currently unclear and some of the language is a touch colloquial. Some thoughts and questions:
    • "He was elected to the Melbourne Club in 1927, a year before Sir Thomas Lyle became its president." Who is Thomas Lyle (I don't think the wikilinked one is the one you want), and why is it significant that Herring joined the Melbourne Club a year before he became president?
No, the wikilinked is not the right one. Originally the link was red but no one has written the requested article. In an article such as this it is tough to get things like this right. I am after all writing about my university, my city, my Army and my country. Thomas Lyle was a renowned mathematical physicist at the University of Melbourne. And Edmund's father-in-law. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not precisely clear on the meaning of "unendorsed candidate", and it doesn't seem to have an article. Would a wikilink to independent (politician) be appropriate?
No, that's not right. I've wikilinked political endorsement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm still not quite clear. Can you explain to me what an unendorsed candidate is, and I can see if I have any suggestions for what to do with this? I was under the impression that it was a candidate running without the endorsement of any political party, but that would seem to be an independent. Can you explain the distinction between an independent candidate and an unendorsed one? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If you want to run for office in Victoria, you have to file the appropriate paperwork with the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC). This includes a deposit (£50 back in 1936) and, if you have been pre-selected by a registered political party, which usually requires a vote of the local party, then has to be signed by a party official who is registered as such with the VEC. Alternatively, you can also run as an unendorsed candidate, by lodging the appropriate form, which requires fifty signatures instead. Now, in this case, Ned was a member of the UAP but his faction was opposed to the unpopular official candidate, Ian Macfarlan. Since Macfarlan was a minister, under the party rules, he didn't have to face pre-selection, so Ned got the signatures from this group of young Nats and filed the paperwork as an unendorsed candidate. The seat was blue-ribbon conservative, so it came down to Herring versus Macfarlan, and Macfarlan won, but only just. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm really feeling very dense, and I apologize for it, but how is that different from independent (politician)? Is the distinction that, if he had won, he would have served as a UAP member? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. An independent is a politician who is not affiliated with any political party. Herring was affiliated and would have served as a UAP member. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that she has an article of her own, there seems to be a surprising amount of information about Mrs. Herring's activities, especially early in the article.
    • "6th Field Regiment, RNZA" I presume that these are New Zealanders; could that be made clear, perhaps by expanding the arconym?
Wikilinked it Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...managed to get a lift..." This seems rather colloquial.
Changed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but only worsens the problem of overuse of "embark" (which is one of the things I addressed in my copyedit). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have re-worded some bits to cut back on the use of "embark". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...so this was an operational command." To a reader with no background in military matters, this seems a little jargon-y.
Deleted.
    • "...fight it out with the Japanese..." Also somewhat colloquial.
Changed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The headings confuse me a little, as I'm not exactly clear on the meaning of "Papua"; I always thought it referred to the eastern portion of New Guinea, which made having two separate headings for "Papua" and "New Guinea" seem a little odd (rather like having separate entries for "Italy" and "Europe"). From looking at Papua, it appears that the word in this context likely actually refers to Territory of Papua; is there some way that that could be clarified?
Or separate headings for "Italy" and "Germany"... Papua is the former Australian colony; New Guinea was a former German colony that became an Australian mandate in 1920. They are geographical, linguistically and ethnically separate regions. Today, both are part of Papua-New Guinea. Changed to "Papuan Campaign" and "New Guinea Campaign". Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this is exacerbated by the fact that the island on which both are located is also called New Guinea, right? Or am I mistaken about that? In any event, I like your solution.
Good. I try to reduce the confusion by not using "New Guinea" ambiguously. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...were created Knights Commander..." Is "created" the right verb here? I would have thought "appointed" or something would be better, but I'm also not familiar with the order.
Changed to "appointed". Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...the first phase of the plan..." Which plan?
Operation Cartwheel. Added Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...and a committee for religious observances and services to mark the opening of the legal year." This is somewhat unclear: is the opening of the legal year a religious observance?
As far as I know. See Opening of the Legal Year Observances – 2nd & 3rd February 2009 Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. So what exactly was this committee charged with doing? I'm still a little unclear. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arranging the religious services. An interesting intersection between Sir Edmund's judicial and religious roles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes; see what you think. As well, if Herring had a significant religious role, why isn't it dealt with elsewhere in the article? Or am I being dense again? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You probably overlooked it: "He was also active in the Anglican Church, and for many years was chancellor of the diocese of Melbourne, the highest church office that could be held by a layman." Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, generally a fine article that I look forward to supporting when the niggling issues above are resolved. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [9].

Sam & Max: Freelance Police[edit]

Nominator(s): Sabre (talk)

This is the first FAC I've worked on by myself, so I'm a little apprehensive about how this is going to go; I usually feel I have trouble hitting the "brilliant prose" standard. Nevertheless, I'm going to give this a shot, I think its ready. The article's passed GAN and had a peer review conducted. The article concerns a graphic adventure game under development by LucasArts until its abrupt cancellation in 2004. Unlike the clear majority cancelled games, there's a fair bit of commentary to support an article and it's significant in the history of both LucasArts and the Sam & Max franchise. Also, unlike my last FAC, this game's actually completely cancelled: its dead, and not getting up again. -- Sabre (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • International House of Mojo is part of LucasArts Fan Network, LLC, established back in 1997 and host to some twenty odd sites, some user-generated wikis, others, like International House of Mojo, with some form of editorial process and pernament staff. Looking around, this is the one with the most high-profile activity on in out of all the LFNetwork sites. They've conducted interviews with many of the big developer names in this particular area (Simon Jeffery, Tim Schafer, Ron Gilbert, etc) from which one could reasonably assume that these people regard the site as reputable. I know they've been cited in places including by LucasArts themselves, but I can't find the links again to back that up. In any case, the actual page being cited contains summaries from coverage of the game by other media outlets, mainly print sources that aren't available online, and would be extremely difficult/near on impossible to locate physical copies of. It is mostly the content of those sources and comments made by lead designer Michael Stemmle which are really being cited, rather than the MixnMojo's own content.
      • Adventure Gamers is listed as a reliable source at WP:VG/S.
      • Spong: I got this source from Grim Fandango, which is an FA; the source was there when the article was promoted last March, so I'm assuming that it has been verified as a reliable source. Looking at their about page, they aim to be a database, but they do journalistic stuff as well - in this case, it is the latter sort of content being cited. They seem to have an editorial process and a structured staff. has been removed; see below
      • Telltale Games is the developer of the Sam & Max games, and as you say its a primary source. Most of the team are ex-LucasArts, so it would have been written by the people it covers in the article, which is a simple history recap for the franchise. I've never had to justify the reliability of a primary source, or seen it done before, so I'm a little lost at what more to say with regard to this one. -- Sabre (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources, so I'm wondering if there might not be secondary sources that are reliable for the same information? It's also a heads up to other reviewers to make sure that the source is a primary source. As for the others, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now, now, let's be accurate. Secondary sources are not preferred to primary sources as such. Secondary sources are required, and secondary sources are necessary for some types of information. But to actively prefer secondary sources outright would violate NPOV - the viewpoint of the creators and the company is absolutely an important point of view that can't be minimized. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • But there is a strong tendency with video game articles to rely a bit too much only primary sources such as interviews and such. I don't have a problem with the source, as long as it's clear that it's the opinion of the people putting forth the information, not an uncontested fact. It's their view of what happened with the cancelation of the game, and it needs to be treated carefully so that it doesn't obscure whatever the LucasArt side of the story was. On telltale though, I'm fine with leaving it out as a note to other reviewers that its a primary source and needs to be used with caution. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Are there actual spots where you think this is an issue? As it stands, the criticism of the account of the cancellation doesn't seem to me actionable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's not really so much an "actionable" item as a "comment" to other reviewers to be aware that a good chunk of the article is sourced to a primary source, that's all. You'll note that the whole section of my comments is comments not a support or oppose. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least for Adventure Gamers, I see them used for three claims. At least two of these there's no doubt about - one is a repost of Steve Purcell's comments on the game's cancellation. That's straightforward, though if the original posting of the comments survives, that would be a preferable source. Another uses them as a source for a review - as a significant player in the adventure games community, this is a simple matter of NPOV - it's an opinion, and their opinion has weight. The phrasing of the sentence, "Freelance Police's cancellation is often cited as the culmination of the downward decline in the adventure genre," is not a statement that the game's cancellation is a culmination - it's a statement that it is cited as such. A major player citing it as such is valid evidence of that, flat-out. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problems at all with using any of those as reviews, as long as their opinion is attributed, it's a fine use. I did double check that the ones I questioned were not being used just as reviews, but were being used for other information and not being attributed as "opinion" either. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Spong's gone and has been replaced by sources from GameSpot and Edge (magazine). Shouldn't be any problem with the reliability of those two, they're strong media sources within the industry. The editorial by MixnMojo is gone, as it is a straight opinion piece, but the other MixnMojo article (reference #1; the one cited with all the info from other press sources and the developers) isn't as I think that page can be justified alone. I'll get back to you on that and Adventure Gamers. -- Sabre (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adventure Gamers is regarded as a trustworthy site for CBS Interactive's aggregator sites Metacritic (e.g.) and Game Rankings (e.g.). Its also been used by publishers for examples of press comments on their products ([10][11][12][13]). In addition, its been cited as a source in a few scholarly works ([14][15]). They have an editor-in-chief and structured staff, and info on their editorial policies is available here. -- Sabre (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • MixnMojo: While I can't find an about page (I'll see about contacting them for their editorial stuff), their content have been cited by some print publications and at least one online publication ([16][17][18][19][20]). In addition, the site has those industry contacts with the likes of the former president of LucasArts and key designers in the field, from which it can be deduced that those people think the site is reputable. (this indicates the statement by the series creator was originally delivered to MixnMojo - not all their interviews are within the interview section, some are spread in reviews.) I personally believe that's enough to justify the use of the one source in this article, which relies on other publications and developer comments for its info - I'm not too willing to remove that source, as it will put a sizeable hole in coverage and its information isn't available elsewhere online as far as I can tell. As stated above, I have removed the source that comprises entirely of MixnMojo's own views and content. Its a borderline case without having found out about their editorial processes, but reviewers can decide on the source's own merits and use in this article while I try to contact them. -- Sabre (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images/Comments

  • File:Freelance Police concept art.jpg - did Purcell actually do this piece of concept art? Otherwise the rationale is kind of weak.
  • The reception section is missing, did you kill it again?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The game is unreleased. Gary King (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That does sort of make reception trickier. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image. As for reception, the quote and the paragraph preceding it would count as reception information, but it seemed more appropriate to cover it as part of development as there isn't much of it. -- Sabre (talk) 10:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that should take care of images. I'll do a thorough review later (I didn't actually read it, so I didn't realize it was unreleased :D) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Prose is hit and miss.
    • "was originally intended to be released for Windows in early 2004 and was intended as a sequel to the 1993 title" Ungainly repetition and parallelism. You already have "intended" in the beginning: "intended to be released for Windows in early 2004 as the sequel to the 1993 title"
    • "hyperkinetic rabbity thing" Citation for quotation?
    • "and was later fully unveiled" I'm not getting how something can be fully unveiled if it was canceled. Also, you give dates, so you can safely remove "later" for tighter prose.
    • "Like its predecessor, Freelance Police was designed as a point-and-click adventure game, using a new 3D game engine in place of the SCUMM and GrimE engines used in past LucasArts adventure games" This seems contradictory. Seems to read that the game, like Freelance Police, used a new 3D game engine. But then it says that past games used SCUMM/GrimE engines. If the 3D engine is unique to Sam & Max, try "but used a new..." and recast the second clause accordingly. If not, you'll need to modify "past" ("older", perhaps?).
    • "The development of the project was lead" Proofread, proofread, proofread!
    • "Very" is not the best intensifier.
    • "The game engine itself ", "the actual gameplay itself, " Why itself?
    • The switch to conditional is a bit jarring in Overview. Why not keep the "was to" construct? Works fine, I think.
    • "many of these minigames would be entirely optional as to whether the player played them or not, while others were necessary to continue in the plot" Unnecessarily wordy and problematic shift in tense.
    • "Steve Purcell, the creator..." Don't understand what this and the next sentence have to do with the game's plot.
    • "taking up a job" Colloquial. I stopped reading here. BuddingJournalist 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at fixing them, and a few other similar things after you stopped reading. The only thing not done is the citation of the "hyperkinetic rabbity thing", as its the stock description used for the character throughout the series rather than a quote - back-of-the-box sort of stuff. Its in quote marks because it wouldn't look right if it wasn't. -- Sabre (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More, at random:
"the player was required to play some of these to advance the game's plot; others were designed to be entirely optional" Can this be tightened further? "some advanced the game's plot while others were entirely optional."
Still seeing "very" used as an intensifier.
"had been confirmed for the game." Why "had been"? Makes readers wonder at what point and whether this changed.
"Although the game was projected " The two clauses don't seem to make sense with an "although". Where's the logical contradiction?
"Hell on Wheels,[12] leading the media to speculate that Freelance Police might suffer a similar fate." Why? What's the connection?
"PC Gamer US in particular"
These, plus the errors I spotted/corrected do not lend confidence. Give the entire text an audit. BuddingJournalist 21:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried some further fixes, but as I stated at the beginning of this, I have little confidence in my own abilities to copyedit. I've requested some outside help. -- Sabre (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The connection with Hell on Wheels is explained in the second sentence of the development section (albeit as "Full Throttle II"): the game was another graphic adventure, closely related to the Sam & Max one. Hence, when that got cancelled, the media voiced concerns that the same might happen here. -- Sabre (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the prose should be a lot better now. Both Gary King and Ashnard have given the article a full copyedit, and it reads better for me at least. Hopefully, that will deal with any further prose problems. -- Sabre (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better. Only skimmed the article, but I've struck my oppose for now. Will more thoroughly revisit the article later. Did spot this still unchanged: ""Although the game was projected " The two clauses don't seem to make sense with an "although". Where's the logical contradiction?" BuddingJournalist 01:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded that particular sentence now. -- Sabre (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I performed a light copyedit, and the prose looks fine to my eyes now (not saying much, but still.) Images of appropriate resolution and with proper fair use rationales. I checked through print archives and couldn't find any substantial sources to add, so I'm satisfied with comprehensiveness, and I think the borderline references are used properly that they can pass muster. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — Nice looking article in terms of sourcing and writing and whatnot. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Please ask supporters to review and comment on the outstanding reliable sources concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose because I believe the article is too short. Also as a general rule I would oppose any article of this type from being FA status because I don't believe it's importance is high enough. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a valid reason to oppose a nomination. Please comment on its adherence to WP:WIAFA. --Laser brain (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please explain how that oppose is related to the Featured article criteria. "Too short" is not valid, because you did not say where the article is lacking. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree this is not a valid oppose - length is not a criterion at WP:WIAFA. Can this be struck? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1c. The research is subpar and reflects a "web search" only. An hour or so with a scholarly search engine like LexisNexis should solve the sourcing problems. The particular deal-breaking here is the mixnmojo site; I don't see any evidence that reliable sources have referred to this as an authoritative source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Ealdgyth's other unresolved items are of concern, as well, since better sources are almost certainly available. Examination of the prose is not possible until the sourcing is fixed. --Laser brain (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I myself have checked LexisNexis over and the only print source I found with any real relevance to the topic was a Globe and Mail story that was essentially a rehash of the cancellation press release. I am confident that Sabre has used available sources for this article. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the issue at hand is that this and a few other sources don't meet WP:RS. We need proof that a reliable gaming source considers these sources reliable. --Laser brain (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's valid, I'm just saying in terms of available sources I think all that can be found has been. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article does have several print sources from the gaming media in use, so that this represents a web search only isn't entirely accurate. I've also checked over JSTOR (crappier version of Lexis Nexis) for anything they might have, but likewise to no avail. Now, to the current sources. I haven't seen the information in the Telltale Games source regurgitated anywhere else, lestways not anywhere that would be considered reliable. At present, it is the only source available for that information, and we shouldn't hold out on the basis that a secondary source may become available in the future (although if it does, I will add it). As for the other two, I have provided evidence of usage as references in works by industry publications (not game press, but developer books) and one or two scholary publications on video games in posts above. If that's not enough, I don't know what is: Adventure Gamers has been challenged and passed at several fairly recent successful FACs by the same people commenting in this FAC, so I don't know what further can be done. Mixnmojo is a borderline case, but again, it has been cited within industry and scholary publications that I've posted above. I've already cut the use of the source which relied on MixnMojo's own content, the single remaining use consists mainly of information taken from and credited to the game's developers, and game media sources that would be extremely difficult to get ahold of. Combined with the evidence provided in its favour as a reliable source, I believe the use of that particular page on that site is justified. -- Sabre (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't actually have a problem with the use of Telltale Games, since it's not used for anything POV or likely to be challenged. However, I maintain my position that Mixnmojo is a no-go. That it is cited in other works doesn't do anything to prove its reliability, unless it's cited as being reliable. I saw a reference in the back of a book, but it could just as well been cited for being a crappy source of information for all I know. I know how the gaming industry works—everyone and his brother has a forum or a game review web site and most of them eventually chase down some industry people for an interview, and so on. But that doesn't make them reliable, even in the realm of VG articles where the sourcing standards are already relaxed. --Laser brain (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • In one of those print sources, its being cited as an authority for the LucasArts iMUSE system (used extensively in their adventure games), whilst in another its used as part of the research for the book. I'm having trouble accessing the other two at the moment. Either way, its not a statement of "don't go here, they're unreliable". If you're looking for a page somewhere that categorically states "mixnmojo is a reliable source", I don't think you're going to get that: I rather doubt you'd find that for the likes of IGN, GameSpot, or many of the other game sites considered reliable for the purpose of FAC. I guess that we are going to agree to disagree on that particular source. -- Sabre (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, it is sounding like less of an issue. Striking my 1c objection but I have yet to examine the prose. --Laser brain (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've managed to phase out a lot of the usage of mixnmojo; turns out some of the information was in other sources after I went back to look them over, whilst other uses have been reworded so not to need a citation. I take back the statement that finding the sources which the Mixnmojo article relies on would be difficult. That leaves only a single use of the source for which I could not replace. -- Sabre (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Overview" is too generic for a section title. You can put any conceivable bit of information under there, and so it doesn't help with the future when people have new bits of information and decide to put it under the Overview section, passing over other sections since Overview is a catch-all. I'm fine with small sections, but not happy with an Overview section. The section title itself doesn't encourage any particular logical order for the information to be shown. Gary King (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having as small sections as these simply looks for very poor presentation, there simply isn't the information to pad out decent gameplay or plot sections. Consolidating that into a single section makes for far better presentation than sections with literally a couple of sentences. The overview section is still structured; it covers technology, gameplay, plot and distribution, in that order. In the highly unlikely event that new information will come to light (the game has been dead for five years), it would be clear where such information would go. -- Sabre (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If an Overview section is used, then I suspect the article is poorly organized. The stuff that do not belong in a Gameplay section but are in Overview could probably be fit in somewhere in Development as they are related to the game's development. Gary King (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That still sounds like creating sections simply for the sake of padding out the contents table. I vehemently disagree; the stuff in the overview section provides a summary of the features of the game, while the development section shows a summary of the development history of the game. -- Sabre (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am opposed to naming a section "Overview" as it is too generic, and can mean anything. If an article requires a section named "Overview", then it can be organized better. Gary King (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree with Gary here—the reader has no reasonable idea of what they will encounter in this section. You're really telling three stories in this article: the premise of the game, the development of the game, and the events surrounding its planned release and cancellation. That should give you a better idea of how to organize it. --Laser brain (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm open to suggestions for a different name, but breaking the section up because the title isn't desirable isn't the way to go about it. I've just tried previewing several ways of breaking up the information, it simply messes up presentation and gives a bunch of two or three sentence sections. It severely fragments the article. -- Sabre (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment (Leaning oppose) I was the sole peer reviewer - see here - and several issues still have not been fixed from the peer review, nor was there any response to the suggestions in the PR itself (though some things have been changed since). here are the relevant items again:

  • Would it make sense to add the start date to the first sentence of the lead, perhaps something like Sam & Max: Freelance Police was a graphic adventure computer game developed by LucasArts between 2002 and its cancellation in 2004. ?
  • Per WP:LEAD and WP:MOSQUOTE quotations in the lead need a ref, such as ... an anthropomorphic dog and "hyperkinetic rabbity thing" ...
    • The ref does not seem to contain all of the information needed to find this source, if desired. From a breif search, it seems to be included as an extra in the DVD here. Is that the source?
      • Yes, its an extra PDF document included with the DVD. However, for extra clarity to help find the source, I've replaced it with a ref to one of the comic book compilations, complete with an ISBN. -- Sabre (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Define abbreviations, so change it to ... at the Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) convention ...
    • I am not sure what is so difficult about adding this, but I just did it for you.
      • It was more difficult than I realized, as I missed the first use in the lead, where you had added the (E3) - sorry and my apologies.
  • The quote in the peer review is no longer in the article, but the initial part from the peer review is still true: "Specific attribution of quotes is better (especially at FAC) than vague things..." I note there is now a sentence Commentators in the industry's media felt that the decision was another example of a decline in the adventure genre,[15] with many concluding that LucasArts was moving to maintain its position with low risk Star Wars-themed titles instead of the adventure games that had brought them success in earlier years.[15] This refers to "commentators" (plural) and "many concluding" but it uses one ref, which is one article by one person (Steve Adams at IGN). Better to say something like Steve Adams of IGN felt that the decision was another example of a decline in the adventure genre, concluding that LucasArts was moving to maintain its position with low risk Star Wars-themed titles instead of the adventure games that had brought them success in earlier years.[15]
  • I reserve the right to make more comments once those I made at peer review have been resolved. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I managed to miss those in the peer review, I thought I had sorted those. Evidently not. Anyway, I've dealt with some of those comments. I've added a further reference to support that Star Wars thing not being unique to IGN; if I'd realised yesterday, I'd have been in a position to add a further print reference to PC Gamer because I know they've had similar sentiments, but alas that's now several counties away from me now. The "hyperkinetic rabbity thing" isn't a proper quote, its a back-of-the-book/box stock description of the character. Its in quotation marks because without them it wouldn't be encyclopedic language; the quotation marks are meant to indicate that its not intended to be serious. Unless there's something in the MOS about how to approach that sort of stuff. If not, I'll just shove a ref up. -- Sabre (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Struck two. If it is a direct quote, it needs a ref. Period. A Google search on "hyperkinetic rabbity thing" finds over 5000 hits, so it is a well known quote and needs a ref. I will weigh in on the reliable sources question once these are addressed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref added. -- Sabre (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Ruhrfisch comments - looking pretty good

  • Nitpick - refs are usually given in numerical order, so fix ...who published various previews and interviews with the development team, particularly with lead designer Michael Stemmle, one of the original designers of Sam & Max Hit the Road.[5][2]
  • The media implies more than one ref, but only one ref is given in In August 2003, LucasArts halted production on the Full Throttle adventure game sequel Hell on Wheels,[12] leading the media to speculate that Freelance Police might suffer a similar fate.[13] It either needs at least another ref cited (to make it the media) or should be made more specific "...leading Hyper magazine to speculate that..."
  • Having read the article on the first game Sam & Max Hit the Road, there was a game planned but never released between that and this. Should it at least be mentioned?
  • I also liked the bump maps quote - why not keep it and put it into context, briefly explain what these things are, how this made the planned 3D game very different from the first 2D game, how it meant they seemed to be doing things right (for the time), etc.
  • I read most of the mixnmojo.com article (current ref 21 "Sam & Max Freelance Police". The International House of Mojo.") and it mentions lots of plot details not in the article, supposedly gleaned from pre-release interviews. Are those sources available? I am not sure mixnmojo is reliable as it does not specify the sources more clearly. I am not really familiar with gaming sources and am reluctant to weigh in on the reliablilty of the other sources.
  • Question - has any reason been given for the 9 year delay between the first game and the first announcement of this planned game?

Looks pretty good overall, now leaning to support but will wait for replies. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First point: done, the various bits of tinkering led to the refs getting out of order. They should all be in order now. Second point: Changed to be specific to Hyper magazine. Third point: you're referring to Sam & Max Plunge Through Space? My understanding of that is that it had no bearing on Freelance Police; the project was short-lived and Purcell did not involve LucasArts. I don't think it ever got out of pre-production. Fourth point: I've re-added it and attempted to explain the purpose of the effects a bit better, though I'm reluctant to go into too much detail with them—they are rather throw-away points at the end of the day. Fifth point: If you're looking at the same bit I think you are—the bit with the very brief descriptions of a couple of the game's cases just a couple of paragraphs up from where they list the credits—I've not seen that in any other sources and its not in any of the others already used. I'm not too keen on citing new things to Mixnmojo based on the discussion on the source here. Sixth point: No, not really. Just seems to be the generic and entirely useless business descriptions saying "now is a great time to return to a franchise a decade old". No proper reason has been given. -- Sabre (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, I did mean Plunge Through Space, but am Ok with leaving it out. I have changed to support as all of my concerns have been addressed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Quotes:

  • In the Overview section, this quote: "achieved via a precarious balance of shaders,bump maps [and] lightmaps" has 3 wikilinks (in an 11-word quote - 10 if you don't count the bracketed "and"). Maybe there's a good reason for this, but I don't see why the average reader would need to know about those concepts to appreciate the article. In fact, the quote itself seems very technical and doesn't really mean a whole lot to those without prior knowledge of those things. In the next section you have another quote with a wikilink (Full Throttle II), but it's a much longer quote and the wikilink doesn't clutter it up nearly as much.
  • This is real nitpicky, but for some of the quotes, like the aforementioned Full Throttle II, they have a sense of finality and so I wonder if the end quotation mark should be placed after the period. It seems like it could be reasonably articulated either way, so not a true suggestion as much as an observation.

Prose:

  • Media coverage continued: PC Gamer US ran an interview with Stemmle as a cover story in February 2004. - The first three words of the sentence make it kind of all-inclusive, then there's only one example. Maybe something like Media coverage continued; for example, PC Gamer US ran an interview... Or maybe a hyphen in place of the semicolon, something to lighten it up.
  • Little was revealed of the gameplay, other than that Freelance Police would not follow... - I wonder if a "that" is necessary after the "than" in this case.
  • Steve Purcell, the creator of Sam & Max, assisted in the development of both the plot and the art, producing concept art of various characters and locales. - You have two "arts" real close to one another - maybe the first one could be replaced with "design," or "artistic direction." Or maybe the second one could be replaced with "sketches" or "drawings" or some other synonym.
  • The game was officially announced for Windows at the Electronic Entertainment Expo convention on May 12, 2003, where the full title Sam & Max: Freelance Police was unveiled. - Maybe you could switch "announced" and "unveiled" somehow - unveiled seems a little dramatic for a title alone.
  • The game's trailer was also revealed at E3, reintroducing the characters and showing that the original voice actors for Sam and Max, Bill Farmer and Nick Jameson respectively, were set to reprise their roles. - "Presented" might be a better choice than "revealed" in this case, because it's simply a trailer. Also, "confirming" might be a better choice than "showing," or even "revealing" if you replace it in the first part of the sentence.
  • When LucasArts' license with Purcell to produce Sam & Max games expired in mid-2005... - Maybe it would read more smoothly as "When the LucasArts license expired in mid-2005, Purcell..."

Punctuation:

  • Some of the former Freelance Police development team formed Telltale Games in June 2004, to continue developing the sort of adventure games that LucasArts no longer wished to produce. - This sentence may not require a colon comma.

Support. I'm satisfied with the sources, especially with Spong being removed. Adventure Gamers has an adequate explanation on their Editorial Policies page, in my opinion, and I personally don't see anything wrong with the LucasFans affiliate. Vantine84 (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've deal with all of those, bar the last one as the sentence you refer to doesn't have a colon in it. I didn't really want to let the shader/bump/lightmap quote go, but I think you're right that its a little too technical and unnecessary for the general reader. -- Sabre (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops you're right, that should read comma.
I've removed the comma. -- Sabre (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the suggestion of another reviewer above, I've re-added the bumpmap/lightmap stuff, but a few sentences further down. I've tried to explain their purpose some more, rather than relying on the wikilinks alone. They're also no longer contained within a direct quote. -- Sabre (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better.
  • Comments on prose:
    • "The game was to be powered by 3D computer graphics and rendered in real-time." A game isn't powered by graphics, really. Can we say, "The was to feature 3D computer graphics rendered in real-time."?
    • "The game engine contained elements ..." Such as?
    • Attention is needed to your punctuation at the end of quotations.. you are inconsistency using logical punctuation when you end a sentence with a quote that is itself the end of a sentence. That probably made no sense, but you have: the game's story was "really six stories, loosely held together by a thrilling über-plot." (period inside) and: but noted that it contained "all the barely plausible grandeur that fans have come to expect from Sam and Max". (period outside)
--Laser brain (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the first one and the third one—all the periods should be outside the quotations now. As for the second one, I can't tell you what sort of elements as the sources don't say. Full quote from the source: "It's a point-and-click adventure game engine that's been cobbled together from parts of engines that are already lying around LucasArts. There's a little bit of the new Full Throttle game in there, along with a hint of Gladius, a smidge of RTX, and even a touch of Obi-Wan." The interviewee only gave enough information to say that the technologies from other games were being utilized, but not what those technologies were. -- Sabre (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it looks good now. I made some other changes so you might review them, especially where I added mention of the fan web site. You mention a petition was submitted, but not by whom. Since we know, might as well say. --Laser brain (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [21].

Sebastian Shaw (actor)[edit]

Nominator(s): --Hunter KahnTalk
previous FAC (01:15, 11 September 2008)

I think the concerns from my last FAC, namely the structural concerns, have been addressed, so I'm hoping this one is now ready to go! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns as follows:

  • File:Shaw in It Happened Here.jpg is a copyviolation (and I have tagged it as such). The trailer of It Happened Here is copyrighted 1965 to Rath Films Limited. Hence it does not qualify for {{PD-US-no notice}}.
    • I took the It Happened Here image out of the article and replaced the infobox picture with the 1979 one. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The change appears not to have been executed. Jappalang (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, sorry about that, my edit must not have gone through before. It has now. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sebastian shaw 1979.JPG is nothing more than a decorative image. There is no commentary or criticism in the article over Shaw's role in Rumple of the Bailey. Neither is there a particularly strong rationale for why this image should be included as an encyclopaedic content for the subject. Is it a universallly recognised role for him? Is this role a career breakthrough?
    • I don't believe it is, but is that a rationale for removing it? Especially given the IHH image had to be removed and there are very limited images now, I would think this one should stay in the article. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a non-free image appears in the body of the text without a strong rationale, other than to "just display the subject", it is simply decorative and fails as fair use. This 1979 image could be moved to the Infobox per your suggestion above, and given a strong rationale for identification of the subject, who is dead and unlikely to provide an image for free use. Jappalang (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either File:800px-Anakinredeemed.jpg (which also should be reduced in size) or File:Sebastian Shaw as Anakin Skywalker.jpg could qualify for fair use if a strong rationale is provided. I believe his role as Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker is an internationally recognized portrayal, albeit minor in comparison to the other characters. A strong rationale that describes why a picture of him in this role should be in the article would establish the fair use. Currently neither one qualifies (both current rationales are nothing more than "to show this character"). Even if strong rationales are provided, I think one of these two images would have to be deleted since they portray him in the same role (hence serving the same purpose).

Certain images should be removed, and strong rationales should be provided to bolster a fair-use cause for the rest that are chosen to illustrate the subject. Jappalang (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll work on these later on. Thanks! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In an attempt to address all these concerns, I dropped the It Happened Here picture, added the 1979 one to the infobox, then dropped the Anakin/Luke picture (the other ROTJ one is a better representation of him anyway) and added some rationale to the image description. (I'm not so great with working on images, so if I haven't done a good job with the rationale, let me know). Does this do the trick? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The standard "list" approach might work for the identifying shot in the Infobox, but more is required for the Anakin image in the text. The key is that the rationale must state why removing the picture would be detrimental to the article. Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry to be a nuisance, but could you give me a bit of guidance as to what specifically I should write. It seems to me the rationale would be that his brief time in Star Wars is by far what he is the most recognized for, especially in the U.S., and that having the image in the article will be extremely helpful in helping people recognize who he is. I think this is partially explained by #12, but could probably use more explanation. Can you give me any suggestions? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "To help readers recognize who he is" is not a good rationale for an image in the body text; that rationale would be more for the Infobox's identifying shot, which is now served by File:Sebastian shaw 1979.JPG. The shots of Shaw as Vader/Skywalker should tell of why they are iconic of Shaw. In retrospect, a cropped version of File:800px-Anakinredeemed.jpg (or another clearer shot of Shaw unmasked in the Vader suit, perhaps this, this (4th image), or this (Shaw, Sebastian)?) would be a better choice since there is commentary in the article text about his appearance there (which could be better illustrated with the picture since there was some measure of makeup applied) and the scene. Basically, the rationale for such a shot would be to illustrate an iconic role, noting that the makeup would be better expressed through a picture than with words, etc. As stated, the point is to state why the elements of the picture make it irreplaceable. Jappalang (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree with you about the pic, so I replaced it with one of the ones you link to. I also tried explaining the rationale as far as his iconic status, please let me know what you think. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image concerns are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Siblings Hi Hunter, that was an interesting read. There are two gaps that it would be nice to resolve if the sources cover it. Firstly his siblings, "sisters Susan Bonner-Morgan and Penelope Harness; and his sister-in-law Olga Young" are mentioned as surviving him, it would be nice to mention these two sisters his brother and any other siblings in the section that covers his childhood. Also the WWII bit would be worth expanding, is there any info on where he served and with which unit? WereSpielChequers 17:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the suggestions! Fortunately for me, some info about his military service was gathered by one of the users in the discussion page; I've added those in and I think they've improved the article. As for the sisters, I've thought about this in the past and I could add a reference to them in the early life section, but since there is no other info about them in any of the other sources, it feels to me like its just dropped in and doesn't add much to the article. For example, I can place it between the mention of where Shaw started his education and his uncle, but I find that it disrupts the flow a bit. But, if it's going to prevent the article from reaching FA status, I'm willing to add it in. Let me know what you think. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hunter, I doubt if by itself this would stop it reaching FA status, but any biography should cover issues like relatives if the info is available. So if your sources cover the number and spacing of the siblings I would suggest something along the lines of "Sebastian Lewis Shaw was born at Holt, Norfolk in England on 29 May 1905, the eldest/youngest/second/third of four children." If you know it his mother's name would be normal to include. Thanks for adding the ranks to the WWII bit, if you have the info it would be good to quote where he served and what he actually did in the RAF. WereSpielChequers 20:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference to his two siblings in the beginning that I don't believe disrupts the flow. As for the mother and more info on his military service, there are no further references to it in any of my sources, and I've also looked through all the journalistic sources available on Lexis Nexus and found nothing. :/ --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments This is pretty good overall, and fixing it is probably not a huge task. Some prose and other problems listed below, along with an overall concern about the sourcing of some of the Return of the Jedi section.
    • Linking problems. First, the article is overlinked. Please don't wikilink common terms like "film", "detective", and "painter". Also, some oddities like "Holt" being linked to "Holt, Norfolk" and "Norfolk" being linked on its own.
      • I think I fixed them all, although if I missed a few please feel free to point them out or drop them yourself --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... raised in Holt" and "born at Holt"; which is correct, in or at?
      • In. Fixed.
    • "... his family's love of music heavily influenced Shaw's future career path." As opposed to his current career path?
      • I just meant it hadn't been his career path at that time, but I dropped the word future. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Highly regarded"; to hyphenate or not to hyphenate?
      • I've never known the phrase to be hyphenated; AP style, for example, doesn't hyphenate it. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The interpretation was criticised at the time but, years later, was seen as the standard approach to the character." Hm.. "was seen" implies that it is not now seen? If it is still seen as the standard approach, I would prefer "... years later, became the standard approach ..."
    • "... one half of a duo of homosexual murderers" Ew. Murderers who are homosexual or murderers of homosexuals?
      • The former. Although sources I've referred to indicate the sexuality is of some importance, others I'm looking at don't indicate so; Wikipedia's own entry on it doesn't even mention it. So I dropped it altogether for now. Also did some minor rewording (dropped the duo thing). --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Shaw was making about 300 pounds a week during this stage of his career." Can we also provide this figure in 2009 pounds for perspective?
      • Based on this site (http://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/#) and using the GPD Deflator, which appears to be best when it comes to income, I found it to be roughly 15,500 pounds. I added that, but do we need a reference to Measuringworth for that? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think a reference is needed for a simple conversion. --Laser brain (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... in later years Shaw would describe himself as "a rotten actor" in the 1930s ..." The phrase "in later years" is ambiguous. Do you mean at that time, when he returned from the war? Or much later? If so, when?
      • The source says: "Shaw matured late. He admitted that he had been "a rotten actor" when young, employed on the strength of his obvious heterosexuality." The source is even more ambiguous on this point than I am, but I don't think that means we should cut it altogether. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mixture of "he would play" and "he played" is rather jarring.
      • Removed that and a few other "would" wordings. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please no easter-egg links like "Mario Puzo's novel of that name" where you have to click or hover to see what it is.
      • I made this change even though I don't agree with it; I had clearly referred to The Godfather earlier, and by removing the "of that name" reference, I'm now repeating it twice in the same sentence. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two paragraphs where you deal with The Christening are oddly organized. You have an intro, half a plot summary, a paragraph break, the other half of a plot summary, and a conclusion. The plot summary should be its own paragraph, at least.
    • The first paragraph of the Return of the Jedi heading only has one citation... is it meant to cover that entire paragraph? You have some statements in there such as "brief but crucial role" and "arguably the emotional climax" that need to be backed up by sources. And they need to be sources better known for film criticism than "Starlog".
      • That source is intended to cover the entire paragraph, although much of it is pretty basic info on the ROTJ role in general. The two citations you refer to are covered by the Starlog source, which states the filmmakers sought a specific actor for what they considered "a climactic moment;" the article also quotes Shaw as saying: "The point was, they decided that they needed a very experienced actor to play that very difficult scene. It wasn't easy to bring off." I know Starlog isn't exactly The New York Times, but I think it sufficiently covers that paragraph. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some, however, defended the movie; although author and pop culture expert Will Brooker ..." Who defended? Reliable source needed.
      • Brooker, for one, although I probably didn't make that clear enough. Both sources (Brooker and Ebert) also make it clear that the move had its defenders and critics, although it doesn't name too many specific ones. I did some minor rewording and changes with the sources, please let me know if you think that is sufficient. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, the citations have a mixture of date formats: ISO and day month year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. There is a disambiguation page for Sebastian Shaw, which I thought was correct since there is a separate Sebastian Shaw page about the fictional X-Men character. Should I change it so Sebastian Shaw only relinks to this page? Also, with regard to the date formats, are you referring to the fact that the "Retrieved on" dates are different than the other dates in the citations? I was under the impression that was the correct way to do it, but if it isn't, could you let me know how I should change it? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Sandy means are the disambiguations in the article as found by the disambiguation tool (accessed by going directly to the FAC subpage for this article, and not at the FAC main page). They were Brewster's Millions (film) (removed as there is no such article), Pound (currency) (changed to Pound sterling), and The Force (changed to Force (Star Wars)). I have corrected them but you might want to double-check. Jappalang (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks guys. I'm still fairly new to all this so I appreciate the help. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - can't honestly think of anything else to improve - I reduced a couple of repetitious 'Shaw' s and I suspect one or two others could go, but I think we're well over the line with this one. Nice work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - my issues have been addressed and I'm now satisfied that this is of FA-quality. Comment - The article quite often uses other tenses when the past tense would suffice. While saying "Shaw would do X" is appropriate when X is temporally removed from the current discussion, there are some cases in this article where it doesn't serve that purpose at all: "Shaw would return to the works of William Shakespeare in 1931...", "Shaw's Royal Air Force experience would be put to good use...", "Significant theatre roles that decade would include..." Other sundry prose issues:
  • "...who said although George Lucas "totally Stalinized"[20] Shaw by removing him from the scene," The "although" implies that there's something relevant to follow ("...it was necessary for the sake of continuity", for example), there doesn't seem to be here.
    • I tried to fix the wording, but let me know if you think it still needs fixing. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concern now is that it no longer really looks like Booker's defending the change, since his attitude comes across as "It was a terrible change, but at least it wasn't logically inconsistent." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I dropped the "Stalinized" quote altogether to avoid any confusion, and reworded it to try to explain why it was a defense, while trying to maintain that he at least had some reservations about the change. Let me know what you think. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, after all this, I ended up cutting those sentences altogether anyway to shorten the ROTJ section regarding an objection below. Let me know if this is a problem. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several occasions in which Shaw is referred to by name when a pronoun would be sufficient and provide better flow.

This isn't a complete review; I'll try to get to one later but, if I don't, I at least wanted to raise these issues. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone ahead with a copyedit of my own, and I think this is quite close to FA quality. Outstanding points, besides the above:
    • His (only?) daughter isn't mentioned at all until his wife's death; shouldn't her birth receive at least a passing mention in the section dealing with his early life?
      • Added a brief mention in Early Life, check to make sure it's not too out of place, if you would. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It says that Shaw enjoyed the first two Star Wars movied, and gives the impression that he'd seen them before being cast in the third one, but it's later remarked that the Star Wars trilogy passed him by. That could use some clarification.
      • Well, I can't say definitively that he only saw the movies after he was filmed in ROTJ, even though it seems almost certain. Maybe the best way to deal with this is to simply remove his thoughts on the first two movies altogether? Let me know what you think. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I relocated the statement to somewhere that would cause that assumption to be more likely to be made. See what you think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this makes perfect sense. I appreciate your help! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the list of his poems' titles adds anything to the article at all.
    • Is there any information available about the critical reception of his writing? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not that I've found, unfortunately. I'll keep looking around though, and if you find anything yourself please sent it my way. By the way, I VERY much appreciate your copy edit. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I frankly wouldn't even know where to look. I'll take you word that there's none readily available. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note En dashes (–), not em dashes (—) should be used for page ranges in the refs. Dabs look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suport. The article was quite interesting and provides a good look at an influential actor. Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose for now by karanacs. Overall, I found this a very interesting article, but I am a little concerned over how it balances the various events in his life.[reply]

  • The quote in the lead needs a citation in the lead (I know it's cited in the text)
  • Need a source for "Since the scene was arguably the emotional climax of the film, the casting crew wanted an experienced actor for the role"
    • The source for this one is the Starlog source (which, as of now, is #7 in the references). The exact text comes from both Shaw ("The point was, they decided that they needed a very experienced actor to play that very difficult scene. It wasn't easy to bring off") and the prose of the article ("When you're looking for an actor to play a climactic moment in movie history, you don't choose just anybody"). I placed the citation at the end of that paragraph in order to identify it as the source. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is too much detail on Shaw's performance as Anakin Skywalker. This is only 2 minutes and 24 words of dialogue, out of an entire career, yet it has its own very large section. I think it does deserve to have some level of detail, due to the publicity it brought him, but the current level of detail seems too much.
    • I made some cuts to the ROTJ section. I still think it warrants its own section altogether, especially since this is the single piece of work he's best known for, but I do agree with you that I probably overdid the detail. Take a look and let me know if it works now. (If it's still too long, we could cut the Ian McDiarmid quote, but I really like it and would perfer to keep it in, if at all possible.) I also shortened the ROTJ re-release changes by cutting some of the specifics from its defenders and critics, and just left in the fact that some people opposed it and others didn't. Let me know if you think that will suffice.--Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I put a proposal on the article talk page for a further trim. We can continue this dicussion there. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit of repetition to some of the prose. For example, Although he made 20 films before World War II and had already began to develop a reputation as a strong leading man before the war began - this sentence twice mentions "before <war> began"...perhaps it could be reworded just a bit. I noticed a few others like this - it's not everywhere; hopefully one last look-through can catch all those.
  • I think it might be worthwhie to have a section or subsection devoted to his Shakespearean work. He seems to have made quite an impact in these roles, and I suspect that could be developed a bit more than is currently here.
    • I was trying to think about how to do this without disrupting the chronology of the movie, and I thought maybe the best way to do it would simply be to start a new section called Royal Shakespeare Company. This would serve a number of purposes including breaking the up the long World War II and post-war career section and emphasizing the importance of Shakespeare in his career; plus, the Royal Shakespeare Company was a major part of his career, so its own section would be warranted. I went ahead and tried this, let me know if you agree. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this works well as its own section. The second half of my question (which I didn't really make clear), was whether there is more information that we could include on his Shakespeare work? The text implies that he was quite influential in these roles, and I would like to see a bit more detail on that. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, I think I've found all that I can as far as sources go with his Shakespeare roles. Unless you can suggest somewhere else for me to look that I haven't thought of? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any reviews or other information about his book? How was it received? I don't trust a book cover quote to be neutral
    • As I said below, I found nothing else on the book. I thought the description on the book cover flap would be OK to include since I'm specifically identifying it as the book cover flap, which will means readers can take it with a grain of salt. I thought this was better than nothing, given the lack of information available. What do you think? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on these objections tonight. Unfortunately, I've found absolutely nil on reviews and info to his book; a Lexis Nexus search for "Sebastian Shaw" and "The Christening" results in only two sources, which are obit I have used as sources already, and they only make passing mention. Perhaps I can revise what's there in such a way that it won't be objectable. Either way, I'll get back to you with these tonight. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOTE I will be on vacation from Feb. 28 to Mar. 4. If any new objections arise in that time, I'll address them when I get back! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is very close. Some prose quibbles:

  • "and Filmer Jesson, MP in Arthur Wing Pinero's His House In Order at New Theatre in 1951." - need a comma after MP.
  • "During the 1980s, however, Shaw also in a brief relationship with Harriet Ravenscroft," - missing a verb here.
  • "on a four-day rotation basis to which both women consented." - why a noun modifying a noun? Either 'rotation' or 'rotating basis'.
  • "as Sir Oblong Fitz Oblong in Robert Bolt's children's play, The Thwarting of Baron Bolligrew." - no need for a comma here.
  • "in Jonathan Miller's productions of Anton Chekhov plays Three Sisters and Ivanov." - of the Anton Checkhov plays.
  • "He lent his voice to several radio performance," - several radio performances.
  • "so he instead describes his most intimate thoughts into his diary." - describes...in, not into.
  • I would link 'pederast', especially given that you've linked things like 'director' and 'Christmas'.
  • A funeral service was held 15 February 1995 at St Paul's, Covent Garden, commonly known as The Actors' Church due to its long association with the theatre community, in Covent Garden, London." - surely it's not necessary to say Covent Garden twice?
  • I'd like you to review your usage of the word 'admit'. It has a bit of a confessional tone which doesn't sit well with me in these cases:
  • "he described himself as a "rotten actor" as a youth and admitted his success was primarily due to his good looks" - why not 'and attributed his success to'?
  • "Although Peel got along with Shaw and said he made his mother happy, he admitted that he did not feel comfortable with the arrangement and felt it disrupted his mother's friendships and prospects for a more stable relationship." - why not just drop 'he admitted that'?
  • "he wrote many of his own lines, which the filmmakers would later admit "gave his dialogue an individual slant which enhanced his performance"" - 'would later admit' here really gives this a confessional tone, as though they were opposed to it but later recognized its value; is this appropriate?
Glad to see this back here again. Maralia (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I have a bit more Internet access than I expected, and since these were mostly quick fixes, I addressed them. I believe I got them all Maralia, but feel free to contact me if I didn't. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this isn't an oppose, Hunter Kahn is away, and these look to be easy fixes, I'll probably put this through and trust that these adjustments will be completed when Hunter Kahn returns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he is not exactly away as he is contributing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/Spring 2009‎ and reviewing GAs so I am assuming this is a service provided all FAC nominators. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:22, 24 February 2009 [22].

The Million Dollar Homepage[edit]

Nominator(s): Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) (WP:CUP participant)

This has just been promoted at WP:GA. I don't think I can do much more to the article, so here it is. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I just passed this article's GA review, and was quite impressed with the overall quality of it... the prose is great, references are in all the right places, and it looks comprehensive. Therefore, unless I seriously missed something when I read it, I support this nomination. -Drilnoth (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 05:00 Feb 10, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. The above two links work fine when I click on them, perhaps the link checker was having problems. http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=The_Million_Dollar_Homepage#view=0,1,1,1,1,1 no longer brings those two sites up, but it does say that [23] requires registration (it doesn't) and for the past week has said that [24] deadinks (it doesn't). Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those didnt' come from the link checker tool, they came from me clicking on them direct to check the sourcing. (I always click through any links that I don't recognize the publisher on). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Are they working now for you though? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do now, didn't right before this. Odd. I hate my ISP at times....Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Odd article subject, but well written and sourced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support Complete and well-referenced. Reywas92Talk 21:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I think you were looking at a version that had a very large chunk of it removed though. I added it back in; could you take a look and confirm you still support, please? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still looks good. Reywas92Talk 20:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Undoubtedly a good article, but I'd like to see work (or a good reply!) on the following points before supporting: Support. Physchim62 (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why was it an advantage for Tew that the pound was strong against the dollar when he launched his website? Personally, I try to sell my services in strong currencies rather than weak ones: however, the pound's strength made Tew's adverts cheaper for his local market. Is there a way to put that into the article without WP:OR?
      • All we have on that is what he said: "I think US dollars are the closest thing we have to a universal currency on the internet, so it made more sense to do it in dollars. 'The Million Pound Homepage' just doesn't have the same ring to it! Also, given that the US has the largest online population in the world, more people will be able to relate to the concept than had I done it in British pounds. Plus, £1 GBP per pixel would probably be too expensive (would equate to around $1.80 US per pixel)." [25] I added the bit about the larger US online population.
    • There is repeated material between the "Sales" and "Media attention" sections which jars a bit for this reader. Could you try to put the detailed information in one section only please?
      • The majority of the media stuff appears in the Media attention section. All the Sales section says is that after he sold $1,000 worth of pixels, he put out a press release that was picked up by the BBC and The Register. That attention brought more visitors who digged about it, bringing more visitors and more purchasers. Without that, it's hard to say how the visitors came to the site and how he managed to sell so much in such a short space of time. Maybe change "Media attention" to "Reception from the media"?
    • The estimate of Tew's net income is his own, according to the source: could this be made clear? My own, very rough, back-of-an-envelope calculation comes out as a figure slightly less than $650k net: not seriously wrong, but perhaps Tew was being a bit optimistic at the time as to how little he would have to pay the taxman.
      • "Tew's expected net income was $650,000–$700,000." -- I don't know how else to say it. Adding in yours or my calculations to say what it would be, would be WP:OR, I think. It also depends on how big his charitable donation is. Also, that would be a tax write-off so his taxable amount would be less.
    • Has this nomination been publicised at the relevant WikiProjects? I notice that you only added the project banners after the article got GA-status.
      • It has now.
  • Good luck, best wishes, and I look forward to seeing your replies! Physchim62 (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for commenting and your support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Wiltshire Constabulary's Hi-Tech Crime Unit was called to investigate the extortion and attack, who believed it originated in Russia" Should b were not was, and which of them "believed it originated in Russia"? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done the "was" --> "were" bit. The source from the BBC quotes Tew as "Their instinct is that this attack originates in Russia". Doesn't say whether he means the FBI, Wiltshire Constabulary, or both. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (close to supporting): Support
    • The lead shows a peak Alexa rank, which doesn't seem to be referenced again in the body of the article. What is the source for the ranking, since it is uncited in the lead?
      • Added a WebCite archived reference for today's ranking. I added and referenced the 127 in the main prose.
    • The sentence beginning Tew appeared on the BBC and Sky News's… should be split. The first part is about what Tew did, while the second part is about what The Times did. I can't see a compelling reason for these two thoughts to be joined.
      • I've removed that sentence per Physchim62 above.
    • Was there any media reaction to Tew's deferment of his studies? Any further word on whether his studies have begun?
      • I'd have BLP concerns if we went more into Tew's biography. At the moment, the article seems OK, but this is a living person who is notable for just one single thing, we shouldn't be delving into the rest of his life. Physchim62 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Me too. The guy did keep a blog running until September 06. University would have started shortly after that, but he made no reference to it. Instead he was advertising for a web developer, and saying he had secret plans for "Something that could be REALLY big. Much bigger than the Million Dollar Homepage." I think by then his 15 minutes of fame had ran out!
          • I can see that, but I was wondering if there had been any reaction since the funding of his education was his stated reason for starting the website. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • WSJ said it was an "ironic turn of events", otherwise it was barely touched on. They were more interested in reporting the auction and DDOS attack. Thank you for the support! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The infobox status for the website says "inactive", which is not necessarily the case; the website is up and running even though sales have ended.
      • Changed to "active"
    • I'm curious about the $1,000 price tag on the press release. Do sources say anything about who this was paid to (like a PR firm or something)? Because anyone can write a press release; it's the getting-someone-to-read-it part that's hard.
      • Nope, nothing.
  • Other than my comments above, everything else looks good. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Belhalla, I fixed your second point - that bothered me too. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with additional fixes that have been made. Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Comments (leaning toward support)[reply]

  • I agree with the reviewer above - it really doesn't make sense that he'd want to sell in dollars when the pound was strong against the dollar. Do we know who he was marketing to?
  • He was marketing to the UK and US, but as I quoted above, he thought the US had a larger online community so that was one other reason why he sold in $; Americans might not relate if it were in pounds. Ref added anyway.
  • Is there any information about how the site was marketed initially? How did the first few advertisers know about the opportunity?
  • Done I added a Wall Street Journal ref for both. Friends, family, and friends-of-friends purchased the first few blocks. Quite a few of the refs say he originally relied planned on word-of-mouth advertising.
  • Need a citation for By New Year's Eve, Tew reported that the site was being visited by 25,000 unique visitors every hour, and that 999,000 of the 1,000,000 pixels had been sold.
  • Done -- WSJ again
  • There is a good number of citations sourced to the website itself - is there any way to get that information from somewhere else?
  • I'll look, but I suspect that a lot of information in the press came from the site anyway
  • It's actually not that many. The site's FAQ is referenced, the T&C is referenced, and his blog page which is used to cite quotes or minutiae info that press wouldn't cover. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it really necessary to site eBay - did the auction not get covered in the papers?
  • It did, and I've added a couple of refs -- one for the final amount and another for the purchaser. I've left the ebay cite since it's not doing any real harm.

Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (Normally I would say "Comments", but this FAC could use a little colour.) In several places, the prose is clumsy or wordy, the article is unencyclopedic, the point of view is not the neutral one, and the sources are weak. This is meant to be an encyclopedia article and should be written with that in mind.
    • Prose. Tony1 would likely have ripped the prose to shreds. With my less keen eye, I can only raise a few examples: "a then 21-year-old student", "as he was about to begin", "After rejecting a number of ideas, Tew thought he might be able to", "After being down for a week", "the owner was selling them for a penny, and similar to The Million Dollar Homepage, they were available in 10×10 blocks". Suggesion 1: use the simple past tense more; it is very encyclopedic and very easy to read. Suggestion 2: be concise.
    • Unencyclopedic point of view. This is partly a prose issue. However, the "Development" section in particular is written from an insider perspective: the story is told from Tew's point of view. The worst example is probably "Tew chose to sell the pixels in dollars because he felt dollars were the universal currency on the internet". Encyclopedia articles don't normally describe how the subject felt, unless this has been extensively analysed by secondary sources. (Note, I am not simply objecting to the word "felt": "Tew chose" already frames the sentence in an unencyclopedic way.)
    • Sources. Related to the above, there's a touch too much reliance on primary sources here, telling Tew's story. "In October, the site received more press attention. The Times soon purchased a 14×2 block for $2,800.[17] The extra publicity brought even more visitors to the website. On 6 October, Tew reported the site received 65,000 unique visitors; eleven days later the number had increased to 100,000 unique visitors. On 26 October, exactly two months after the Million Dollar Homepage launched, over 500,900 pixels had been sold to 1,400 customers." This material, judging by the citations, is sourced entirely to Tew. To its credit it says "Tew reported" in respect of one of the statistics. However, the analysis ("more press attention", "soon", "even more") is unsourced.
  • Very nice article, but not yet an FA. Geometry guy 22:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC) (Please reply to my comments below: I hope it will be easy enough to state which comment you are replying too. Splitting a review just creates a mess.)[reply]
  • I've addressed the prose issues identified. I will ask around for a copyeditor also. Hopefully the article focuses more on the website and less on Tew. There are still some mentions of him, but I believe he is not the main subject now. I have changed up the tense wherever possible, especially in the Development and Sales sections.
  • I have removed the first three sentences you quoted, but since it does say "Tew reported", I've left the remainder in. This minutiae is not likely to have been reported in news articles, and wasn't, but it's still important in the telling of the popularity. As it got more visitors, more people bought space. As sales increased, it got more visitors.[26] I don't believe there are too many primary sources. Of the 57 refs, only 3 are now from the site itself, which are only used to source direct quotes from Tew.
  • Thanks for taking a look. Perhaps you'll be inclined to strike the oppose? :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking much better. I've made a couple of copyedits. I still don't like:
  • "He was about to begin a three-year Business Management course at the University of Nottingham, but knew from his brother's experience that he would be burdened with a £30,000 student loan that could take years to repay." Tew perspective and "would be burdened" is not very accurate or encyclopedic. <added> Also, it isn't what the source says: the figure quoted is his brothers' student debt, with no mention of the proportion of student loan. 18:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) </added>
  • "After rejecting a number of ideas...". "a number of" is vague - presumably this is according to Tew?
  • "the minimum purchase amount" is a bit wordy.
  • "An online music website..." Was this the first sale? The sentence structure doesn't make it clear. You could use a colon, or a conjunction like "when".
  • "becoming one of the most Digged links in that week" Can you rephrase to avoid the internet slang?
As always when reviewing, I do not insist I am right, so trust your own judgement. Geometry guy 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed "burdened" and the #30,000
  • Removed the vagueness
  • I left "the minimum purchase amount" and "becoming one of the most Digged links in that week". Couldn't think of a way to reword either
  • Clarified that the music site was the first purchaser. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking: an FA is not perfect after all :) Keep thinking on those two issues! (How about "minimum price"?) Geometry guy 00:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need the knockoff sites. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I think that it adds a lot to the article. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the logo. Thanks for fixing the other image. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One fair-use image in article with suitable rationale. No image concerns. Jappalang (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps it is just me, but I am wondering why you have so many quotes from Tew, as to me he does not have a unique or particularly interesting way of describing the situation. And I find so many quotes distracting to read.
  • This quote could easily be reworded without quotes: "I thought it might go for a higher amount because of all the attention", Tew commented, "but it's still a good result".
  • The last long quote doesn't really seem to do with the website as much as Tew's personal life, the one that begins: "This will give me time to organise my life, consolidate my financial position (eg. pay the taxman!) and explore some of the new opportunities that have presented themselves...."

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Thanks for that! Those quotes have bothered me. I have edited the page some in the past and appreciate the directness of your presentation. Good job! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I looked over the article again, made minor tweaks to the lead, but saw no FA issues. Geometry guy 22:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:27, 21 February 2009 [28].

Dreadnought[edit]

Nominator(s): The Land (talk)

This article was forked from Battleship, an FA of some vintage, about 18 months ago. It has taken quite a long time to bring up to FA standard, because it's quite a large subject, and there is a minor controversy about the origins of the dreadnought concept. With the help of several other users, particularly User:Harlsbottom and User:Toddy1, and a much larger bookshelf than I started off with, I think we have created a very strong article on the matter. The article has recently passed an A-class review which was very helpful and reacquainted me with a number of realities after having been away from the FA process for some time. Regards, The Land (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3 - see Talk:Dreadnought#Image review. Awadewit (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing progress, more comments pn the talk page. The Land (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Progress is being made, responded on talk page. Awadewit (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just one left. Awadewit (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There are still problems with this last image. Awadewit (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that image. The Land (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few comments:
  • If you have a separate Notes section, then why are there Notes in the References section? [See for example "Additional advantage is gained..." and "Fisher first firmly proposed".]
  • Should the notes in the separate Notes section be provided with a source?
  • What's this redlinked template? WP Ships USS instances
    • It's some leftover template when that was moved to {{USS}}. I believe that it also happens with {{HMS}}...don't ask me for any technical details. It was salted because some smart person created it again with a spam advertisement...it was quite interesting... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These occur more than once in the notes. Please use named refs. Also watch for "U.S." vs "US":
    • Breyer, Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World, p.263
    • Brown The Grand Fleet, p.23
    • Friedman, Battleship Design and Development, p.91
    • Friedman, U.S. Battleships, p.69
    • Friedman, US Battleships, p.52
    • Gardiner, Eclipse of the Big Gun, p.15
Completed. The Land (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These occur in notes, but not in the references section:
    • Evans and Peattie, Kaigun
    • Groner, German Warships 1815-1945, Volume One: Major Surface vessels.
    • Mackay R. Fisher of Kilverstone.
These 3 done. The Land (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fitzsimons, Volume 15, p.1635, and Volume 24, p.2587, "Washington".
    • Jentshura, Jung, Mickel, Warships of the IJN p.22–3.
In progress.. The Land (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These 2 sorted; Fitzsimons removed, Jentshura was present in the refs list but malformatted. The Land (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Massie, Dreadnought, p.474
Done.The Land (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sea Fighter Nevada Ready For Her Test" (PDF), The New York Times (16 October 1915), p. 12.
In progress.... The Land (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted/ The Land (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fairbanks C. The Dreadnought Revolution, International History Review 1991
Done. The Land (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Naval Annual 1895, The Naval War Between China and Japan and Lesson From the War in the East
    • The Naval Annual 1899, Naval Aspects of the Spanish-American War
Removed these two (lucky I checked that as Sondhaus's account actaully contradicts what that section of the article said...) The Land (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eeeya, wow, you see, we just don't have the manpower to actually check all this info. See forex "an impressive demonstration of British industrial might", which Stanley Sandler explains away as "something of a stunt" in "Battleships: An Illustrated History of Their Impact", p. 89. I trust that everything (or almost everything) you have here accurately reflects your sources, but I fear that over-reliance on one or two sources may lead to holes in the data... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we've relied very heavily on Breyer and Friedman. Generally, I've taken three accounts of battleship development, from the three most significant naval powers - Friedman (US), Breyer (Ger) and Brown (UK). A good 50% of the references are for statements like "X ship had Y calibre guns"; all those references go to Breyer, who is pretty authoritative on such matters (except about speculative designs!); and Friedman's 'Battleship Design and Development' is the only place which covers almost all the technical mattes in one place, so the references draw heavily on that as well.
Re the un-bilbiographied sources, argh! Have done the 'easy' ones, will get onto the rest later, along with the notes/refs issue. That redlinked template; can't see it appearing anywhere to the reader, can't see it anywhere in the edit screen either, so don't really know what it's doing there... The Land (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ling.Nut's HARI review (in progress)

Title
Dreadnought revolutionized naval warfare and industry-and helped launch a world war.Authors:Jordan, Jonathan W.Source:Military History; Jan/Feb2007, Vol. 23 Issue 10, p23-26, 3p

* Before gun tests [on the Dreadnought] were held on October 18, critics claimed that the shock of eight 12-inch guns fired simultaneously would damage or perhaps even sink the warship. Officers, holding their breath, watched the guns roar and waited for reports from the ship's departments to come in. There hadn't been the slightest damage. In fact, sailors eating in the mess hall below decks barely knew what happened when firing commenced.

Reject; slightly complex because blast damage was an issue in the design of dreadnoughts (e.g. Position of Main Armament para 2); nevertheless none of my sources talk about the risk of Dreadnought being sunk (or otherwise badly damaged) by her own guns; in fact the total weight of broadside (-> impulse from firing) hadn't grown much from previous battleship designs. 'Critics' might have 'claimed' it was possible but frankly they were talking nonsense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Land (talk • contribs)

* The British government was stung by the German challenge. While Pax Britannia was reaching its zenith, Britain had maintained a "two-power standard," which decreed that the Royal Navy should exceed the might of the next two largest navies combined. As an island dependent on its colonies and sea trade, the British government took as gospel that it could protect its empire only with a fleet that ruled the waves. If Germany, which had the most powerful army on the Continent, fielded a navy that could command the North Sea even for a short time, it could threaten the British homeland with invasion...Winston Churchill, then first lord of the Admiralty, summed up the British perspective in a secret memorandum to Canada's prime minister in August 1912:Great Britain can never violate German territory even after a defeat of that Power at sea, her Army not being organised or strong enough for such an undertaking. Germany with her large Army could, however, if she chose, invade and conquer Great Britain after a successful naval campaign in the North Sea….A decisive battle lost at sea by Germany would still leave her the greatest Power in Europe. A decisive battle lost at sea by Great Britain would for ever ruin the United Kingdom, would shatter the British Empire to its foundations, and change profoundly the destiny of its component parts...In the face of Germany's naval buildup, King Edward's ministers tried vainly to convince the kaiser to scale back his naval program. In the 1907 and 1908 program years, Germany had added four Nassau-class dreadnoughts to its High Seas Fleet. More followed, and by November 1914, three months after hostilities broke out, Germany had produced 17 world-class battleships, with two more under construction..

Have; Dreadnought Building and Anglo-German Arms Race, though I should perhaps add something about the two-power standard.

* The blow fell when Fisher took 154 warships out of active service. In cutting out the venerated battleships that had maintained Queen Victoria's empire for generations, Fisher repeated his clarion call for reform, enjoining his subordinates: "No pandering to sentiment! No regard for susceptibilities! No pity for anyone! We must be ruthless, relentless and remorseless!" Over the next three years, Fishers reforms cut 5.4 million pounds sterling from the navy's annual budget, and he was about to put the savings into something entirely new.

Ignore; perfectly true, but this pre-dates dreadnoughts, and we can't include every point about British naval strategy in the article. The last sentence is irrelevant; Dreadnought was not significatnly more expensive than earlier battleships.

*Lawrence Sondhaus, Naval Warfare, 1815-1914: The completion of the Dreadnought had an immediate impact on the shipbuilding programs of every other significant navy in the world... Within seven years... [big snip] the possesion of dreadnoughts meant that a country counted for something in global or regional balances of power... page 201.

Have; first para of lead section; Dreadnought Building first para (it would be fair to say that Sondhaus's book did more to inform my general approach to battleships

Several sources state that the creation of the dreadnought ironically wiped out Britain's naval superiority overnight. All pre-dreadnoughts were immeditely obsolete; all countries were starting more or less even with the new technology. Sondhaus mentions this on p. 199; I saw another article which stated that the germans grasped this...

Added - can be dealt with by adding a sentence to first para of Dreadnought Building.
  • Battleships: An Illustrated History of Their Impact By Stanley Sandler.
  • Dreadnought was first battleship without a ram, but still carried an underwater bulge p. 36...
Ignore; might be true, but there was never any real prospect of an 1890s battleship using its ram in action.
  • fast construction "somethig of a stunt" p. 89
Ignore; I have read that corners were cut to keep to the year-and-a-day timeframe, so 'stunt' is probably justified; equally, there was really no prospect of any other navy matching the timeframe.
  • A dreadnought cost only one-quarter more than the newest (and inferior) pre-dreadnought p. 91 ...
Added something about costs (nb that while Dreadnought was not that pricey, costs increased markedly thereafter for bigger and better ships.
  • The greater beam of german dreadnoughts.. water-tight.. none would be lost until WWII (p. 93)...
  • Not one dreadnought was lost during WWI solely to naval gunfire or even to submarine torped (pp 110-111).
Ignore this last one; since there was only one significant battles, and that was indecisive, it's no surprise none was lost.
  • Dreadnought: Blunder, or Stroke of Genius? John Brooks War in History 2007 14 (2) 157-178
  • Wilhelm II ...blamed deteriorating Anglo-German relations squarely on what he decried as ‘the entirely crazy Dreadnought policy of Sir J. Fisher and His [Britannic] Majesty’ which, he claimed, had destroyed British maritime superiority. Tirpitz, for his part, argued that, with the Dreadnought, the British had 'made a mistake in the face of Germany and are angry about it. This annoyance will increase when they see that we follow immediately'. H. Herwig, ‘The German Reaction to the Dreadnought Revolution’, International History Review XIII (1991), pp. 279 and 281. The Novelle of March 1908 authorized an increase in Germany's annual building rate to three battleships and one battlecruiser for the next four years. The British response was at first cautious but, by the beginning of 1909, a full-blown navy scare had erupted. Comparisons were expressed almost entirely in terms of numbers of dreadnought battleships, which both sides now accepted as the only units of naval strength.
First point; Ignore; not sure what Germans blustering at the time has to add to the article.
Second point; Have in Anglo-German Arms Race section, though it could do with some further tweaking
  • The committees set up by Fisher ... accepted considerable technical risks by adopting turbines of unprecedented size, and an all-big-gun armament which, at that time, could not be aimed continuously and fired in controlled salvoes; furthermore, although the instruments for controlling long-range fire had been identified, few had yet been developed and tried.
Have third para of 'Building the First Dreadnoughts' and also the 'Long-Range Gunnery' section.
  • The new policy in effect reversed the long-established Admiralty preference for responding to, rather than leading, naval innovation...it can be argued that, if Britain had continued with its established policy, the dreadnought race between Britain and Germany would have started later and avoided much of the intense rivalry and suspicion that poisoned relations between the two countries.
Not sure if this is add or ignore. Too much "This is why the British decided to build dreadnoughts when they did" without balancing "And this is what the Americans and Japanese were thinking along the same lines" is an anglocentric POV.
  • Nonetheless, the dreadnought type was undoubtedly coming. And Fisher's policy permitted substantial cutbacks for several years in Britain's naval expenditure, while giving it a lead in dreadnought numbers which it was able to maintain. But, paradoxically, the policy that began as one of economy soon led to the enormously expensive competition with Germany. This eventually resulted in a serious financial crisis in Germany that curtailed its naval ambitions. Because of these successes, Fisher cannot be accused of an outright blunder. But neither does Fisher’s dreadnought policy deserve to be hailed as a stroke of genius. It had been largely settled within six months of his becoming first sea lord. But, when judged in the context of that time and of previous Admiralty policy, it was, in too many respects, risky, insufficiently considered, ill-informed, and unnecessary.
Part have and part ignore. Exactly what Fisher's 'dreadnought policy' was, is rather controversial (para 2, 'Building the first Dreadnoughts'); it is also a little false to say dreadnoughts 'led' to naval competition, because the competition pre-dates the dreadnoughts.
  • re: "the competition pre-dates the dreadnoughts." Many folks seem to be arguing that Fisher started an arms race. Will find quotes.
  • Review Essay: Gunnery, Procurement, and Strategy in the Dreadnought Era. Jon Tetsuro Sumida The Journal of Military History 69 (October 2005): 1179–87
  • In the face of British relative economic and naval decline, and given the vulnerability of Britain's home waters and extended trade routes to simultaneous major attack in the event of war against several powers with large fleets, Fisher abandoned the "traditional" practice of responding to the advent of new weapons. Instead he adopted a policy of promoting technological innovation in order to achieve vital strategic objectives.
Have the idea that Dreadnought was a remarkable technological innovation. Have a note about Sumida's view thet Fisher was really interested in battlecruisers, not battleships. Ignore more general statements about Fisher's policy of innovation and British grand strategy (outside the scope of this article). Bear in mind this article is about 'dreadnoughts' in general and not HMS Dreadnought or Fisher in particular.
  • The Naval Policy of Austria-Hungary, 1867-1918: Navalism, Industrial Development, and the Politics of Dualism By Lawrence Sondhaus While 70 percent of the price of a British dreadnought went to workers' salaries, similar labor costs would account for 32 percent of expenditure on Austro-Hungarian dreadnoughts. p.191
Ignore; interesting but far, far too detailed and not particularly relevant.
  • Much talk of how the political situation changed/impacted the miltary: reduced threat from France/Russia; advent of German threat in the North Sea.
  • Arms, Economics and British Strategy: From Dreadnoughts to Hydrogen Bombs By G. C. Peden...
  • Dreadnoughts represented a major increase in expense as well as fighting power. Pre-dreadnoughts completed between 1895 and 1904 cost about £1 million each; the Dreadnought cost nearly £2 million, and the first battle-cruisers £1.75 million. p. 23
'Reject, false comparison, Dreadnoughts cost only a little more than the alternative modern pre-dreadnoughts, which I will be added as mentioned above
  • Fisher was much criticised, both inside and outside the navy, for building dreadnoughts, on the grounds that he thereby did away with Britain's overwhelming superiority of about three to one over Germany based on pre-dreadnoughts. The Manchester Guardian spoke for many when it claimed that... pp. 23-24
Added, agreed above we need to mention the idea of a zero starting point.
  • the first dreadnought battleships cost about 0.1 per cent of national income p. 374
Ignore - and whose national income? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Land (talk • contribs)

}}

  • MoS work needed, I left some sample edits, but there is more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everybody is aware without trawling the article history, and to check my understanding, this refers to:
Terminal punctuation of captions e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dreadnought&diff=266655486&oldid=266607482
Punctuation within ""s e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dreadnought&diff=next&oldid=266655486
Inconsistency between use of single and double quotes
Misuse of rather than "
Presence of article title in section headings e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dreadnought&diff=next&oldid=266655937
I think this is justified in the case of 'Dreadnought Building' - unless someone can suggest a clearer title for that section which avoids using the word 'dreadnought' - but will fix the other instances.
Have I got that right? The Land (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think these are fixed. The Land (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from David Cane on the first few sections:
    • Lead
      • shoudn't the first picture be of the Dreadnought that gave its name to the type rather than the USS Texas?
        • this has been raised on the article talk page several times. Dreadnought is not a particularly representative dreadnought. The image of Texas also has the advantage of being in colour. The Land (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather than link to the general article arms race it might be better to link to the more specific Origins of World War I#Arms Race.
      • Single quotes used around 'all-big-gun' and 'dreadnoughts' in the first paragraph but double quotes used around "super-dreadnoughts" in the second and "Dreadnoughts" in the third.
      • Explain here or somewhere what 'all-big-gun' means in practice - at what calibre does a gun become 'big'?
      • dreadnought in the third paragraph is used in the generic sense but italicised in the same way as the specific sense of HMS Dreadnought and Dreadnought from the first and second paragraphs.
      • "vast resources" is undefined both in terms of size and what "resources" means - money, material, time?
          • The cost of the ships is now mentioned at the start of the 'dreadnought building' section; is that enough? The Land (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Origins
      • "United States Navy" after "U.S. Navy" in the lead section. It should be the other way round.
          • Spelt out in full in lead section - I think this achieves what you wanted. The Land (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suggest a link to caliber
    • Long-range gunnery
      • "U.S." and "US" both used.
        • fixed (for this section at least) The Land (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be useful to clearly state what was considered short and long range and what is medium and large calibre.
        • If that were possible, I would do it. Unfortunately, there is no consistency. E.g. an 8-inch or 9.2-inch gun could be 'medium' calibre on one ship but 'heavy' on another
      • Explain why naval gunnery was inaccurate at more than 3,000 yards.
      • "longer distances" should be "greater distances"
      • "In 1903, the US ordered..." should be "US Navy ordered..." or "US government ordered..."
      • Admiral Jackie Fisher should be linked here at his first appearance rather than in Building the first dreadnoughts section.
        • Have added a link, and don't think that linking to him twice constitutes over-linking. The Land (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the link should be in the style of First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir John "Jackie" Fisher rather than just Jackie Fisher as he has not been mentioned before in the article.
      • Naval War College should be linked here at its first appearance rather than in All-big-gun mixed-caliber ships section.
        • Changed.
    • All-big-gun mixed-caliber ships
      • metric equivalent for 9.2 in guns given in centimetres where elsewhere millimetres are used. Issue exists throughout the article.
Thanks for spotting that, will get onto it. The Land (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who describes the ships as "'all-big-gun mixed-caliber' or later 'semi-dreadnought'"?
        • 'Semi-dreadnought' is an (ambiguous) retrospective term. 'All-big-gun mixed-calibre' is a more contemporaneous fudge. The Land (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although the link goes to the correct one, should we not specify which President Roosevelt.
        • I don't think so. There ws only one President Roosevelt in office in 1902. ;-) The Land (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • But you forget, non-American's might be confused.--DavidCane (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Satsuma is linked for a second time.
      • If this article is using American style, shouldn't "Prof" be "Prof."? However, Professor would be better.
      • I assume that "BuC&R" is the Bureau of Construction and Repair. This abbreviation should be defined immediately after the first appearance of Bureau...
        • I've written it out again in full. The abbrevation does not recur in the article The Land (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A design had also been circulated in 1902-03 for a "powerful 'all-big-gun' armament..." Is this Admiral Fisher's design conceived in Malta in 1900 (mentioned in Massie's Dreadnought, Chapter 26 p. 469) or another by Watts. Also 'all-big-gun' has single quotes again here which aren't really required as the phrase was coined in the lead section.
        • It will be Watts. Re that allegation by Massie, see footnote A7. Re the quote marks; I understand this is in the quoted text.The Land (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it's a quote from Watts, the spelling of "caliber" should be the British English "calibre". I would also remove the parenthetical metric conversion of 9.2-inch as this is unlikely to have been in the original. --DavidCane (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1903-04 program. Explain that program means the naval construction program.
    • The switch to all-big-gun designs
      • Both "fire control" and "firecontrol" are used. Shouldn't it be hyphenated.
        • Let's go for 'fire control'. Rarely hyphenated in my sources.
      • Was it new gun mountings that improved the rate of fire or the mechanisation of the handling of the shells and propellant charges?
        • Friedman actually simply says 'guns' though I agree it was the mechanisation of the guns and their ammunition handling that made the difference. Such mechanisation s built into the mounting. The Land (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What was "the principal objection to 12-inch guns"?
        • Their slow rate of fire; couldn't think of a way to make this elegant so took it out, it duplicated the start of the paragraph in any case. The Land (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Building the first dreadnoughts
      • In the first sentence, "in fact" should be between commas.
      • An explanation of the difference between triple expansion boilers and steam turbines and why turbines were so much better might be helpful as it is one of the defining features of the dreadnoughts. There are lots of references to the dreadnoughts being faster but this isn't, as far as I can see, tied to the fact that they used turbines.
      • "in the October of 1905" is archaic "in October 1905" would be better.
      • "recently converted" suggests that it was only just before Fisher's appointment when, according to Massie, he had been looking at the idea of all-big-gun ships since 1900. Conversion, also suggests that he was previously against them, was that the case?
        • Again, see footnote A7. According to Mackay, the 1900 letter is ambiguous; it refers to 'equal fire all round' which might or might not mean 'all-big-gun'. Re 'converted'; have changed it to 'convinced of'. The Land (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still says converted. --DavidCane (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not any more. 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • "adventurous step" seems a bit dramatic, what about "revolutionary step" (no pun intended).
        • IMv 'adventurous; is more cautious than 'revolutionary'. People keep waffling on about how Dreadnought was 'revolutionary', in any case. The Land (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A link to explain 12 pounder might be useful.
      • "smaller and cheaper ship" - smaller how and compared to what?
    • Design
      • Did the Washington Naval Treaty specific limit the size of dreadnoughts as a type or simply limit the maximum size of naval ships? the Washington Naval Treaty article seems to indicate that it was "Capital ships" that were limited and makes no reference to dreadnoughts as a type. This seems to be supported by the statement in the lead that the term fell out of use after WWI because all ships had dreadnought-like features.
        • Tweaked to read 'capital ships' ;is it clea rthat at this stage dreadnought = capital ship? The Land (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Armament
      • The first sentence is basically a repeat of the second sentence in the main Design section.
      • "ten guns 12 in (305 mm) in caliber" is awkward. "ten 12 in guns..." would be more natural and corresponds to usage elsewhere in the article.
          • Done (though maintaining conversion, need to convert these measurements once per section at least) The Land (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "period" or "era" needed after "pre-dreadnought" and "with" needed after "continued" in the third sentence.
      • "Many early dreadnoughts carried only very light guns designed to fend off enemy torpedo boats" this needs to be rephrased to show that it means only the secondary armament.
      • Presumably the risk to the dreadnoughts of carrying torpedoes was from explosion if hit by enemy fire and the damage this would cause. This should be explained.
      • Explain "en echelon" means in line.
          • I removed that sentence; I think the Neptune and Kaiser classes are the examples I had in mind.
      • "...the layout was adopted in Royal Navy..." needs a "the" before Royal.
      • Something has gone wrong with "The risk of the blast waves from each gun barrel interfering with others in the same turret interference also reduced the rate of fire from the guns somewhat."
      • In the final paragraph, Italy is referred to in the plural, "their first dreadnought", but Russia in the singular, "Russia with her Gangut class"
  • --DavidCane (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments from David Cane
    • General
      • Captialisation of navy is inconsistent in a couple of places. "Royal Navy" should be capitalised and so should "U.S. Navy" or "United Stated Navy", "Royal Hellenic Navy" and "Imperial Japanese Navy". "German navy" (both capitalised and uncapitalised occur) and "Austro-Hungarian Navy" should not as they are generic names. I suggest that the solution is to use the English version of their proper names linked to the relevant articel on first usage in the style Imperial German Navy (Kaiserliche Marine), Imperial Japanese Navy (Nippon Kaigun), Imperial Austro-Hungarian Navy (Kaiserliche und Königliche Kriegsmarine), Hellenic Royal Navy (Vasilikón Naftikón), Italian Royal Navy (Regia Marina), etc. Incidentally, there is no link to the French or Russian navies although there are references to their ships.
        • Good point. Searching for "Royal navy" case-sensitive I don't find anything; can you spot any where this is wrong? I've inserted several wikilinks and I think the capitalisation is now all correct. Not every nation's navy is mentioned and I don't really see a problem with this; e.g. France only gets a paragraph, and it is written from the perspective of France as a power, not the perspective of the French navy.The Land (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Main armament power and caliber
      • Colorado class is linked in Battleship building from 1914 onwards further down but not here at its first appearance
    • Secondary armament
      • British English spelling of standardised used where generally spelling is American English.
  • --DavidCane (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I've got a hardcover copy of Massie's Dreadnought, and I believe you could bludgeon someone with it fairly easily. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear what this comment means? ;-) The Land (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still no progress on the Jentshura cite? Did you translate it? Did you copy it from another Wikipedia article? Besides, the full title isn't given..? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight - I have the book, just didn't put the details in the article, will sort, perhaps tonight. The Land (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some More Comments from DavidCane
    • Central Citadel
      • I presume the citadel had a floor, just not an armoured one.
Yes. The Land (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "However, it tended to result in the main belt being very short, sometimes below the waterline." I assume that "very short" means in the vertical direction. Does this mean that it did not go far below the waterline or not far above it?
Dealt with. The Land (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the fact that there was a greater difference between the thicknesses of Yamato's and Dreadnoughts deck armour than between the thicknesses of their main belt armour can necessarily be construed to mean that generally "the amount of protection devoted to the deck increased much more rapidly than did the amount in the main belt". For instance, they may have both increased at an even rate for the 35 years between the two ships' designs, then made a big jump in the Yamato. I also don't think that two examples can be used to extrapolate a progression. Better to just give Yamato's relative levels of protection as a example of the change in emphasis.
Addressed The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propulsion
      • I think I know the answer but were the new reciprocating engines cleaner than earlier models or cleaner than turbines?
Yup. :) The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the U.S. Navy, which even in the early 1900s was planning to cruise across the Pacific to engage the Japanese in the Philippines". Presumably, this would be in the sense of contingency planning for possible war scenarios rather than actually going to war.
Yes. Clarified "in the event of war" The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fuel
      • "and that for the same volume of fuel carried an oil-fired ship would have much greater range." - remove "carried" and add commas after "that" and "fuel".
Tweaked along those lines.
done The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "These benefits meant that as early as 1901 Fisher". Add commas before and after "as early as 1901".
sorted The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anglo-German arms race
      • Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty would not have taken the step to seek an alliance with France, although he may have recommended it to the Prime Minister, H. H. Asquith, and the Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey.
Quite right. I've altered this paragraph a little to reflect what Kennedy says in more detail. The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • U.S. Navy
      • Shouldn't U.S in section heading be spelled out in full
      • "...looked forward to the standard practice for future..." seems a bit strange, suggest "...was a precursor of the standard practice of future..."
      • "...forced to consort..." seems a bit arch, suggest "..forced to operate..."
    • Japan
      • To give a time context, it might be worth restating the year of the Japanese victory over Russia.
      • "12 in" instead of "12-in" used elsewhere and conversion is given as 300 mm, although it is given elsewhere as the more accurate 305 mm.
    • In other countries
      • First paragraph - "It was not until September 1910 the first of the Courbet class..." needs "that" after "1910".
      • "Over this period...". Specify which period?
      • "In June 1909, the Imperial Russian Navy constructed four Gangut class dreadnoughts...". That's when they were ordered rather than constructed.
      • How were the Russian ships badly flawed?
        • All of this section is done. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also need to change "made" in the sentence on flawed Russian ships to "meant" for it to read through correctly with the quote. --DavidCane (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • --DavidCane (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple more comments
    • Super-dreadnoughts
      • First sentence: "...a new generation of more powerful super-dreadnoughts were being built." should be "was being built" as generation is singular.
Done. The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentence on fuel is not really necessary as the topic has already been dealt with in it own section above.
Indeed. done. The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • General
      • Some comparable conversions to current values of the expenditure would be useful in the article. For example, in the paragraph on the June 1919 Admiralty plan, the cost is given as £171 million. Ideally this should be converted to current rates using templates so that "£171 million (approximately £{{Formatprice|{{Inflation|UK|171000000|1919|r=-4}}}} today).{{Inflation-fn|UK}}" becomes "£171 million (approximately £8.36 billion today).[1]"
Done; also in footnote A9 where the costs of individual ships are listed. The Land (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--DavidCane (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I can't comment on the sources as I didn't check them, but the article itself seems very well organized and well written. LK (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Everything appears to be in order (though I admit that I have been reading this sectionally for roughly the last week or so, I see no major earth shattering changes that warrant opposition or fixing). Well Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - after my extensive comments in the A-class review and the massive reviews here, I think that this is finally ready. Good work, The Land! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Final Comment Seems to cover the subject thoroughly. One final comment - in references where more than one page is referenced p. 10-11 and the like should be formatted pp. 10-11 and so on. --DavidCane (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:27, 21 February 2009 [29].

2008 Humanitarian Bowl[edit]

Nominator(s): Strikehold (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. I've solicited feedback from several individuals who have contributed featured articles in the same subject area. The article has undergone the GA process, and I have worked to address the feedback I have received. I think the article is ready to undergo the added scrutiny of a FA candidacy and solicit comments from a wider audience. I also think the article compares favorably with similar ones in the same field. Strikehold (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now - Good to see someone other than JKBrooks nominate a bowl article. Unfortunately, I don't think this is as refined as the bowl FAs that I've read as a reviewer. Here are some examples of issues from the first few sections.

  • The date in the first sentence should be flipped since this is an American subject. Instead of 30 December, make it December 30. Check for this throughout.
  • My understanding of WP:MOS was that either form is acceptable as long as consistency is maintained. I'm an American and don't prescribe to mmddyyyy being the strict de facto American usage... Of course, if it's an issue I can change it.
  • It is only optional if the article is not associated with an English-speaking country. If it is, then it needs to follow that country's preference. Unless it is a military articles, lol.--2008Olympianchitchat 10:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed.
  • Comma after Roady's Trucks Stops? And consider removing the United States link, since it doesn't add much.
  • You are correct, both fixed.
  • "Maryland took a quick lead within the two minutes of play". Is first missing?
  • Yes. Fixed.
  • Unless "Battle of the Unbeatens" is a title of some sort, the two capitalized letters should be made lower-case.
  • A few sources capitalized it as a proper noun. I thought of making it lowercase IAW MOS, but decided that since it was a potential marketing ploy it would be better treated as a proper noun.
  • From the "battle of unbeatens" section: "the last of which were considered heavy favorites for that berth." Is this referring just to Utah, or to Boise State as well? If it's just about Utah, change "were" to "was".
  • Since it is referring to a team of many individuals, I treated it as a plural. Just as if it were replaced with the plural nickname "the Utes were..." Reworded.
  • "at-large,". Move the comma outside the quote mark.
  • Hmm... These references ([30], [31], [32]) say to put the comma inside.
  • This rule is something where overall Wikipedia style reflects British English rather than American English. Here's a link. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh. Okay, changed.
  • Something else to check for is passive voice. Two examples from this section are "would be ended" and "went on to be defeated by".
  • Fixed.
  • ACC team selection: NCAA link isn't needed, with one in the previous section.
  • Removed.
  • WAC team selection: "the Humanitarian Bowl looked to Nevada. Nevada...". Don't like having the same word appear consecutively like this. Try using the team nickname for the second one.
  • Fixed.

I feel bad about opposing since you appear to be an FAC newcomer, but the same standards must be applied equally to everyone. The best advice I can give is to ask an uninvolved (non-college football editor) for help. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to feel bad. The reason I submitted it as a FAC is to improve the article and to elicit constructive criticism. And yes, this is my first featured article candidate, but I've been through the featured list process, so I knew what I was getting myself into :) Thanks for the comments. Strikehold (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italics for Idaho Statesman in WAC team selection. Check for other printed publications later in the text; I see a couple in the buildup section. The two quotes in this paragraph are covered by the reference at the end of the paragraph, right? Just checking.
  • You're right. I didn't think that you italicized links, but see that it does say to in the MOS. Yes, I added a cite immediately after each quotation.
  • Two Independence Bowl links in the section; the second could be comfortably chopped.
  • One removed.
  • Maryland offense vs. Nevada defense: "and was often utilized in reverses and other trick plays due to his breakaway speed, which gained 208 rushing yards." Needs tweaking. He gained those yards, not his speed.
  • Reworded.
  • As a part of the MoS tuneup that Sandy suggested below, there is a special code for minus signs that we should use: −
  • Changed.
  • Nevada offense vs. Maryland defense: "Under the system, the offense attempts keep the opposing defense off balance..." Missing "to" before keep.
Fixed.
  • Maryland player suspensions: "with different players violating the rules to seperate degrees." This is called a "noun-plus-ing" sentence structure, a hard-to-spot grammar error. Maybe "as different players violated the rules to seperate degrees."?
  • What grammar rules does this violate? I've seen "noun plus -ing" mentioned several times on wikipedia, but never anywhere else. Do you mean there is a change in tense in the sentence? I just corrected that, otherwise, I don't get it.
  • Hard to understand, isn't it? Luckily, Tony1 wrote an excellent guide that shows how to find and fix this kind of sentence. I'll fix that one myself for you, but I recommend reading the guide for future reference. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You called it a "grammatical error". The link you provide does not show that it is incorrect. Instead, its author basically seems to say that he doesn't like the practice. I'm not trying to be difficult, but you still haven't shown that it is grammatically incorrect. Strikehold (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it comes from Tony, the grammar expert, I would say that it [noun + -ing] is probably incorrect. All the same, I will contact him for verification. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this Tony fellow can explain the tenet it contradicts or provide a reliable reference, then great. Otherwise, being wikipedia, an "expert" opinion means nothing to me. I just want to know why. For the record, this doesn't apply to the article here, because I think the edit Giants made is fine. I just want to know for future reference, one way or the other, whether it is actually incorrect or not. Strikehold (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game summary: "The game was televised on ESPN and drew a television rating of 2.1 for an estimated 3,039,000 viewers which was a 218% increase from the previous season's game." I'd add a comma after "viewers" for better readability.
  • Technically speaking, I don't believe you should add a comma, because it is a dependent clause. I broke it up into two sentences as it was borderline run-on anyway.
  • First quarter: "Egekeze made good the extra point...". Remove "good".
  • Changed all instances of the phrase.
It's looking better as I get further in. My oppose probably won't stand for much longer, assuming these are addressed. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did strike the oppose above, and will offer more comments on a talk page. When this is not a red link, please click on it to find said comments. Need to go now, but will hopefully post there either tonight or tomorrow. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After receiving a message on my talk page, I returned to find an oppose from Dabomb87 at the bottom. Even when I read the article, it didn't seem as refined as the similar ones that JKBrooks has nominated in the past. With that in mind, I'm going to stay neutral for now, and recommend that you find an copy-editor who is new to the article to help polish it further. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • It is the website affiliated with College Football News, a respected publication in the field, and FOX Sports.
  • Affliated or put out by? That makes a big difference in reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CollegeFootballNews.com is actually a re-direct to cfn.scout.com, so I'm pretty certain it is the internet source for CFN. It is at a minimum affiliated with (possibly owned by) FOX Sports. Scout.com (along with competitor Rivals.com put out by Yahoo! Sports) is also one of the more respected recruiting news outlets.
  • I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is referenced twice, but not used as a stand-alone source in either. It is used as an example of opinion pieces, which state game predictions in the first instance, and as one of three examples of the Maryland team being called "schizophrenic" in the second instance.
  • Understanding that as long as it's clearly used as an opinion, that's fine.
  • Removed. It wasn't a standalone citation, just used as an example. But I think there is enough information from the other cites in the para to back up the material.
  • Current ref 31 (Blue turf at ...) is lacking a publisher.
  • Current ref 47 (Nevada vs Maryland...) is lacking a publisher
  • Added pub: Bleacher Report (see above).
  • Current ref 71 (Eric Detweiler..) is lacking a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. And welcome to FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I gave the article a quick copyedit. There were a few issues that I fixed, and a few more that you may want to address. *Kickoff or kick-off? You had both versions, so I changed them all to kickoff.

  • Thanks.
  • "It was announced that ... suspensions" in the lede doesn't say if the players actually were suspended. I'd suggest changing it to active voice, something like "Seven Maryland players, including six starters, were suspended for part of the game because of ...."
  • Fixed.
  • "Back into the game" is a bit colloquial. Same with "put the game away"; they're not very precise terms.
  • Agreed, reworded.
  • The last sentence of the lede is somewhat awkward. I'd suggest splitting it into two sentences.
  • Done.
  • "the last of which were"; There's only one "last" thing in any given list. Was it just Utah that was considered a favorite to appear, or was more than one team considered a favorite?
  • Point taken. Reworded.
  • You've got a lot of past perfect sentences, things like "had been considered". I changed most of them, but I'd suggest using the plain past tense where possible.
  • Noted.
  • I added a fact tag for the NCAA rule requiring N.C. State to find an at-large bid. I've never heard of that rule, and even if I had, it'd be a good idea to cite that for other folks.
  • From NCAA Postseason Football Handbook: "In the case of a conference contractual affiliation, all conference teams with winning records must be placed in one of the contracted bowl games before any institution with a record of six wins and six losses may be placed in a contracted bowl game." I've clarified the statement and added a cite.
  • "Terps" also seems a bit colloquial. I've only heard of it being used in regular conversation ... does the university use it?
  • Yes, it is a nickname officially sanctioned by the school (actually probably more commonly used than Terrapins). It is used on the helmets, apparel, the athletic sites domain name, etc. ([33] [34]).
  • Can I suggest writing a sentence about and citing the order of bowl-game selections in the ACC? You've got who picked whom, but not why those bowl games were allowed to pick those teams.
  • I'll do that. Thanks.
  • That statistical comparison box in the pre-game buildup section is really nice. About the only thing I can suggest is moving up the footnotes to the appropriate subheads -- not the source notes, but the ones explaining yards per game and points per game.
  • Yeah, I did that to try to keep the table's appearance cleaner, but you have a good point. Fixed.
  • "Tenth-ranked Kevin Basped and fifteenth-ranked Dontay Moch": Nationally, right?
  • Yes, clarified.
  • When you're describing the pistol offense, you say that the QB lines up four yards from the center. In the article about the pistol, it says the QB lines up three yards away, with the RB one yard behind that. Which one is correct?
  • Which source are you looking at? In the American Football Monthly, I didn't see a mention of QB/C alignment; in the Nevada Appeal article it says: "Instead of the quarterback being seven yards behind d the center, he moved the quarterback to about four yards behind the center and put the running back behind the quarterback."
  • You repeat the figures about Kapernick and the Nevada offense in both the WAC Team Selection section and the Nevada offense section.
  • Fixed.
  • "Cosh was to return to": did he? Did Pearman do what he announced he was going to do?
  • Reworded.
  • In your lead paragraph in the game summary section, you cite the ESPN preview. Do you think it would better to link to the game recap directly?
  • Ah. That was there as a reference to it being televised on ESPN, which the recap didn't state. But I can remove it altogether, since it is stated in the Nielsen sources.
  • I'd suggest wikilinking each official's position in the game summary lead.
  • Good point, added.
  • Overall, I'd suggest putting citations at the sentence they refer to, rather than grouping them at the end of the paragraph. In the first paragraph of the game summary in particular, it gets a little confusing about what is referring to which.
  • In that para: Source [1] contains all the information in the first three sentences. Sources [78–80] contain the information in the last sentence. None of them contain it all however, so all four of those are needed (I removed the superfluous preview ref as per above). I believe it is in accordance with MLA style guidelines that you only need a reference at the end to reference all the above information in that para.
  • I'm sorry ... I didn't mean that you should remove it, merely redirect it to the game recap instead of the preview, thus saving someone the task of clicking an extra link from the ESPN page. And if that's official MLA style, who am I to argue?
  • When it happens, I'd suggest creating a subsection about the 2009 NFL Draft and which players from each team were selected. There probably won't be a cite that points directly to the game as deciding where each player was drafted, but it can be inferred that the player's final collegiate game probably had something to do with his draft status.

Overall, it's a pretty good article, and I'll take another look after you've gotten some more comments. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm continuing to copy edit, and managed to dig up a copy of the game. When I get the time, I'll watch that to refresh my memory and tackle the game summary section. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment — There's a pretty big sequencing error in the third quarter game recap. I've gone through and changed stuff in the first half, but this is one you may want to tackle yourself, since it'll entail a bit of rewriting. According to what you've got written, Da'Rel Scott first carries the ball after the big fumble play. According to the tape I've got and the ESPN play-by-play, he does his two carries first, then Turner does his sack/fumble dance. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. I see what you are saying. The only thing that is incorrect, as I understand it, is that Scott made his first touches before the fumble extravaganza, not on the subsequent carries he made. I've corrected it (I believe).
  • Support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS tuneup needed, and there are mixed date formats (some dates are international style rather than U.S.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were all ddmmyyyy, except for the infobox, which automatically formats it in mmddyyyy. I changed all instances of dates in the text to mmddyyyy to match the infobox for consistency. Also, what MOS fixes are needed other than the edits you've already made? Strikehold (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review File:Humanitarian Bowl logo.png - We need to add the name of the copyright holder to the fair use rationale. Awadewit (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay..Done.

Support All issues resolved. Great job.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed.
  • I hate possessives unless absolutely necessary: the two teams' first meeting. -> the first meeting between the two teams.
  • That adds three extra syllables and unnecessary words.
  • But the goal is not to be as terse as possible. Otherwise, we'd have contractions all over the place, wouldn't we? It's just a preference, especially with possessives on words that end in s, because those are always troublesome. I'll still support, however.
  • I think the goal is, generally speaking, to be as terse as possible without compromising readability or understanding. Contractions are a different story because they are considered colloquial. Like you said, though, a matter of opinion.
  • "12th" -> "twelfth"
  • From WP:Numbers: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals"
  • "or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words." Your choice, but I think ordinals in prose should be avoided if possible.
  • I hear you, that's just the general principle I go by, to expand one through ten, and use numerals for higher numbers.
  • "wildly inconsistent"? Reads like OR to me, just "an inconsistent team" would be more neutral.
  • This is expanded upon and cited extensively in the main body. Here are some sources which specifically use the phrase "wildly inconsistent" (Washington Post, Washington Times, New York Times, Bleacher Report, Asheville Citizen-Times), and it is not stated as a fact, but rather as something that has been said. Since "inconsistent" is obviously a subjective phrase this has to be true for it to be included. I added quotation marks to the phrase in the article to make this more clear.
  • OK.
  • "even able" -> "able"
  • Changed.
  • "was with the WAC which has generally" ->" "was with the WAC, which has generally" Commas are used before independent clauses.
  • I believe that is a dependent clause.
  • It would be if you used the word "that."
  • Ah I see what you mean. You're right, but because it's a nonessential clause, not independent (slightly different meaning). I've made the change (and caught a couple more). Thanks.
Sorry, yes, I did mean nonessential.--2008Olympianchitchat 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Utes were considered" -> "Utah was considered" No other team names are used in that paragraph.
  • This was to address another editors comments about not wanting "...Utah. Utah..." In context, and from the link it should be clear to which it refers.
  • OK, I see.
  • Yeah, I don't like it either, but meh...
  • "Partially because of this fact," I'd remove, because it is redundant when you read the rest of the sentence.
  • Agreed.
  • "Kaepernick led the Wolf Pack" -> "Kaepernick had led the Wolf Pack" This game was held in the time before the bowl game.
  • Past perfect tense is not needed there because the first part of the sentence indicates it took place beforehand.
  • Tenses should be consistent. If the bowl game is in past tense, then actions that happened before then need to be in past perfect. I'll still support, however.
  • You are correct insofar as that the past perfect is something that has a use, but it shouldn't be used in cases where the timeline is clear from context. That would introduce a redundancy as in: "Previously, he had..."
  • "Kaepernick also threw" -> "Kaepernick also had thrown"
  • See above comment.
  • Tenses should be consistent. If the bowl game is in past tense, then actions that happened before then need to be in past perfect. I'll still support, however.

*"He made all five extra point attempts" -> "He made all five extra-point attempts"

  • Fixed.
  • All of the dates in the references are still in international format instead of mmddyyy.--2008Olympianchitchat 10:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Please see the WP:FAC instructions and refrain from adding templates; removing them prior to archiving is time consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the instructions state "reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header."--2008Olympianchitchat 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noun plus -ing: The nominator's fix reads much better now that this urchin has been expunged, especially in formal prose: "Friedgen stated that the curfew violations occurred over several nights, and that different players violated the rule to separate degrees". (I've added a "that" to the second of this double statement, to clarify that it's still attributable to Friedgen rather than Wikipedia's "voice"—reads better on the micro-level, even you can work out that this is the intention by thinking about it.) Strictly speaking, the noun plus -ing needs a possessive noun that "owns" the action: "with the players' violating ...". This is ungainly. Tony (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comma should be removed, however, as it creates a comma splice. Now that the action is attributed to Friedgen rather than to the players, the second clause has become a dependent clause as it has no subject of its own.--2008Olympianchitchat 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Needs work on the prose, these are examples from the lead and first few sections:

  • "The game was played at Bronco Stadium in Boise, Idaho and was the 12th edition of the Humanitarian Bowl." The "was ... was" repetition is a bit jarring. Maybe "The game, played at Bronco Stadium in Boise, Idaho, was the 12th edition of the Humanitarian Bowl."
  • I have to disagree. There's nothing wrong with the phrasing there.
  • "The featured match-up was between what was called a "wildly inconsistent" Maryland tea" Usually, the lead doesn't need cites, but this quote: "wildly inconsistent" does.
  • Added.
  • "The results were an offensive shoot-out." Should be singular; one game produces one result "The result was an offensive shoot-out."
  • Changed.
  • "He had been one of the suspended players, but scored twice in the final quarter to help secure a victory for the Terrapins." This is a false contrast—the fact that he was suspended doesn't contradict the fact that he scored twice in the final quarter.
  • Disagree. The two are quite related. He was suspended for almost three quarters of the game, and therefore it is unusual that he was so decisive in the victory. This is conveyed in the media coverage (like the Washington Post's tongue-in-cheek "Scott arrives right on time" headline).
  • "Before the selections, the ACC announced that 2008 would be the final year that it would have a conference tie-in for the game due to travel and cost considerations."-->Before the selections, the ACC announced that due to travel and cost considerations, 2008 would be the final year that it would have a conference tie-in for the game.
  • Your suggestion isn't really better. it removes words critical to the sentence's meaning ("this game"... The ACC still has other tie-ins), and moved a non-essential phrase into the middle of the sentence which obfuscates the main point. I've made an attempt to streamline the sentence.
  • "which has generally fielded its champion in the game." I think "usually" is the correct word here.
  • The words are exactly synonymous ([35]).
  • "Initially, it was speculated that the WAC championship team, Boise State, would make its fifth appearance in the bowl played in its home stadium." Source? Who did the speculating?
  • It wasn't cited because it is expounded upon in depth and cited in the next paragraph. I've added a source directly to that statement, though.
  • "At the end of the regular season, there were three undefeated teams from non-Bowl Championship Series (BCS) conferences, and National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules required only one to be given a berth in a BCS game." Too many ideas in one sentence, split it up.
  • Disagree. There are two ideas in this statement. And they are very interconnected.
  • "and National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules required only one to be given a berth in a BCS game." Why the past tense (required)? I haven't been keeping up with sports that much these days, but has that rule changed?
  • It is for tense consistency. It isn't relevant to the article subject what the rule says now.
  • "and instead went on to meet Tulsa in the 2009 GMAC Bowl." Too wordy, try: "and instead played against Tulsa in the 2009 GMAC Bowl." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, this is really simply a matter of preference. There's nothing inherently wrong with the text as is. Strikehold (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this to "met", I didn't want to use "played" because it was stated similarly for other teams. Strikehold (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general reply: Yes, quite a few of my concerns are "matter[s] of preference" and there is nothing *wrong* with the original text. However, criterion 1a defines "well-written" prose as "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". As an example, take my last point. The original text is technically correct. However, it is a bit wordy and could be made crisper. My suggestion may not be the best, but I think it is an improvement. If you still think my grounds for opposing are unconvincing, I will try to find a few more examples later. As Giants said above, it is definitely better than it was (I changed to "Weak oppose"), but it is not as refined as other bowl game articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - meets FA criteria, well written and referenced. Dincher (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs look fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:27, 21 February 2009 [36].

Radcliffe, Greater Manchester[edit]

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...this is the article's second nomination. I have worked on nearly all of the criticisms levelled upon it during its last FAC review, and believe the article has improved enough for a second entry to FAC. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • I still have concerns about the GENUKI site. It's a transcription of another work and published for genealogists to use in aiding their search for ancestors, and also, it doesn't seem to support the information being cited to it. The sentence in the article is "The town initially consisted of two parts; Radcliffe, centred around St Mary's Church close to the border with Bury, and Radcliffe Bridge, a hamlet located to the west, at the crossing of the Irwell." The information on the GENUKI site is "RADCLIFFE, a small town, a parish, and a sub-district, in Bury district, Lancashire. The town stands on the river Irwell, near the influx of the Roach, and on the Manchester and Bury railway, adjacent to the Boltonand Bury canal, 2½ miles S S W of Bury; took its name from a red cliff on the opposite side of the Irwell; consists of two parts, called Radcliffe and Radcliffe-Bridge, about ½ a mile asunder;..." I don't doubt the information in the article is correct, it just isn't supported by the source. I suspect an 'after the fact" attempt at sourcing, honestly.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gone - it was easier to use an existing source already in the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cotton mill.jpg - This image needs a description and an author. Also, is it possible to get a publisher for More Pictures of British History?
It isn't an image I uploaded, but I have inserted a publisher. I have tried and tried for months to find a Lancashire cotton mill image with child labour or similar, but have been unsuccessful. All I can find are US images, which I feel aren't appropriate. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a description Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have identified Hoskyn as the author - are you sure he is the photographer? If so, we need a death date for him. (A child labor photo would be wonderful. I assume you have checked labor histories of Britain?) The image also still needs a description. Awadewit (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be much easier just to remove the image for now, since I do not know enough about it (it was in another Wiki article). I have replaced it with a photograph I took of one of the town's remaining textile mills. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Radcliffe Bridge.jpg - The source needs to link to the HTML page, rather than directly to the JPG file per WP:IUP. Also, could you add birth and death dates for William Smith? It makes it easier to verify the license.
I do not know the birth-death dates of William Smith, the image has been used in several books of the town and his name appears in only two that I know of, both published by the Radcliffe Local History Society. I have tonight phoned the head of the society to ask for more information, but his phone is not answering, I'll keep trying though. My initial assumption was that whoever took the photograph would have been at the very least in his 20s, giving a birth date in the 1830s, and that it would be extremely unlikely he survived past 1939. Hopefully I shall have a definitive answer shortly, but if as an authoritative source the society does not know then I think it would be safe to assume that the image is public domain. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've spoken to Peter Roughan of the Radcliffe Local History Society. He is the person who restored the original glass print, which was apparently broken in two. He does not know the date that William Smith died, and knows of nobody else who would be able to help - he thinks that whoever took the photograph would have died well before 1939. Frank Sunderland, who was librarian at the time the print was restored (presumably it was under his care) has passed away. I do not know of any other means of enquiry I can use to ascertain the copyright status of the photograph, and so in my opinion (although I am certainly not an expert on copyright) I think the image is public domain. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the effort you put into trying to get this information. Since some countries use "life of the author + 99 years", not 70 years, and the law changes, it is best to include the information when we have it. We have done our best though. I would include this statement from the historical society about William Smith on the image description page, just in case this question is ever raised again. Awadewit (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Radcliffe looking east 1902 .jpg - We cannot use the "life of the author + 70 years" PD claim for this image since we don't know who the author is. I've changed the tag, but we need to indicate on the image description page why it is impossible to discover the name of the author. Could you add that?
The book from which the photograph is sourced gives photographer/owner names for most images, but not some - including this and another in the article. The book was published in 1902 and I have not seen any of these photographs published in any other books of the town or area. I have tried to find any information on T Hayhurst, the printer and stationer, but have been unsuccessful. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this explanation to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume there is no way to link more specifically to this map, since this is a pay site? Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is only a pay site if one wishes to order a printed copy of said map - the map data itself is out of copyright. The site attempts to restrict copyright by superimposing a copyrighted watermarked logo on top of the map, but it is easily blocked out with the correct software. There is, unfortunately, no means of linking directly to the map, and even moreso since the image is a composite of several screencaps from the site, stitched together in photoshop. It is therefore not possible even to use the give co-ordinates, but any user wishing to verify the map can simply enter 'Radcliffe' in the search box, click the relevant town, and proceed directly to the map. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stand Lane Radcliffe looking north 1902.jpg - We cannot use the "life of the author + 70 years" PD claim for this image since we don't know who the author is. I've changed the tag, but we need to indicate on the image description page why it is impossible to discover the name of the author. Could you add that?
See above answer for Radcliffe looking east 1902.jpg. I am unclear on exactly how to enter this information in the image - could you advise? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it. Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These issues should be relatively easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the issues that were raised in the previous FAC have been addressed. Graham Colm Talk 18:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very well-done city article. Karanacs (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Comments. My comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed. When the italics issue is fixed I'll support. Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Weak Oppose for now. I worry a little about comprehensiveness in the history section, and there are MOS issues that need to be fixed.[reply]

  • I feel like the history section just glosses over things. I don't have a good grasp at all of what the town was actually like before the industrial revolution. The lead contains more detail on the history than is in the body of the article. Is there any information about population in the early periods? Was there a particular noble family that owned the town? How has the town changed or grown over time?
I've expanded upon Radcliffe's history. Much of what is available details mainly the history of the Radcliffe family - details on the parish itself are rather scarce, but I've included as much as I feel I can. Regrettably little information is available on the geography of the area, and no detailed maps exist before the mid-19th century. I have been unable to find population records from the 18th century or before. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is much better. Thank you! Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused about some of the italics. Why is the quote from Peel italicized? Why is Bealey's Works (and other words that appear to be company names) italicized? Is History and Traditions of Radcliffe a book (if so, it doesn't need quotes; if it is a short story or pamphlet, it needs quotes but no italics)
I could use some guidance here - how are company names to be referred to? I used italics so the reader would understand why words like 'Works' were capitalised. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITALICS lists most of the cases where italics should be used. Company names are not bolded or italicized. Quotations are not italicized either (See WP:MOSQUOTE). Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the pointer, I think I've resolved this issue now. The only instances of italics now are on newspaper names, and mention of 'history and traditions of radcliffe'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the Industrial revolution section needs to be subdivided - perhaps into Water power and Coal subsections?
I don't think this would work without significant restructuring of the section. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just such a looong section to read. I'll bow to your knowledge of the topic, though. Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its tricky because there isn't really an industry in the town that evolved separately of the others. With the exception of paper, which outlasted other industries by about 20 years, textiles coal and bleaching were pretty much tied together. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section appears to end 1850-1860ish. Did nothing else interesting happen in the last 100+ years?
I've added more information but the basic story is terminal decline of industry, and nothing much else. The town is a shadow of its former self. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Radcliffe affected at all by any of the wars fought within England? If so, that might be a good addition to the early history section.
  • In reading further, I see that some of the information I've asked for is included in Governance instead of history. I can see why you did that, but it seems out of place to me - I really expected to read much of this in the history section. Would it be possible for parts of the two sections to be merged?
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes need to have a citation at the end of the sentence, even if that means duplication citations in subsequent sentences. This was an issue in the Sports section at least
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I'll work on these but it won't be in time to pass this FAC review so I'll have them ready for next time. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've actually got some time - Sandy is out for 10 days, I think. I think Raul is going to do one more pass at closing things in 5 days, but if you are making progress he may leave this open and give you a bit more time. If you're withdrawing the nomination, then please make a specific statement and then someone will close it early. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll leave it up, I'll try and address your points in the next few days. Pre-industry the town was cottage industries, I'll try to find a reliable source to give an idea of population. Much of the history from 1860 onwards would be conjectural - I have information about factory closures etc, but nothing really that describes a specific pattern other than the sources already used. I'll try and give the reader a better idea of the loss of the town's industry and retail. As for the wars, other than what is already in there there's nothing more I can add unless I can find anything about the Manors. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the requested changes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — the picture in "Culture" should be right-aligned. Jolly Ω Janner 17:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now right-aligned. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a and 1b. First of all - great work on this! It's actually interesting to read. However, the prose is just okay. Many of the problems are minor but I simply cannot suffer this much passive voice to pass. Some of the sections also seem neglected, especially Landmarks and Culture, with undue weight given to the textile history (if there is this much info, it needs to be split off) and Transport. Remember, just because the information is available, it doesn't all need to be here. Details:
Thanks for the comments. As an industrial mill town the post-medieval culture was limited to public houses and whit walks, and some sport. There really isn't a great deal else to discuss, its a small town that once was heavily industrialised with textiles, coal, and paper - most people with any money lived on the outskirts. The transport section is just as important; roman roads and ancient packhorse routes, several turnpike roads, a canal (and a mining canal that I didn't mention as no reliable evidence of its existence or location is known), 7 railway stations, and a tram network, all packed into an area of a few square miles in a steep-sided valley. The growth and decline of the town is very much mirrored in the transport history. There is much I have left out - stagecoaches, heavy river pollution, several large and important mills, the many collieries around the town, canal traffic, railway sidings, farming, poverty. I've just concentrated on what I feel are the most obvious and important aspects. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration and re-review of the materials, I see your point. I've removed my 1b objection. --Laser brain (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use of the passive voice obscures or eliminates the subjects of sentences. Some examples are mixed in below, but someone needs to check for this throughout and correct it where possible.
I've gone through and made as many alterations to the grammar as I feel able to do. You can see the changes here, which also include a few instances of incorrectly formatted dates and inappropriate commas (not additions I made I can promise you that). Let me know what you think. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, nice work! Most of the changes are positive, however, you did introduce at least two troublesome "with noun +ing" phrases that should be reverted. The bulk of my issue still resides with the use of passive voice. You altered a couple of them, but most of them remain. If you don't have a solid understanding of the issue, perhaps you could locate an interested party from the WikiProjects to help? --Laser brain (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if your comments are based only on the link above, but since I posted it other users have made changes here. I am about to make a few more and will link these in the next 30 minutes or so. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am just looking at your link. You introduced the ungrammatical "with two road bridges crossing" and "with their populations not necessarily linked to the town", possibly others. I've also now noticed an inconsistency when you begin sentences with prepositional date phrases like "In <year>"; sometimes you use a comma, sometimes you do not. --Laser brain(talk) 17:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok have a look at these changes - they encompass all changes made after the link I posted above. I'll have a look now at the years. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made changes around the years as suggested, differences are here. Some years will still have a comma following, where I felt it appropriate. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two "with"-prefixed clauses removed, although I'm not sure my changes have actually improved the grammar much. The second, in particular, is difficult to word. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think "BC" should not be wikilinked per WP:MOSLINK, although it's not really a unit of measure. However, it is very common.
Removed Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are more common units of measure wikilinked.. please remove the links.
Could you provide examples? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I saw acres, km² and sq mi. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find a single instance of this, but the problem is that the linking is part of the template, with "lk=on". If I remove that, the units will not be linked, but I wonder if the reader might like to know what an acre is - I don't know if such units are taught any longer. I'm ambivalent about the issue, but I don't see it as a problem. What are your thoughts? Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the MoS specifies that they not be linked, and you generally need a very good reason to ignore the MoS. The underlying issue is that there may be people who don't know what that unit is, but it's not this article's job to link them there. Overlinking creates a mess of blue that affects readability. --Laser brain (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an overlinking problem throughout. Terms like "weir", "goit" and "warp", absolutely. But fumigation, tobacco, foundries, geology, and so on; no please.
The article was recently protected against an anonymous user who linked just about everything in site. Some may have slipped through, so I've unlinked Geology, but I think that fumigation, tobacco, and foundry - they're all quite relevant and the reader may wish to read more. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. However, it won't be a sticking point. --Laser brain (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... which made possible much deeper pits with improved ventilation." Sounds anachronistic compared to "which made much deeper pits possible"
Reworded Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "With the exceptions of Outwood Colliery and Ladyshore Colliery, all were either worked out or closed by the end of the 19th century." What does "worked out" mean? Need context or link.
Changed to 'exhausted' Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Radcliffe was at one time home to around 60 textile mills, 15 spinning mills, and 18 bleachworks, of which the Bealey family were prominent owners." As worded, it is ambiguous whether the Bealey family were prominent owners of everything listed or just the bleachworks.
Changed to 'home to 60...mills and 15...mills, along with 18 bleachworks of which the bealey...' Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The beam engine exists still, albeit heavily overgrown." Lacks clarity. It could exist but not in its original place. Can you specify that it is still in place or still installed?
Tricky one this. I've actually applied to English Heritage for the pump to be preserved as a listed building, the process is ongoing right now. There should be a site inspection shortly but it is on private land and I cannot legally get access without raising suspicion (landowners don't generally like listed things on their property). The image is almost 20 years old but the goit, reservoir, and infrastructure (clearly visible on aerial imagery and from across the river) are still there. I have therefore changed the text to be a little more ambiguous. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be some inconsistency is using spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes for pauses in text; I fixed what I saw but please check throughout.
    • "... with Manchester city centre itself 6.5 miles (10.5 km) south-southeast of Radcliffe." Spot the unneeded word.
This edit was made today, I have removed 'itself' - now reads "Radcliffe forms a northerly part of the Greater Manchester Urban Area,[59] with Manchester city centre 6.5 miles (10.5 km) south-southeast of Radcliffe.[60]" Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For tables of data like "Radcliffe Compared", prefer a footer row with proper citations rather than footnotes to column labels.
  • I have provisionally added the footer to the first table in the demography section, however I believe the previous format is superior. It allowed the user to see which sources applied to which column or set of data, throwing them all together at the bottom is less user friendly. Nev1 (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concede the point here. When multiple sources are used, the footer looks silly. --Laser brain (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've undone my edit and the table is now in the original format. Nev1 (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first market in Radcliffe was opened in 1851, built by the Earl of Wilton." This is needlessly passive voice, thus making the reader wait until the end to find out who opened it.
Good point, I have changed to read "Radcliffe's first market was built by Earl of Wilton and opened in 1851." Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still passive. :) --Laser brain (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Radcliffe was served by several banks including ..." It's not now?
Not those banks, so I have reworded slightly and introduced two banks that are in the town. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section where you discuss the impact of the A665 contains a seemingly POV statement "... although it has exacerbated the decline of the retail outlets in the town centre." According to whom? Which source backs up that claim?
This statement was backed up by a reference on the same line, which I have moved to cover it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole Landmarks section is choppy and seems neglected. This is really the comprehensive view of the prominent landmarks in the city? My city has half the population, is a cultural wasteland, and still has more to say about the subject.
Pretty much. I can't really add what doesn't exist. Edwardian terraced housing and tatty old workshops aren't really landmarks. I've concentrated on those landmarks which are most obvious; St Thomas's, which can be seen from most places in the town, St Mary's which is the historic source of the settlement, and the Cenotaph. Apart from the few remaining mills which are mentioned elsewhere in the article, and which architecturally are not that unique, I'm not sure what else I can add? The the town is a former mill town which has for decades been in economic decline - most of its history is now rubble. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the difference between "act in 1821" and "Act of 1836"? Is the latter a formal name of a piece of legislation? If so, shouldn't it be the Act of 1836?
All instances are now 'Act of'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Weighing machines were used ..." followed by "These machines were used ..." The redundancy is not ideal, nor is the persistent passive voice.
Fixed, now reads "To prevent damage to the road surface, weighing machines were used at various strategic positions..." Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Today Radcliffe is home to ten primary schools, and one secondary school, spread across two sites." All 11 are spread across two sites, or the one secondary school?
Now reads "Radcliffe has ten primary schools, and one secondary school which is spread across two sites..." Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd prefer not to have a heading like "Today" as it invites constant updating else obscurity.
I understand this is your preference but this heading was recommended in the previous FAC. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah no it wasn't - that was another matter. Another user has changed this to read "Modern services". Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to leave the house for a few hours, but will address the remainder of these points tonight. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS#CAPTIONS, sentence fragments should not have periods at the end. Example: "The weir to the west of the town at Ladyshore, built to supply Lever Bank Bleach Works with water." Dabomb87 (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:27, 21 February 2009 [37].

Star Wars: Rogue Squadron[edit]

Nominator(s): --TorsodogTalk

I've been working on this in conjunction with a couple of other editors for a couple of months now. In those few months the article has been overhauled completely and has gone through through a PR and a GA. I've been tweaking it for the past week in prep for this FAC. Hoping it has all been worth it! Let 'er rip, everyone. --TorsodogTalk 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • File:Star-wars-rogue-squadron.jpg - This fair use rationale needs to list the copyright holder.
  • File:Rogue Squadron gameplay.JPG - This fair use rationale needs to list the copyright holder. The "purpose of use" is too vague. Why does this particular image need to be included? What are the particular elements in this image that the reader needs to see? How does this particular image help the reader understand specific elements of the game?
  • I'm not seeing any critical commentary in the article about these elements of the game. According to WP:NFC, screenshots from software need to be accompanied by "critical commentary". Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed image and put it up for speedy deletion. --TorsodogTalk 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that image, its the only one that actually shows standard gameplay within the game: that alone should significantly increase the general reader's understanding of the topic. If necessary, another screenshot could be produced that in addition to typical gameplay, highlights other features given specific commentary in the development or reception sections. -- Sabre (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of shot were you thinking of specifically? Awadewit (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't really thinking of any particular kind of shot. The current one doesn't seem to be that great from a commentary point of view, but another shot could be created to highlight key elements of the graphics that received praise or criticism, or elements of gameplay such as artificial intelligence behaviour if that could be conveyed in an image. For instance, a fresh image from the standard third-person view with draw distance in it (and a bit more activity, such as a dogfight or something) would help show points of commentary and standard gameplay, making what was two images into one. I'm thinking rather generally here though. -- Sabre (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I can't offer any suggestions, as I don't know anything about this game. Perhaps other reviewers could offer some assistance? Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the IGN review, they talk about the game's great models and textures. For example:"The 3D ship models are absolutely gorgeous and even put those seen in previous PC and arcade Star Wars titles to shame. From the accurate decals and Rebel markings down to the R2 units... and exhaust flames." He goes on to talk about the landscape and enemy models as well. Would including this in the reception section be enough to constitute a fair use for this image? --TorsodogTalk 20:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd add that sort of information regardless, as its good reception info. See if you can't get a gameplay screenshot that provides a nice view of those X-wing features to replace File:Rogue Squadron gameplay.JPG. Try to get some action in the background as well, having other ship models to contrast with never hurts. -- Sabre (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming IGN is a reliable source (I have no idea), a screenshot based on Torsodog's info seems like a good idea to me. Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just taken this screen. I think it better illustrates a lot of what we have talked about here. What does everyone else think? --TorsodogTalk 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Just to clarify for Awadewit et al.: The view is usually centered but often shifts around when flying such a maneuverable craft. :)
It shows many of the praised elements (even R2); it doesn't have the distance fog so we'd still need the cockpit shot as well. --an odd name 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rogue squadron naboo.JPG - This fair use rationale needs to list the copyright holder. Instead of saying that "it remained hidden for an unprecedented amount of time", could we be specific about the amount of time and provide a source for that amount of time being unprecedented? The source should be included on the image description page.
  • File:Rogue Squadron cockpit.JPG - This fair use rationale needs to list the copyright holder.

I look forward to resolving these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the copyright holder to all four of the images. I also beefed up the rationales for two of them as you requested. I hope I have addressed the issues adequately! --TorsodogTalk 20:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See response above. Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • "Naboo Starfighter wasbecame unlockable"
  • "years between the films"
  • "sixteen different planets"
  • "Rogue Squadron released toreceived positive reviews"
  • "thoughbut its"
  • "any multiplayer modes" – should probably just be "a multiplayer mode"
  • "more than 1 million copies have been sold worldwide" – as of when? also, the "1" should be "one" per the MOS
  • "a quicker" – "a faster-paced"?
  • "any other available"
  • "players' craft" – "the player's craft"
  • "different levels" – perhaps "several levels" instead
  • "Players' performance" – "The player's performance"
  • "athe level's three"
  • "Alternatively, the levels could be all unlocked via password." – "Alternatively, all of the levels can be unlocked via password."
  • The article jumps back and forth between referring to players as singular and plural. I suggest sticking with singular. So "players to" becomes "the player to"
  • "wasis also included"
  • "were not told" – a bit ambiguous as to what they were not told
  • "help to hide"
  • "using a GameShark or ProAction Replay" – provide a small phrase to describe what these two are
  • "that unlockedunlocks the"

Okay, that's the lead and Gameplay sections. Gary King (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ce help. I addressed all of the fixes you suggested. I had a couple people comb through the article, but I guess there are always things that can be fixed. I also changed all of the "players" throughout the article to a singular noun. --TorsodogTalk 19:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "characters' conversations"
  • "The game then moves several years in the future—specifically six years after the Battle of Endor." – perhaps – "The game then moves into the future, six years after the Battle of Endor."
  • "the now-rebuilding"
  • "It was decided" – by who?
  • "to the fans' favorite"
  • "Pak allowedallows"
  • "drivers utilizesuses both"
  • "graphics."" – punctuation goes outside of the quote per WP:PUNC for this incomplete quote, for here, and elsewhere in the article
  • italicize magazines such as "GamePro"

Okay, that's Synopsis, Development, and the first paragraph of Reception. Gary King (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not all quotes have to have the punctuation outside; "better"," should probably be in, as well as "resolution"." for sure.
  • "best sound effects, best voice work and best overall sound" – these awards should be capitalized if they are the official titles; and if they aren't, then use the official titles.
  • "The addition of these modes would have extended Rogue Squadron's replay value beyond its medal reward system." – an opinion, so it should be associated with a review
  • "counterpart—its aggregate score on Game Rankings being 5% lower." – "counterpart, with an aggregated score on Game Rankings of 80%." – I'd prefer to see the actual score rather than a relative one, especially for scores
  • "review iswas not"
  • "and retained that spot throughout the remainder of the holiday season."
  • "the UK, the" – "the United Kingdom, the"
  • "the game was released mid-January where itand debuted at number two on the sales chartsas the second-best-selling game of the month, ahead of Ocarina of Time."

Okay, that's everything. Gary King (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got those. For that "The addition of these modes..." point, I'm not sure if this sentence I wrote:
  • GamePro's review called the omission a "serious, unforgivable sin"; Schneider believed that while adding these modes would have extended Rogue Squadron's replay value, the game was still enjoyable for its medal reward system and large amount of secrets and unlockables.
was correct; I welcome any thoughts on that. --an odd name 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay better Gary King (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say a quick thanks to odd name for taking care of Gary King's suggestions while I was busy this weekend. Nice work everyone! All suggestions were great, and the article is looking even better now. --TorsodogTalk 19:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "released for Windows on December 3, 1998, with a Nintendo 64 version released four days later." "with" is a weak connector, try "released for Windows on December 3, 1998, and a Nintendo 64 version was released four days later."
  • Link "Star Wars universe" to [[Star Wars galaxy].
  • "As the player progresses through the game, they are " "they" sounds kind of strange here when referring to "the player" (even though it is technically correct)
  • "Star Wars: Rogue Squadron takes place in the fictional Star Wars galaxy."-->Star Wars: Rogue Squadron is set in the fictional Star Wars galaxy.
  • "The game's first fifteen missions occur six months after the Battle of Yavin depicted in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and prior to the events of Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back." Very confusing, sounds like the missions happened while the the Battle of Yavin was being "depicted". "prior to"-->before.
  • "with an opening crawl resembling"-->with an opening crawl that resembles
  • "After briefly encountering the Empire here" Where is "here"?

It's actually pretty good. I will probably support after finishing my review. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected everything except the "they" remark. What do you think about using "he/she" instead? And what's with the "actually pretty good"?? Don't act so surprised! ;) P.S. Thanks for the help on my Tokyo list, and thanks for the help here! --TorsodogTalk 05:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, just messing around :) I will return for the rest later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. This is quite rough, and needs a thorough copyedit before it can go any further. A sample of what I found just in the lead and first heading follows. These are only examples—please get someone to go through the whole text.
    • "... the game primarily takes place between the events ..." Suggest "the game is set primarily between the events"
      • Done
    • The Development section isn't represented in the lead.. why?
      • It is subtly integrated into the lead. For example, I discuss the Expansion Pak and its comic book inspiration. And the article's lead is also structured based on all other video game FA, which do not discuss the game's development at great length.
    • "As the player progresses through the game, they are introduced to sixteen missions, each with objectives that the player must complete to pass the level." Subject/verb agreement. Also, confusing.. "introduced" to missions? Levels? Are they missions or levels?
      • This was discussed a bit above. I changed to "he/she is". Also just changed missions to levels to avoid confusion.
    • "These missions can be roughly divided into four categories" Same issue as with "game primarily takes" above.. don't insert that adverb there. Revise please.
      • I don't really understand what your issue is with this sentence. Do you just want "roughly" moved after the verb? If so, done.
    • "Five craft are offered to the player to control" Why not just "The player can control five craft"?
      • I'm pretty sure this sentence has been CE a few times by other editors until it became what it is now. I just changed the sentence to your suggestion instead.
    • "Each vehicle has its own characteristics that consist of primary lasers, secondary weapons, speed, and maneuverability." Speed and maneuv. might be characteristics, but lasers certainly are weapons, or features, etc.
      • Greatly simplified: "Each vehicle offers a unique armament arrangement and varying degrees of speed and maneuverability."
    • "When collected, these bonuses improve a craft's weapons or shield ..." We've not been told about a "shield" yet. What is a shield?
      • Changed to "durability".
    • "The player's performance is tracked throughout the game." Make active voice and describe how/where/who.
      • Changed to "The game tracks the player's performance." Not quite sure what kind of description you want, however...
    • "Each benchmark consists of five categories: completion time, enemies destroyed, accuracy, friendly saves, and bonuses collected." These mean very little with no context or explanation.
      • Changed to "completion time, number of enemies destroyed, shot accuracy, number of friendly craft and structures saved and number of bonuses collected."
--Laser brain (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had several people go through the whole text. IMO, I think you are being a bit harsh when you say the article is "a bit rough." Honestly, you corrected the most complicated part of the article, and I thank you for your help. I believe the other sections are more straight forward, and I would appreciate if you could quickly look though those as well and provide suggestions as well (if you have time, of course!) --TorsodogTalk 06:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harsh? No, I'm sorry. You're getting constructive criticism—that is the purpose of FAC. As I said, this article needs an effective copyedit, and I will not delineate all the issues here. FAC is not a peer review/copyedit service. --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no need to get annoyed... Really not that big of a deal. Like I said, thanks for the help. I've requested the help of user:scartol for copy editing. Please check back when he is finished. --TorsodogTalk 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much improved—struck my oppose above. --Laser brain (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check of the development section
    • "that many considered the display a tech demo." Source says "As Tosti told us, the demo on display at the show was little more than a tech demo" Tosti != "many"
      • Changed "many" to "Brett Tosti"
    • "Despite the incompleteness of the game's E3 demo, the response from gamers was largely positive." Need to do more than just switch a few words when summarizing a source. Other sentences from this section also skirt quite closely to the sources.
    • "During development, Factor 5 appealed to Nintendo..." Missing citations for the beginning of this paragraph.
      • Added GS source
    • "As with the game's plot, LucasFilm was hesitant to allow..." Illogical connector, seeing as how the sound designer has nothing to do with the plot.
      • You are right, it is a clumsy connecter, but not illogical. I was trying to connect the fact that LucasFilm didn't allow to draw from the films' plot or the films' audio. I simply removed the connector all together as it was unnecessary anyways.
    • "a large quantity" Vague.
      • Changed to "over 80 minutes"
    • Besides the mention of E3 1998, there's not a single other date to establish some temporal context of the game's development (and when during 1998 was E3?). When did development start? You have "At the time," and "At that time,"; too bad readers have no idea what that means.
      • I do not know the exact time development started. I added release date of Shadows to give the readers some reference of time. Added "In May 1998" for the E3 sentence.
    • "Stember quipped..." I don't see how this is in any way a quip. BuddingJournalist 16:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seemed to me that Stember was trying to be humorous with this remark. I'll just change it though to "stated" though. --TorsodogTalk 17:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my cursory look on LexisNexis, there was an AP article that mentioned that the game was part of a bidding war between Nintendo and Sony over the rights to license video games prior to the release of Phantom Menace. Seems like something worth mentioning. BuddingJournalist 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, sounds interesting! I couldn't access the exact AP article, but I found a similar article detailing the same agreement here. I will integrate it into this article ASAP. Thanks for the heads up! --TorsodogTalk 20:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've done a thorough copyedit of this article. Hopefully my efforts will assuage some reviewers' concerns about the prose. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 20:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Image criterion. I'm not seeing how File:Rogue squadron naboo.JPG is anything other than decorative; how does this significantly help readers understand anything beyond "this craft became unlockable"? The captions for the other images are asinine and lack info on what readers are actually seeing; that reviewers commented is all well in good but I haven't the foggiest what gameplay aspects are being represented, et al, which are much more important components for reader understanding, I believe. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the image is not meant to only depict gameplay, it is meant to show readers the much commented about graphics (ie, player craft, enemy craft, etc.). Therefore the caption explaining that the image is displayin an important and much-talked about aspect of the game is relevant and not "asinine" at all. I can be more specific about what kind of graphical detail was praised, if you'd like. --TorsodogTalk 23:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The critical reception is all well and good, but the image doesn't tell me anything about what's going on; all it's doing right now is letting us say "graphics are pretty". Tell someone who's never played the game what gameplay elements are being shown; otherwise move the image to reception because it's not aiding reader comprehension where it is. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Fuchs Gary King (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mostly take issue with where the image is placed? That I can completely understand. I moved the image to the reception section and made the caption a bit more specific. Let me know what you think! I also removed the Naboo Starfighter image for now because I tend to agree there is really no need for it. I requested Awadewit's opinion on the issue also. --TorsodogTalk 07:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have two non-free images illustrating different elements; in Elcobbola's words, this is an opportunity for consolidation; an image showing both the fog and the visuals would mean only one image is needed rather than two. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Man, images are the bane of my Featured Existence! I tried to consolidate with the distance fog image already by showing both the cockpit view and the distance fog. The other image shows the game's models as well as gameplay. Do you think there is a way I would be able to keep both images by mentioning all of these elements in the captions? If not, I might simply removed the distance fog image as it is much easier to take that screen if I need it in the future, and I believe it to be much less important than the other image. --TorsodogTalk 16:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I don't see why both images cant be used. Why cant you move the first image back to gameplay and then have the caption explain the HUD and such. After all, this pic is necessary because it is the only one showing actual gameplay. The other image gives readers visual comprehension of distance fog, a common criticism of the game, and is reason to be included. It seems straightforward to me and doesn't need to be complicated. -- Noj r (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it's feasible the images could be combined to meet minimal usage as proscribed by fair use. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all but one none-free image. I believe this image to be the most important of all the non-free images because it depictes the game's core gameplay. Sometime in the future I will possibly try to incorporate distance fog into this image, but as it stands I believe all image concerns should be resolved now. --TorsodogTalk 02:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had always felt that Torsodog's first edits to the article vastly improved it and made it a GA or better; I urged Torsodog to send it up the "ranks" ("!ranks"?) from there to a GA or FA. I was surprised by all the Opposes and comments given through its PR, GAN and FAC; I've thought it was always a well-written, well-referenced, and engaging read, but I learn every day.

In any case, I think it evenly covers its four main topics (Gameplay, Synopsis, ...), doesn't have sourcing problems, uses non-free images sparingly, and reflects what I've experienced playing the game and seeing the sources. It's an example, in my eyes, of great article development for one about a well-known game. (I think my involvement in actually writing the article has been minimal—mostly copyedits, rewording, and technical stuff—but if not, consider this a late co-nomination or something.) --an odd name 04:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I would've supported this after my review back in December, so there's no reason for me to not support it now, especially after the recent improvements.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the toolbox; there are no dabs but a couple dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to switch to wayback archives for Game Rankings pages, and trimmed the truncating FindArticles url. There was a connection timeout message regarding an Allgame link, but a second check didn't reproduce it. --an odd name 06:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Game Rankings has been down for a few days for maintenance, it should be up again soon. -- Sabre (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 18:42, 21 February 2009 [38].

USS Connecticut (BB-18)[edit]

Nominator(s): the_ed17

Connecticut was a battleship that was obsolete soon after her commissioning; however, she was still the flagship of the Great White Fleet. This fleet returned to the U.S. on 22 February 1909. Do you see why I am nominating this? :) Any and all comments are welcome. Special thanks go to (in no particular order): Maralia and Bellhalla for copyediting and formatting, La Pianista and User:Milkbreath for copyediting, and TomStar81 for writing the lead. Thanks guys (and gals :)! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am taking part in the WikiCup. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I will not put an objection at this time. However, the dates are not put in the American style as required by the MoS for American pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The US Military uses the international D-M-Y style. See the other ship FAs: USS Iowa (BB-61), USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), USS Wisconsin (BB-64), USS Nevada (BB-36), etc. -MBK004 01:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the US Military isn't a separate language per MoS, so I don't know if that is acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm the man behind nearly all of the Iowa class battleship FAs, and I can tell you that no one objects to the format used, so its ok. Even Raul654 and SandyGeorga have never voiced a complaint over it. I therefore think that under the circumstances this is not a cause for concern. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • With the recent problems over linked dating and date formatting, I would like to see it added to the MoS to cover all bases. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, but I can't read minds: can you clarify what "it" is in the above statement? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
              • "The US Military uses the international D-M-Y style" Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ottava, there is ample consensus for U.S. military articles, especially for ship articles (the category with which I am most familiar), to use dmy formatting. Presented as evidence of this, the list that follows, containing Featured Articles on U.S. Navy and/or military-related ships (i.e. "American" topics) that use the dmy format. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. military-related ship FAs using dmy date format
                • I think I wasn't clear - I would like the MoS on dating to include a notice about the military formatting. I did not see one when I last checked. MoS (wide community) tends to trump WikiProjects on the matter. Please initiate the appropriate changes so this wont be a concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I haven't seen anyone else raise this objection at any of the FACs that I have initiated (nine from the list above). To me, that seems more of a site-wide consensus than merely a WikiProject consensus. If it is that much of a concern to you, I would suggest that you initiate the changes. From my view, consensus strongly supports the current date style. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is already reflected in WP:MOSNUM#Strong national ties to a topic: "articles on the modern U.S. military often use day before month, in accordance with usage in that field." Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but the term "modern" is mostly used to refer to post Vietnam. This ship was decommissioned in 1923. Hence, the problem. Perhaps the line should be altered or have a second sentence added to allow for this? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright Violation Concerns: Found here, these are also part of the current diff. The whole article will need to be checked, or at least passages citing Albertson, Mark (2007). U.S.S. Connecticut: Constitution State Battleship. Mustang, Oklahoma: Tate Publishing. This is not a Public Domain source and is copyrighted in the United States. Limited previews are available via Google Books to cross check wording. I noticed the issue because there was a flair to the language that is used commonly by those trying to spice up a history for mass market and rarely is used naturally on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ottava, I must respectfully disagree; I've read through three paragraphs, and found nothing to suggest that there are, indeed, copyright violations. I believe you are overanalyzing the information. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The quoted passages contain the very definition of a copyright violation. Lets break one down: Your version: "Based out of Philadelphia, Connecticut trained midshipman for the next eleven months." and the original version "Connecticut spent the next eleven months based out of Philadelphia training midshipmen". "Based out of Philadelphia" is a phrase that may be able to be put on its own if you could claim not to have seen this source. However, you link to the source and use the rest of the sentence in there. You cannot reuse phrases. That is a copyright violation. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your assertion, Ottava, of "copyright violation" is off base. If entire paragraphs or sections of the article were copied word-for-word, that would be a copyright violation. What you described would be plagiarism, if true, and, since the phrase in question was changed some nine hours (if I'm calculating the UTC times correctly) before you posted your comment, may be moot. By the way, several editors, myself included, have copy-edited this article, and while I can't speak for any of the others, I did not have, nor did I access online, the Albertson work. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Any copyright problem is a problem and means that this cannot be an FA. Any sentences lifted from a source in this manner is a problem. This needs to be fixed immediately. By having some, the rest needs to be checked. If you want, I can go through every sentence and every paragraph and find out just how much phrasing is taken out of the sources without quoting them properly. Furthermore, when I looked at the current diff as posted above when I posted, the copyright problem was still there. I -randomly- chose a section and a source to find and I found that. I will check again in a few days and comb through the rest of the page. If I find any more lifted text, I will be upset. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Please don't think I'm trying to trivialize or minimize your objections. Both copyright violations and plagiarism are legitimate reasons to oppose an FAC. However, In this case, from what evidence you have presented there is clearly not a copyright violation. (I struck part of my previous comment. I see now that you were giving an example from the version referenced in your earlier post.) — Bellhalla (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering! For obvious reasons, it would be crucial to know if there is any more text that is 'too close' to the book; so while it is my opinion that there are no more plagiarism violations, it would be good thing to check and get over this hump. Thanks again and cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright law normally regards the same wording for three or more consecutive words in a work known to the composer of the lines as copyright infringment. As I have demonstrated above, not only was this the case, but phrases were simply reorganized and kept the infringing material. As someone who has to keep the eye out for copyrighted material, I know that a student, presenting the work, might get a second chance if what I presented above was the only content present that copied the phrasing. However, anything else would be an expulsion from the school. Wikipedia is more giving and allows people the chance to fix the writing. I am mostly posting this because it needs to be fixed regardless if its an FAC or not. Please check through the phrasing and make sure that duplicate phrases do not exist. Also, a good rule of thumb is that one sentence in Wikipedia should be a summary of one paragraph from a text at most. This would force you to condense and create an original summation instead of having the opportunity of using similar phrasing. A good essay on the matter is Wikipedia:Quotations. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava, feel free to go through it, however, I do not believe that there are any more problems. My thoughts were nicely summarized by Bellhalla: "while it is certainly best to not duplicate any sentences or phrases verbatim, I honestly don't see anything so unique about the phrases given as examples that they could only have come from the source." This is my view on this also. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Error - "The battleship captains paid their respects to President Theodore Roosevelt on the presidential yacht Mayflower, and all the ships weighed anchor and departed at 10:00. They passed in review before the President, and then began south." According to this, the source, the presidential ship "passed in review", not their ships, and that this happened before/during they paid their respects to the President. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More - Citation for "After stopping at Manila in the Philippines, the fleet set course for Yokohama, Japan. They encountered a typhoon on the way on 12 October, but no ships were lost; the fleet was only delayed 24 hours." should be 57-58 and not p. 57. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

  • File:USS Connecticut BB-18.jpg is not likely {{PD-USGov-Navy}} or {{PD-USGov}}. Photographer, Fred W. Kelsey, is not a military personel,[39] and the Naval Historical Center only obtained the photo through the courtesy of R.W. Cunningham in 1971.[40] Perhaps contact with the NHC to find out the copyright status of this picture specifically would be best. Was the copyrights transferred from Kelsey to Cunningham to NHC, who declare it public domain? Was the picture published before 1923? Did Kelsey pass away before 1938? Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:PostcardUSSConnecticutBB18pre1922.jpg has no verifiable publishing date or source to verify if it is public domain...
    • Whoops, replaced with File:USS Connecticut (BB 8) transferring.jpg. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The new picture might also not be {{PD-USGov-Navy}}. It was donated by Dr. Mark Kulikowski, who might be the Professor of Polish History on Google searches. The picture could have been taken by a journalist or former-soldier and passed down from generation to generation or sold on the collector's market until it reached Kulikowski's hands. As such, per above, clarification would have to be sought with the NHC on why it is in public domain. Jappalang (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All other images have been checked and corrected to reflect an indisputable public domain status. Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First image replaced with an okay image. Second image and its replacement removed. New image, File:12-45 mk5 Connecticut gun pic.jpg, has its license verified by OTRS. All images okay. Jappalang (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well Written, Well Cited, Well Done. No complaints on this end. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent detail, prose, sourcing, illustrations - well done. Minor queries/suggestions:
    • Design: "The main armor would be thinner because armor would be distributed throughout the ship." Do we mean "evenly distributed"? If so, think it helps to add that.
      • I don't think that it was evenly distributed, as it "tapered off" towards the bow and stern.
    • Early career: "Connecticut sailed out of New York and into the ocean for the first time on 15 December 1906". I don't think "and into the ocean" adds much and would happily see it deleted; if you feel you need something there, how "and into open sea" or some such?
      • Removed.
    • Flagship of the Great White Fleet: Don't know that Roosevelt needs to be linked in successive sections (here and in Early career).
      • De-linked.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NocturneNoir (talk · contribs)

  • "she was the last lead ship of any class of pre-dreadnought battleship commissioned by the United States Navy." -> Battleship should be plural.
  • "Connecticut served as a flagship for the Jamestown Exposition commemorating the 300th anniversary of the founding of the Jamestown colony." seems to imply to me that there were multiple Jamestown Expositions and that the one the Connecticut participated in commemorated the 300th anniversary. Try "Connecticut served as a flagship for the Jamestown Exposition, which commemorated the 300th anniversary of the founding of the Jamestown colony."
  • "Connecticut participated in several flag-waving exercises intended to protect American citizens abroad, until she was pressed into service as a troop transport at the end of World War I to expedite the return of American Expeditionary Forces from France." Comma is unnecessary.
  • "The design that evolved into the Connecticut-class battleship was conceived on 6 March 1901 when the Secretary of the Navy[who?] asked the Board on Construction for a study of future battleship designs."
  • "The Board on Construction favored a ship on which 6-inch (150 mm) and 8-inch (200 mm) guns would be replaced by twenty-four newly designed 7-inch (180 mm) guns, which were the most powerful guns whose shells could be handled by one person" -> "whose"? Are guns people now? Maybe "the most powerful guns with shells that could be handled by one person."
  • In general, the prose from the "Design" section is a bit choppy due to the overuse of the sentence structure as follows: "The blah blah blah..."
  • "This[clarification needed] was later rejected because the reduction in anti-torpedo boat guns was too drastic."
  • "the debate was not ended" -> "the debate was still not over." I would also just end the sentence there instead of using a hyphen to break up two independent clauses.
  • "with three more added on 2 March 1903:" -> "and three more were added on 2 March 1903:"
  • "Connecticut was named as the official host for the vessels that were visiting from other countries." I always thought it was "host of" but I may be mistaken.
  • "They passed in review before the President, and then began south." -> "Then began traveling south."
  • "They approached Puerto Rico on the 20th, caught sight of Venezuela on the 22nd, and later dropped anchor in Port of Spain, the capital of Trinidad,[36] making the first port visit of the Great White Fleet.", yet "Port-of-Spain had a total of 32 U.S. Navy ships in the harbor, making it "[resemble] a U.S. Navy base."" Is it Port of Spain or Port-of-Spain?
  • "Connecticut next visited Cherbourg, France, where she welcomed visitors from the town and also hosted the commander-in-chief of the French Navy[who?] and a delegation of his officers"
  • "After visiting all four, they[who?] made their way back through the canal and headed for home."
  • Refs 9-11 have messed up appearances due to usage of [].

NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 03:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Everything should be done except for the French Naval commander - I have no idea who he is. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Made a mistake on my review, thanks to Matisse for catching that one. Anyway, my concerns have been covered (few people will care about a random French Naval commander), so I will support. Good work. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 04:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Everything has been addressed, an excellent and informative article. -MBK004 06:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've read through about half of the article (haven't gotten to the rest yet, due to time constraints) and this appears to be a well-written, well-researched article. I hope this gets promoted in time for the February 22 TFA. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 07:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Excellent article. One point though:
    • "Connecticut then led all of these warships around Tail-of-the-Horseshoe Lightship on 22 February to pass in review of President Roosevelt, then anchored off Old Point Comfort" - the current wording makes it sound like Roosevelt himself was anchored off Old Point Comfort. Perhaps it'd be better to split the sentence after Roosevelt. Parsecboy (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [41].

Ozzie Smith[edit]

Nominator(s): Monowi
previous FAC (01:21, 3 August 2008)

After two peer reviews and work on NPOV and copyediting, I believe this article now meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Monowi (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
File:Ozzie Smith suit.jpg and File:Ozzie Smith Doubleday.JPG are pretty much okay (although it would be nice to have the uncropped image of Ozzie Smith suit.jpg with EXIF). However,

To any future editors who may read this, I've made a personal choice not to post the uncropped Ozzie Smith suit picture. Sorry! Monowi (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ozzie Smith statue part.jpg requires a stronger rationale than just "shows his statue". This is based on the Significance criteria of WP:NFC. If the image is just to "show his statue", then obviously removing it from the article would not be detrimental, since the text has said that a statue of Smith exists. One way to beef the rationale would be to "show a statue of Smith in his trademark style/pose/action or most memorable moment" and expand from there. This, however, has to be backed up by reliable sources and mentioned in the text (as critical analysis). For the moment, this image can serve as an identifying picture for an article of its own (Statue of Ozzie Smith), but seems decorative in the article about Smith.
Use of the beefed-up rationale you have kindly suggested might be a bit challenging to pull off in the article. I have references that can confirm Smith's trademark to be his backflips, but of course that's not what this statue depicts. I wonder; would it be acceptable to alter the rationale by saying the statue is representative of his defensive skills via this action pose, and using a reference that cites him being a proficient defensive player? I am interested to hear any thoughts on this matter. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect what you need is to integrate more information from the "Cardinals Unveil Ozzie Smith Statue" newspiece, specifically what pose the statue is in and why the sculptor chose that pose, into the article. That will serve as critical commentary, and in the rationale for the statue, state what aspects of the pose it is supposed to capture that words could not fully express, and it might work. Jappalang (talk) 09:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have altered the text of the "Post-playing career" section of Smith's article, and the rationale on the image's page in an attempt to execute your excellent suggestion. Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tidied up the image page and further strengthened the rationale.[42] Jappalang (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! Thanks! Monowi (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ozzie sidewalk.JPG seems to be incorrectly licensed. The statue's photo could not be a "free" image because there is no "freedom of panorama" in the US. This tablet is a work of art. It is engraved in stone (thus 3-D piece of art) and there is the top logo (birds, baseballs, and bats) and the copyrighted Mastercard logo to be concerned with.
Thanks for pointing this out. I had been wondering about it since it was mentioned in the article's previous peer review. I plan to re-post & re-license the picture under non-free use within the next day. Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the license for the picture to non-free use art. The current revision of the rationale is admittedly not strong, as I will probably need to take the ideas used to update the above picture and use them here. Since the picture can't be licensed under GNU, my instinct is to remove the picture from the article, as I feel the picture of the sidewalk paver/stone didn't add that much to the article in the first place. I'm interested to hear what other editors think. Should this picture stay in the article or be removed? Monowi (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the tablet can be blockquoted in text, hence an image of it would be decorative. Jappalang (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Picture removed. I agree with your comments above. Not only is it simply decorative, it doesn't make much sense to include this particular picture in the article under the non-free use rationale. Monowi (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:CardsRetired1.PNG might be incorrectly licensed as well (though very likely free). Would a border around a simple number constitute enough artistic creativity to void {{PD-text}}? If not, then {{PD-text}} should be the license for this image.
This illustration was part of the article prior to my first edits to the article in 2007, posted by User:Silent Wind of Doom. I agree that {{PD-text}} would be more appropriate in this case, but I feel wary of changing the license of another user's creation. I will attempt to contact User:Silent Wind of Doom about this issue. Monowi (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with any changes, however looking at this now (my second such work, after the Yankees ones) I see that all of them are woefully innacurate and just plain bad. I'm currently rehauling the images, which will be more than numbers with borders. Should be done by tomorrow night at the latest.The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The changes have now been made. I don't have the best knowledge of the vaious lisences, so if you feel that there should now be a change, just tell me, and such a change will be made.The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Silent Wind of Doom, but you cannot upload that version.[43] It is a derivative work of the wall itself (due to the artwork of Smith in action in the background).[44] That would be a copyviolation. I advise you to revert all such changes and call for an administrator to remove those versions from the history. Jappalang (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as copyvios (derivative works). Jappalang (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutered versions of the retired number imags have been uploaded. Sorry for the delay, but it's been busy. The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting feedback and comments. Jappalang (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the present moment, only one image issue remains, the retired card number. I am tagging the images for copyright violations as derivative works. Jappalang (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone weigh in on whether the new images can qualify for PD-text? Jappalang (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldy tagged the retired number as PD-text, so the image issues are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

Ref #117 (all-century team final voting) is dead. Other refs check out error-wise. Wizardman 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link for current reference #117 has been replaced, and now works correctly. Thanks for taking the time to review the sources. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - As someone who has reviewed this in the past, I'm quite impressed with it. A few prose nit-picks in the first few sections, but it's a good read overall.

  • Link National League on its first use.
Done. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and also won the National League Silver Slugger Award as the best hitter at shortstop in 1987." That will get rid of some wordiness.
Done. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life: "moving in closer to reduce reaction time with each throw.[8]When..." Space needed.
Done. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give the full name of the NBA in this section, as opposed to just using initials.
Done. It does make the sentence a bit longer, but it is worth it for users who might not be familiar with NBA. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • San Diego Padres: I doubt the American dollar needs to be linked.
Ok by me; wikilink removed. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the second Padres link to help cut down on the number of repetitive links.
Wow, I didn't even know that was there. Thanks for pointing that out! Done. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth paragraph of Padres section: One instance of "get" and one of "got". I'd change the first to "record" and the second to "entered" or similar. Those would be more formal language, which is always better.
A great suggestion; done. Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Yuma Daily Sun is (was) a printed publication, it should be given in italics. Check for this in the references too.
Italics added. My cited reference can confirm the Yuma Daily Sun was a printed publication at the time it did the specific article about Smith. Thanks again for pointing it out; it really helps to have another set of eyes look over things! Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delink the dates in a couple of the references.
Could you possibly help point out examples of this in the article? Right now the only date links I see are for links from specific years to articles detailing specific MLB seasons. For instance, I've wikilinked "1985" to 1985 St. Louis Cardinals season. I have removed wikilinks to seasons Smith did not play in, such as 1997 & 1999 in the "Post-playing career" section.
Actually, I meant the links for access dates in references 106 and 123, and the publication date in the latter. The year links for teams and seasons are an entirely seperate debate. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Date links removed. Wow, my mistake for misunderstanding your original comment! Monowi (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to come back and read more later when these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look over the article so far. I really appreciate it! Monowi (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bad part about having a limited number of active reviews is that I often find myself waiting for something to do. The good part is that nominators get fast return visits from me. Here's a second round.
  • Trade: Consider linking no-trade clause. I find that phrases like this, which could be considered jargon, are good candidates for explanatory links.
Done. I remember trying to previously wikilink a long time ago; guess the article hadn't been created yet when I last checked! Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1982 season: Consider adding a best of seven disclaimer for the World Series. This might be confusing for non-baseball fans who have just read about the shorter playoff series. Also, check to see if "best of five" in the LCS should have hyphens. A similar usage later has them.
Hyphens & "best-of-seven" text added. I found an MLB.com article here[45]that used the hypens, so I went with that. Monowi (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • En dash for 3-1 score in Game 7 of the World Series.
I honestly can't tell the difference between the dashes, so I hope I put the right one in. Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go crazy folks: Flip wrist broken to broken wrist.
Done. Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think Busch Stadium needs a link there, with one in a prior section.
Done. Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the Cardinals took a 3-games-to-2 advantage". Consider changing the numbers to words. Numbers less than 10 are usually spelled out, but editors have differing opinions on this. Note that the "2 for 23" earlier is fine, since it's a compound element. No, this isn't confusing at all. :-)
Done. I originally had the numbers written out, but they were apparently changed by another editor somewhere along the way. Monowi (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another en dash for "July 11-14", when Smith tore his rotator cuff.
Done. Monowi (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I'll be doing something new in this FAC. When I provide further comments, I'll be doing so on a talk page to avoid clogging up FAC any more than necessary. Of course, I'll provide a link here for the convenience of everyone involved. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concluded my review on talk page. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can feel free to view the talk page listed above to see how the remaining outstanding issues in Giants2008's review were addressed. Monowi (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was around for the second of the article's two FACs, and the improvement in quality between then and now is quite noticeable. After a large amount of work, in the previous FACs and here, I think it's ready. The talk page review is done too, for anyone interested. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do that; your help is appreciated! Monowi (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely good article with top-nouch sourcing. I have a few comments before I could support this article. I'm not going to comment on grammar and so fourth, as that's my weakness.
  1. I personally think the Amos Otis growing up in his neighborhood is irrelevant, unless Otis helped influence Smith's baseball career.
    I re-read the new combined paragraph without the Amos Otis sentence, and I agree it's far from vital to include that sentence. I probably threw it in there to get a three sentence paragraph back when I first started editing the article. Monowi (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What got him into baseball, the early life doesn't mention that?
    I've added in a sentence that addresses this topic. The sentence reads, "Smith played a variety of sports in his youth, but considered baseball to be his "favorite."" Adding in this sentence gave me a chance to split the first part of the "Early life" section into two paragraphs as well. Monowi (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In high school and college, did he made receive any awards playing baseball, All-American or All-District for example? (skip if he didn't)
    I used current reference #14 (cal-poly) to note that in fact he was named an All-American during his college career. This was a great suggestion, it really adds an significant piece of info to the article. Thanks! Monowi (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A sentence on why the Padres and Tigers decided to draft Smith, did he had some sort of special skill (obvious to us baseball fans but not to the average non-baseball fan reader) to get him drafted this high.
    I don't have a direct reference about the thought process of either the Tigers or Padres in drafting Smith. Mention of Smith's All-American status in college, not to mention the school records he set, seem to be the best evidence that can currently be offered as to why the Tigers and Padres drafted him. If anyone can find a reference or two that can address this issue, it would be very welcome. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. When did Smith and his wife gets married?
    Short of finding their marriage certificate, I don't have a concrete reference for the year they married, so I decided not to include a specific date in the article. My research for the article leads me to believe it was around 1981, but as I said, with no reference to back it up, I'm kinda stuck on this one. Monowi (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a source that it's in October/November 1980 http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/684993992.html?dids=684993992:684993992&FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:AI&date=Nov+25%2C+1980&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Padres%2C+as+Good+as+Gold+at+Short%2C+Go+After+Catcher&pqatl=google but I don't have access to those archives, maybe if someone can? Secret account 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Stats would be nice for his second place in ROY, just like how you provide stats for his Silver Slugger Award season.
    I added his 1978 batting average and fielding percentage into the text, with the accompanying citation. Sorry I've been slow addressing these new comments, I'll get to everything as soon as I can. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. What happened to the 1985 and most of the 1986 regular season?
    I added a sentence about Ozzie's performance during 1985 by citing his stats for that season. As for 1986, I think between mention of his son doing the Opening Day backflip, and the description of his diving play, 1986 is adeqeatly covered. Monowi (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "From 1993 onwards, injuries started to creep up on Smith." What injuries did he get in 1993? Also by the sentence it seems to the reader that he was also injured in 1994, but he played what seems to me a complete season only missing about 10 games.
    Thanks for pointing this out. After reviewing this issue, it was clearly a weak point of the article. After further research, I removed the "From 1993 onwards..." sentence in the lead, and instead mentioned that he missed nearly three months of 1995 after his shoulder surgery. I also replaced a reference from ESPN that listed his stats with a specific one from Retrosheet that listed what games Smith made an offensive appearance in during the 1995 season. Definitely check out both the last paragraph of the lead section and the second paragraph of the "Torre era" section to view the changes. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Why the divorce from his wife?
    That's a great question, one that I wish I could answer. Any comments I could make about that would simply be conjecture, because I don't have a reference for this specific issue. Even some of the more recent references cited in the article tend to overlook or dance around the issue. Monowi (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Did he had success from his business ventures or did it failed?
I added some new info into the paragraph about his business ventures, including a sentence that mentions both his sports bar and youth sports academy are still operating as of 2009, backed up with references. Monowi (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks Secret account 21:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Overall this is a great article, however I have one caveat. "While Smith was attending junior high school, his parents decided to divorce.[5] A Los Angeles Dodgers fan during his childhood, Smith would ride the bus for nearly an hour to get to Dodger Stadium, attending about 25 games a year.[5] Upon becoming a student at Locke High School, Smith played on the basketball and baseball teams." The sentence on the Dodgers feel out of place thrown in between middle and high school. If it was intertwined a little better with the childhood section of the article I would support this as an FA. Wizardman 17:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-phrased the sentence mentioning Smith's attendance at Dodger games in the following way: "Continuing to pursue his interest in baseball, Smith would ride the bus for nearly an hour to reach Dodger Stadium, cheering for the Los Angeles Dodgers at about 25 games a year." I think this phrasing works well because the previous paragraph now mentions Smith's interest in sports, and that baseball was his favorite sport during his youth. Monowi (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I'll give the article a final look through tomorrow, and support if I find no concerns. (I keep putting this article on the backburner though i really want to read it) Wizardman 06:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. This looks OK, but I quickly got mired in prose issues indicative of article-wide problems. Below are samples; please get someone to go through the whole article and look for other instances. I see that you had two peer reviews, but they don't look very substantive.
    • Is the backflip thing really important enough to mention in the lead?
Yes, I believe it is vital to mention Smith's backflip trademark in the lead section. I would assert that Smith's backflip brought him more fame than some other aspects of his baseball career. To demonstrate the importance of the backfilp, I can cite his Baseball Hall of Fame plaque[46], which mentions the backflip. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When turmoil with Padres' ownership developed ..." Do you mean conflict?
No, I don't. According to Webster's definition, turmoil is, "a state or condition of extreme confusion, agitation, or commotion." Indeed, it was the extreme agitation the Padres felt from Ed Gottlieb's antics (like taking out a help-wanted ad) that makes the use of the word turmoil appropriate in this instance. In fact, the article later mentions that Padres General Manager Jack McKeon expressed how agitating Gottlieb was, telling Whitey Herzog it was part of the reason the Padres were now willing to trade Smith. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misread this. I thought you meant turmoil between ownership and Smith. But you mean turmoil among several people, correct? Can you reword to "When turmoil among the Padres' organization developed ..." or similar? --Laser brain (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by using "turmoil" the sentence is conveying conflict among several people, but you make a good point that the sentence isn't phrased to explicitly express that. With that in mind, I'm hesitant to have to explain that the turmoil was between Padres ownership & the combination of Smith & his agent, especially when the goal is to make the lead concise. In that sense, use of the word "conflict" would be more appropriate because it would still accurately describe the relations between Smith and the organization at that time, and leave the more detailed antics of Gottlieb to the body of the article. So, I replaced "turmoil" with the word "conflict" in both the lead and later in the article. Thanks for the tip, and the healthy discussion. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Born in Mobile, Alabama, Smith was the second of six children (five boys and one girl) born to his parents Clovis and Marvella Smith." This needs revision so there are not two "borns"
Done. New sentence reads, "Smith was born in Mobile, Alabama, the second of Clovis and Marvella Smith's six children (five boys and one girl)." Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... while his mother became an aide at an Armenian nursing home." This suggests the nursing home was either in Armenia or somehow of Armenian ownership, which I'm sure wasn't the case.
To simplify things, I removed the word "Armenian" from that sentence, which is fine because the inclusion of that word wasn't exactly relevant to the article anyway. Monowi (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Developing quick reflexes through leisure activity, Smith would bounce a ball off the concrete steps in front of his house, moving in closer to reduce reaction time with each throw." This is oddly worded, suggesting he developed the reflexes and then did the bouncing. Also, in the lead you say "athletic activity" and here you say "leisure activity". Those aren't really the same thing.
I changed the sentence you refer to in the "Early life" section to read, "Smith developed quick reflexes through various athletic and leisure activity, such as bouncing a ball off the concrete steps in front of his house, moving in closer to reduce reaction time with each throw." Do you believe this is an appropriate way to phrase this sentence, and I was also wondering your opinion on keeping the phrase "athletic activity" unaltered in the lead section in light of this sentence revision. Any comments from editors are welcome too. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are too many sentences with the same structure: "Developing quick reflexes via childhood athletic activities, Smith played ...", "Drafted as an amateur player by the San Diego Padres, Smith made ...", "Developing quick reflexes through leisure activity, Smith would ..."
    • "Smith went on to be named an All-American athlete" For any such phrase, "Smith was named" is much simpler and cleaner.
That's a great suggestion. I took the extra step of re-phrasing the sentence so that it now reads, "Later named an All-American athlete, Smith established school records in career at-bats (754) and career stolen bases (110) before graduating in 1977." Is this wording ok, or would you suggest another approach to phrasing this particular sentence? Monowi (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Smith credited Padre manager ..." You say "Padres" everywhere else - why not here?
It appears I missed that typo in my previous read-through, but it's now fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll try to continue to try & address the other outstanding points with the spare time I can manage to find. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. After finally getting around to reading this article, I am satisfied with how it is. It reads very well, the quote boxes are used well, and right spots are accentuated, and there's not too much statistical information thrown in, which I would actually consider a positive, since it shows that there has not been any unnecessary padding in the article. I'd liek to see more of that, yes, but it's not really necessary, as this article was very enjoyable to read. Wizardman 05:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [47].

SS Kroonland[edit]

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

This is an article about a 1902 ocean liner, SS Kroonland, that was, at the time of her building, the largest ship ever constructed in the United States. During her 25-year career she was the first ship to use wireless while in distress; she was one of eleven ships that came to the aid of the burning liner Volturno in the North Atlantic (for which some of her crew were awarded Congressional Gold Medals); for a time, she held the record as the largest passenger ship to transit the Panama Canal; and she was attacked in World War I by a German submarine whose torpedoes failed to detonate.

The article passed a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should prob. wait until your other nomination has some supports; that's generally the rule... I've had Sandy yell at me before. :( JonCatalán(Talk) 05:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've had two simultaneous FACs before, so I wasn't aware of any unwritten rules about multiple nominations. If it's, indeed, a problem, holding off on this one would be OK by me. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an unwritten rule, it is a written rule. Please see the third paragraph of the instructions, above.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bellhalla's FACs are usually clean and don't require extensive work (as in, images, sources, copyediting, MoS): I'm Ok with both continuing, as the noms aren't usually hard on reviewer time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I swear I had done both of those before, they should both be fixed now. I've also replaced "p." with "pp." for all page ranges in references (I'm bad about that), per your edit summary for this edit. There are quite a few page references for the early Los Angeles Times that may appear to be page ranges, like "I-3", but that's the notation for section Roman numeral I, page 3. I had used a hyphen to keep references from being confused for a different number, like 13 in this case. If this looks too much like a page range as is, I'm open to ideas to help alleviate the ambiguity. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — all images are in the public domain or appropriately licensed, except the following:

A bureaucratic hassle but something that has to be worked out to ensure a correct license is applied. Licensing experts please weigh in and help. Jappalang (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The license on the first photo has been updated to {{PD-US}} as it was published on 19 March 1917 in the Los Angeles Times. (pdf available via e-mail for anyone so interested.)
  • I can find no corresponding pre-1923 publication of the camouflage image (which I really hate to lose), but I have replaced it with another suitable (and suitably licensed, I hope) image.
Thanks for taking the time to review the images. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bellhalla's actions, all image issues have been addressed. Jappalang (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came to this article expecting to enter a Support, as Bellhalla's articles are well-organized, well-written, well-referenced, and display a competent command of the subject area. This one is no exception. My reservation here is for what I believe to be excessive detail; a typical reader does not need to know detailed lists of passengers, cargo, and the identities of other ships in convoys.

Perhaps others may question whether this concern is actionable, or to put it another way, can too much comprehensiveness get in the way of good writing? (My view: good writing is as much a practice of deciding what to leave out, as what to put in.) It is difficult to know what to cut, especially when an author has amassed a lot of detail, but this article would not suffer, and could be improved, by pruning the excess detail. Consequently I do not support, but will not enter an Oppose yet, in recognition that my views may be a matter of preference. Comments by others on this question may be helpful. Kablammo (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy—needs work on the prose Support.

The writing is OK in places, although I could spend 60 minutes cleaning up details; for example:
"During her time on the New York – Antwerp route, Kroonland was frequently battered by storms typical in the North Atlantic. In November 1904, a Brussels news agency reported the rumor that Kroonland had foundered in one mid-ocean storm. The report—proven to be false when Kroonland safely docked in New York[18]—received wide coverage in the United States press.[19] The next month, while she was underway in a heavy gale, Kroonland was struck by what contemporary news accounts referred to as a "tidal wave". On 12 December, the large wave, reported as high as the tops of Kroonland's funnels, crashed over her deck, and brought the ship to a standstill. A Belgian passenger was thrown into a wall with a broken leg and a crewman on watch in the crow's nest was sent tumbling to the deck 40 feet (12 m) below with only minor injuries.[20]
  • "by the storms that were typical"
  • "a rumour"
  • "a mid-ocean storm"
  • "proved" perhaps, rather than the old-fashioned "proven".
  • "American press"
  • Remove "underway"
  • "The next month" time-orientation, then another with "On 12 December"; are these the same day?
  • "referred to as a "tidal wave" as high as the tops of Kroonland's funnel."
  • The wall had a broken leg? And it had a crewman on watch? Change word order and introduce a little punctuation.
There are things to fix all over the place. At random ... "After her fitting out was completed, Kroonland sailed on her maiden voyage". Remove two words.
It's overlinked: "foundered" is a normal English word. The link to Wiktionary of "ways", however, is reasonable, since it's a specialist nautical term. Why is "gale" linked? And "freshwater" and "funnel". "Launched" (piped to "ship launching") is more reasonable, though. Please draw the line higher.
I've given up fighting the battle about calling ships women. But the continual use of "she" and "her" in a few places (like the lead) will grate on any prose reader, even the most old-fashioned. We have "her", "she", "she" in the first sentence and a bit. It needs sifting through and the changing of a few of these to "the ship" or "Kroonland" to avoid close repetition. Tony (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Please don't just correct these matters and come back saying "Ready". The bullets above are from one single para. They exemplify. Tony (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, are the bullet points what you think should be there? If so, why the British spelling for rumor? — Bellhalla (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops: I usually copy and paste, but typed that afresh; my native spelling twitch took over. Yes, the bullets are my suggestions for what should be there, minus that mistake. Tony (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've gone through and scaled back some of the linking and worked on tightening up the prose throughout the article. Can you take a look and see what other suggestions you might have? — Bellhalla (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is looking good. --Laser brain (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose, 1a. This is a good read, thorough and well-researched, but the prose isn't up to par. It's probably difficult to get someone to go through it because of its length, but it really needs some solid time with a fresh copyeditor. I've listed some examples from the first few sections; I stopped listing after getting mired in this many so soon:[reply]
    • "According to The New York Times, Kroonland was the first ship in distress to use radio to call for help after suffering storm damage in December 1903." What does the phrase "in distress" do here? It is clear the ship was in distress, and unclear why a ship would radio for help otherwise.
    • "Placed back in transatlantic service, Kroonland became one of the first seven U.S. ships to be defensively armed against German submarines." It's best not to split the verb phrase "be armed" with the adverb. In such cases, move the adverb to the right of the verb phrase.
      • Good point. Since defensively armed is a specific phrase from the source, I've recast the sentence to avoid the infinitive use completely. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... with the construction of the American pair was well underway." Grammar, please revise.
    • Speaking to Tony's point above about the use of "her" and "she", I agree. It sounds antiquated and should be used extremely sparingly. An example of a sentence where it could be removed completely is: "Kroonland had eleven watertight compartments with reinforced bulkheads, and was designed to remain afloat with up to two of her compartments flooded." In this case, taking out "of her" wouldn't change the meaning.
      • The specific example you cited has been changed as suggested. As to your main point about she/her usage, it is a permissible style per the Military history style guide (a part of the MOS). As a note, I try to balance she and her usage with Kroonland and the ship. It seems to me just using either Kroonland or the ship every time would generate comments of repetitive phrasing. (Maybe it's a can't-win proposition?) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it is a subjective matter. I've stated my opinion, but for me this particular issue isn't a deal-breaker. Thanks for your consideration. --Laser brain (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Third-class passenger accommodations were located on the main deck: three compartments for men located forward, and a single compartment for families was at the rear with state rooms containing two, four, or six bunks." Parallel structure lacking.
      • Fixed, and split into two sentences. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The upper deck primarily housed facilities for officers and first- and second-class passengers." This ids an example of ambiguous adverb placement. As placed, the meaning is that the upper deck housed facilities but served other purposes. Moving the adverb after "facilities" would mean that the upper deck only housed facilities, primarily for the parties listed. Which is correct?
      • It is the former meaning, but since I don't have any source that specifically tells me that, say, the bridge of the ship was on the upper deck, I've eliminated the primarily. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... was the first-class dining room that spanned the width of the ship." As worded, leaves the notion that there might be others. To fix: "... was the first class dining room, spanning the width of the ship."
      • First- and second- and third-class are used to describe facilities for passengers of each of the three classes. I've edited the section to try to make it clear that, for example, it's the first-class passenger dining room and not just a really-neat-best-ever dining room. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The promenade deck housed the first-class passenger library and smoking room." Until now, you've said "first-class room"; why the change?
      • I'm not quite clear on what you're saying here (?) — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review. I'll see if I can get someone to copy-edit the article. In the meantime, I've addressed the specific items you mentioned above. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - will give this a copyedit soon; hope to get to it tonight or tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished a full copyedit; if I've done my job well, there should be few prose concerns remaining. This is a thoroughly researched and incredibly detailed article. I enjoyed much of the detail on other ships/passengers, as it vividly placed the article in the context of the times—but the details were sometimes overwhelming, and the overall length is...oppressive. This may be one of the vanishingly few cases where we know more about a ship's history than we can write about. Will ponder this dilemma overnight. Maralia (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have pinged Tony and Laser brain to revisit in light of Maralia's copyedit. BuddingJournalist 18:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will revisit within the next 12 hours. Thanks for the note. --Laser brain (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the MilHist guideline on "she", but the sheer density of female pronouns, particularly at the start. We have her, she, sister, sister, her, she, her, she, she in the first five sentences. I'm taking three out now, just by removing them and replacing them with nothing. That's easy. Tony (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A well-written, seemingly-comprehensive and interesting article. I made one edit that the nominator may disagree with. There is an argument that the notional agreement should be used, but I felt it should be consistent with the rest of the article; "crew" takes the singular throughout. Feel free to revert. Nice work, Steve T • C 23:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have made some copyedits to half of the article and intend to do the other half later today or tomorrow. I have been addressing Tony's comments as well as my own personal copyedit findings. These are not enough to prevent FA status and are rather minor. The article meets FA criteria. NancyHeise talk 17:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up - I have now finished the copyedit addressing Tony's comments and my own. NancyHeise talk 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No complaints here. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [48].

2008 ACC Championship Game[edit]

Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk)

2008 ACC Championship Game is a component of the Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games featured topic and another in a continuing series of college football articles I've submitted to FAC. I feel it is well-written, understandable, adequately cited, and uses appropriate images with necessary licenses. I've incorporated suggestions given in previous FACs of similar articles, 2003 Insight Bowl and 2007 ACC Championship Game in particular. I've used the link-checker and disambiguation-page tools to check for problems, and these have been fixed. The citations are uniformly formatted, and the prose is as clear as I can make it without more outside input. I look forward to seeing what issues and problems you can find, and I look forward to fixing them. Thanks for your time, and have a great day! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (all issues have been addressed) – Excellent article, very in-depth and well-cited throughout. Nicely laid out and makes good use of images. I have a few comments, mostly related to minor stylistic improvements or minor requests for clarification. Once these are addressed, I think it will meet FAC 1–4. The article meets FA criteria 1–4, in my opinion. Strikehold (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per WP:LEAD, I believe the boldfaced title should be un-linked. Appearances of the terms thereafter should be linked.
  • I think you're right. Fixed.
  • Are championship games considered part of the regular season? I would be led to believe they are not, as the results do not affect the teams' conference records... I am unsure either way and may be mistaken, however.
  • I'm not sure ... I've always been under the impression that bowl games were the start of the postseason in college football. I definitely can see it the other way, though. If you think it should be the other way around, I'd be happy to change it. I can go either way, I think.
  • Also think the fact that this was a re-match of the previous year's ACCCG merits mention somewhere in the lead.
  • Good idea. Added.
  • I think the term "extreme parity" might be redundant. Parity seems to me to mean equality, so gradations of it seem a bit contradictory. Might I suggest use of "extremely close," "closely contested," or simply "parity"?
  • Reworded.
  • "Never relinquished the lead or allowed a tie." I think "never relinquished the lead" is sufficient as allowing a tie would relinquish a lead.
  • Reworded.
  • In the fourth paragraph of the lead you use "Tech quarterback Tyrod Taylor" twice, I think the part saying he was MVP you could simply use "Taylor" or "Virginia Tech's Taylor."
  • Reworded.
  • "The ACC Championship Game matches up the winner of the Coastal and Atlantic Divisions..." – Shouldn't this be "winners"? Or "winner of the Coastal Division and Atlantic Division"? Not sure...
  • Fixed.
  • In the paragraph addressing the games history, you refer to teams which make their first appearance as "new" teams. To me, so soon after describing three teams joining the conference (VT, Miami, and BC), it seems to imply that those were teams actually new to the conference. Wake Forest was a founding member and Georgia Tech joined in the 70s, so that seems a little misleading. Can you change it somehow to indicate that these were teams making their "first appearance" rather than "new teams"?
  • Fixed.
  • In the predictions for the ACCCG, you mention Clemson losing to "eventual No. 1 Alabama." People at the time didn't think much of Alabama, though, and as a result thought Clemson was a lot worse than they really. That may merit a mention (if you or I can find an adequate citation), as losing to an eventual late-season No. 1 and SEC championship team shouldn't in itself upset predictions for a spot in the ACCCG.
  • Removed the "eventual No. 1". Trying to clarify what people thought at the time would've taken too much prose to be worthwhile, and leaving it in there makes the loss sound better than it was, so it's easier to remove it.
  • In the BC paragraph: "raced to a 9–7 halftime lead." Seems overly emotional use of the verb, and also inappropriate as I don't think nine points in a half could be considered as racing to score repeatedly.
  • Reworded.
  • "...gave the Eagles a 2–1 conference record, and they appeared to be destined for an easy bid to the ACC championship game." With only three games completed (and only two wins), why did it appear like an easy bid to the ACCCG? They still had five games remaining, were they all against heavy underdogs?
  • Removed "easy". That's an opinion word, anyway.
  • According to the ACC tiebreaker rules, "If two or more teams are tied with the highest percentage of wins, they shall be declared division co-champions." Thus, BC/FSU and VT/GT were division co-champions. The tie-breaker rules are simply to decide who appears in the ACCCG to represent each division ("...tie-breaker procedure will be used to determine that divisions’ representative to the championship game."). This was pointed out to me on the ACC standings talk page.
  • Interesting! I didn't know that. It's been fixed.
  • A stylistic gripe, but you use "lightly regarded" three times by my count. I would favor cutting its use to once and instead using a more common term like "underdog."
  • Replaced one usage with underdog and wikilinked it.
  • There's a small degree of inconsistency in the way teams are referred. You use the full "Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets" and "North Carolina Tar Heels", but shortened school form "Notre Dame" and "Kent State", and then the full school name "East Carolina University." I would recommend using the short form of the school name in initial references and then the short school form alternating with the nickname where stylistic variation is needed (like use in the same sentence, for example). But since its just stylistic, I think any form you go with would be acceptable as long as its consistent.
  • In the places I used the long form of the name, it's because I referred to the teams as the "Yellow Jackets" or "Tar Heels" later in the sentence or in the next sentence.
  • Okay. As long as you have applied a consistent system to it, I'm satisfied.
  • In the Boston College offense para: As of the 2008 season, there are 120 Division I FBS teams, not 119. This is still misquoted in some media outlets (as I imagine is the case in the print news article cited), but Western Kentucky was promoted starting in 2008, bringing the total to 120. (see here [49]).
  • Fixed. I didn't think Western Kentucky was a full FBS member until next season.
  • WKU has been "in transition" since 2007 and won't be eligible for bowls until next season when they join the Sun Belt. But I'm pretty sure they are considered FBS. I've seen them usually lumped in with the other FBS independents (like here at ESPN).
  • Does "Beamer Ball" deserve a mention in the team comparison section? Most people agree that compiling non-offensive scores is a major aspect of Beamer's strategy. How did VT do on special teams and defensive scoring this season?
  • I didn't think it was exceptionally good or exceptionally bad ... IMHO, that's something that belongs in the main Virginia Tech football section rather than this subsection because it's something that defines the team, rather than the season of which this game was a part. Now, if you think it's necessary to understand the game, I can add something in there. My initial thought with these games is to leave it out because it's something that defines the team, rather than a season or game.
  • That works for me.
  • In the statistical recap, is "profligate" the right term? Would prolific be more appropriate? If not, I think you should explain why it was reckless. Was it because of the two interceptions? Lack of down conversions? Easier reads by the opposing defense?
  • Fixed. You're right.
  • In the post-game effects: Can you expand upon the bowl game selections. Obviously, VT got an automatic berth in the BCS game. But, BC fell to the 5th-pick Music City Bowl despite being the ACC runners-up. In my opinion, (of course we'll need to find a citation) this is due to a perception of BC's fanbase traveling poorly. There is actually an NCAA rule called the "Boston College rule" or something to that effect, which ensures that teams don't fall too far in bowl selection.
  • My thought was that problem should be in the 2008 Music City Bowl article rather than this one. Do you think it's necessary to talk about it? I do agree that more should be written about the bowl games, and have added results and other information.
  • If you can find a source, I think it merits inclusion. I looked briefly, but couldn't find one. I think it might be important because it was a direct-effect of the game's results: If BC had won, they would have gone to the first-tier ACC game automatically. Since they lost they fell to the (tied for) fifth-pick game.
  • I think a one- or two-sentence mention is warranted, as this happened as a direct result of this game. So I think it is one of the more important "post-game effects." These references might help:
  • 2008 ACC bowl selection process: "If the ACC FCG runner-up is available, and has won a minimum of eight games, then Music City Bowl must select that team, unless that team agrees to being selected by another bowl."
  • Wapo (from last year, but gives historical perspective): "...Boston College this week, a historically shoddy track record of fan travel to bowl games -- a major consideration for selection committees..."
  • Yahoo/Rivals.com: "With the program lacking a large group of traveling fans, this season’s squad - again the ACC runner-up - slipped to the Music City Bowl, which had the fifth selection in the ACC. The bowl was obliged to choose the title game’s loser if it had not yet been selected."
  • Gotcha. Thanks for the links and the suggestion. They've been added. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BC coaching changes section: I'm not opposed to its inclusion, but I think it needs to be made explicit why this was related to the ACCCG. Could it be because Jagodzinski surprised everyone with his team's performance in the season, which resulted in the NFL interest?
  • I've been looking for a citation that explains exactly that. ... Haven't had any luck, though. I'll keep working at it, and will keep adding to the post-game effects section as events develop. The 2009 NFL Draft, in particular, will probably develop into a subsection when it takes place.
  • Thanks for the great review. Let me know what you decide for the areas we've got questions about. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on images: An email was sent to the image permissions account last month, but it looks as if no admin added the correct OTRS. The ticket number is 2008120910013531, and if someone could help resolve this, I'd appreciate it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://bleacherreport.com/
      • I wouldn't rely on bleacherreport to justify any facts, but in this case, the reference is just being used to back up the assertion that people were calling the regular season "crazy". If you don't like that cite, another source is citing the same thing, but from a media (instead of fan) viewpoint.
    • Current ref 60 (Rudie, Preston...) has a last access date and from the publisher it appears to be a website, but no link. It go missing? Also, what makes this a reliable source? (I'll go ahead and ask before I see the link, just based off the name of the site).
      • Link added. It's a TV news channel in Tampa Bay, the site of the game. I just forgot to add the link to it.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. And welcome to FAC! (Ooops, got you confused with the newcomer who brought a bowl game to FAC! (blushes)) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The JKBrooks series of bowl game articles has become something that I always look forward to seeing at FAC. As the pages continue to become more refined, I'm struggling to find issues. There are some below, but my support isn't that far away.

  • Noun-plus-ing in the lead: "with both teams punting after their opening possessions failed to gain a first down."
  • Fixed.
  • The ACC standings chart, while a great original idea, looks weird for me. The header is cut in half for me.
  • Cut in half in what way?
  • It's cutting the "(Pregame) ACC Standings" header so I can't see the bottom. It's on the top of the table, which is really odd. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Team selection: Another noun-plus-ing: "with the two teams meeting in the championship game."
  • Fixed.
  • Boston College: "Against the Georgia Tech". Little glitch there. And find a better word to start a sentence than "But", which begins the next sentence.
  • Fixed.
  • Check the capitalization of "ACC championship game" a couple times in the section. Please do the same for division and Division, which I see later.
  • Fixed.
  • Virginia Tech: The Kansas Jayhawks link goes to the 2008 team; shouldn't it go to the 2007 team?
  • Fixed.
  • Is Chestnut Hill part of Boston? Just checking.
  • It's a part of greater Boston, at least according to the article on the subject.
  • Pre-game buildup: "with various betting organizations either favoring Boston College by a single point or having no spread at all." Noun-plus-ing for the third time.
  • Fixed.
  • Attendance concerns: "To mitigate the problems seen in Jacksonville the year nrgotr". I see many fairly exotic words while reviewing, but the last word here is probably the most exotic I've seen so far. :-)
  • Heh. That'll teach me to keep my hands on the home row!

That will do for now, but I'll be back in the next day or two for more. Before I go, why is there a Commons link for college football? That seems to be too general for the topic. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review. I typically throw the college football link in the lede as a guide for non-American readers who might stumble across the article. Sure, anyone who doesn't know what college football is isn't likely to be searching for an individual game, but I'd rather throw it in there just in case. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First quarter (long gap between problems!): "where the Hokies' offense began the first play of the game." Somewhat awkward.
  • Fixed.
  • "Virginia Tech called a timeout in order to formulate its next offensive play." Some wordiness to consider removing.
  • Removed.
  • Second quarter: "Facing third down and needing 20 yards for a first down". It was a third-and-19, according to the reference. I could tell because the math doesn't add up.
  • Fixed. Dang, nice catch! I may have gotten that incorrect measurement from the game tape.
  • "Taylor scrambled on third down, gaining up eight yards and a first down."
  • Removed.
  • "Rather than run a play, Boston College elected to run out the clock with Virginia Tech leading, 14-7." They actually did run a play, for a one-yard loss. I'm guessing they just downed the ball, but saying they didn't run a play isn't accurate.
  • Fixed. Changed it to "rather than try to score".
  • Third quarter: "and the Boston College Eagles were forced to punt after going three and out." Is the full team name really needed?
  • Nope. Removed.
  • Fourth quarter: "The fumble was again recovered by Boston College linebacker Heinzerlich and Boston College's offense returned to the field." Did we mention when this guy previously recovered a fumble? I don't even see his first name anywhere. There is a "Herzlich" in the Eagles' defense; is there a bad typo here?
  • Double right. I have no idea where I got "Heinzerlich" from, but Herzlich did have a fumble recovery at the beginning of the fourth quarter. Doesn't look as if I put his name in for that one, so I'll take out the "again". With it in there, it makes it sound as if he recovered the same fumble twice.
  • Statistical summary: Can the one-sentence paragraph at the end be moved into the first paragraph of the section? It looks a little lonely down there.
  • Yeah. I had hoped to create a paragraph about records set, but decided against it. Moved.
  • Postgame effects: The two monetary figures need non-breaking spaces, like this (hit edit button to see where to put code): $17.5 million.
  • Fixed.
  • Perhaps link the Southeastern Conference?
  • Linked.
  • Boston College coaching changes: "to interview for the vacant head coaching position at the National Football League's New York Jets." Change "at" to "of"?
  • That's: "the vacant head coaching position at the... New York Jets." I think either "at" or "of" work there. "With" would work as well. Strikehold (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "with".
  • Reference 41 needs a publisher. I recommend the method used in ref 12.
  • Added.
I'm all done now, though I'm sure Dabomb can find more things to fix in his concurrent review. Left a note on the template above as well. It looks great overall, and I'll be ready to support when these are done. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This article is a perfect example of how even a great formula can be further refined. Although it's been less than two months since the game, I think it's the best article in JK's series so far, with the lone exception of that one table. My original theory was that it was due to its left placement (left-sided photos below level 3 section headers cause accessibility problems), but moving it to the right didn't help at all. Despite that, I think the rest of the article is FA-worthy, so I won't withhold support. It does concern me somewhat, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anyone else having this problem? I haven't been able to reproduce it, and I'd hate to have someone else be affected by it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the table above "Team selection" creates an accessibility problem (should be within the section). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tucked it in that section, but it doesn't look quite as nice any more, since it now juts into the Boston College section and has to be separated with a wide spread of white space. It may look a little better with a different screen resolution, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Excellent article, I notice that your prose has improved a lot too!

  • "The game was sponsored by Dr. Pepper and was the final regular-season contest of the " The "was ... was" repetition is distracting. Maybe: "The game, sponsored by Dr. Pepper, was the final regular-season contest of the..."
  • Fixed.
  • There needs to be a key and accompanying symbols for the standings table. What do the shadings for Virginia Tech and Boston College represent?
  • Added. I swear, this table keeps getting uglier.
  • I don't know if you have done this already, but change it on the previous ACC championsip articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "relevant" is a bit vague. Also, you need add symbols to accompany the shadings (per WP:ACCESS). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to outflank some of the problems by removing the shading and using bolded text instead. Does that work for you? JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still need to explain the bolded text. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed bolding.
  • "Prior to"-->before (multiple occurences)
  • Fixed.
  • "In the annual preseason poll of media covering the ACC" A bit vague; did the poll cover the ACC or was it the media that covered the ACC. The noun + -ing construction ("media covering") is a bit awkward.
  • I added "by". Let me know if that helps.
  • One problem I am noticing is the usage of unnecessary commas before the introduction of game scores:
    • "which Virginia Tech won, 30–16."
    • "whom the Eagles defeated, 21–0."
    • "eventually losing, 19–16,"
    • "beating Central Florida, 34–7, Audit throughout for these."
      • The scores are optional clauses, so they need to be set off by commas.
  • Beat me to it. Non-essential elements (can be removed without changing the meaning of the phrase) should be cordoned off by commas. Strikehold (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I've seen both styles in formal prose. Anyway, you are the sports editor, and you are probably right. Disregard that comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the last two games of the regular season, however, the Hokies managed two victories"
  • Removed.
  • "category outside of the top 25"
  • Removed.
  • "which gained just 319 yards"
  • Removed.
  • I think I mentioned in one of your previous FACs about comparable quantities being written out the same, a couple examples:
  • "33 tackles (11 for loss) and a team-high seven sacks" "seven"-->7
  • "in tackles with 98—fifth among all Division I players—and interceptions, with six" "98"-->ninety-eight or "six"-->6.
  • I'm trying to get that exception changed ... I really, really, really, really hate that exception to the general rule that you spell out numbers nine and under and use numerals for 10 and over. I don't know why I hate it so much -- it's irrational, but I just do.
  • Yep, I saw your post on WT:MOSNUM. I take just the opposite view for largely the same reason :) However, if (by some miracle) you can get that guideline to be changed by the time this nomination finishes, feel free to disregard this comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knuckled down and changed them. I don't have to like it ... I just have to do it. ;) JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "permitting just 275 yards per game" Let the rankings speak for themselves.
  • Removed.
  • "United States on ABC" Spell out ABC on its first appearance (there are other TV stations called ABC)
  • Done.
  • Not in the US, which it is from context. ABC is common knowledge in the US usage and, in my opinion, doesn't really warrant expansion. Strikehold (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I under stand Strikehold's view, and it does seem a bit unnecessary (considering that this is an American subject), but all the same, playing on the safe side doesn't hurt. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't wait to return for the game summary! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The official reported attendance was 53,927,[72] but this number came from the number of tickets sold,[73][62][74] and the actual attendance in the stadium—measured by admittance turnstiles—was 27,360, the lowest ever recorded for an ACC football championship game." For the sake of flow, I think that this should be split into two sentences.
  • Split.
  • "ensuring the Eagles would receive "-->ensuring that the Eagles would receive
  • Fixed.
  • "Despite that initial success," I wouldn't call a four-yard pass "success".
  • Changed to "gain".
  • "where the Boston College offense had its first play of the game" "had"-->ran.
  • Changed.
  • "but the Hokies earned the first first down " I really, really don't like the repetition of "first". Maybe "initial"?
  • Changed.
  • "Taylor then threw an incomplete pass, then the Hokies were penalized 10 yards for holding, pushing them back to the 31-yard line." "then ... then". They are really not necessary.
  • Removed.
  • "Jeff Jagodzinski ordered kicker Jeff Aponavicius into the game" "ordered"-->sent
  • Changed.
  • "The pick by the Music City Bowl represented a drop in prestige for Boston College." Not sure where you got this information from.
  • Well, the Music City Bowl has a smaller payout and reaches a smaller television audience than any of the alternative destinations Boston College could have been selected by. In addition, it has a shorter history than the alternatives and is seen generally as a less prestigious destination for all of these factors.
  • "also announced he was leaving the team"-->also announced that he was leaving the team Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments No comments on the actual match part of the article due to my inability to fathom the ins and outs of American football matches, but some comments on the preceding parts:

  • The ACC Championship Game matches the winners of - maybe its my lack of familiarity with US sports vernacular, but "matches" seems imprecise. Would "is contested between" be an improvement?
  • I'm not sure ... that seems a little verbose. Does the confusion stem from the British English term of a "football match"?
Probably just a Br. Eng / Am. Eng thing. To me "match" in a sporting context is a synonym for "game", rather than "pair".
  • one new team and one old team featured in the contest - from looking at their respective articles, the teams both formed in 1892, so "new to the Championship game" must be the intended meaning, but it is ambiguous as written.
  • Fixed. Changed it to refer to a championship-game veteran and one new to a championship game.
  • A hard-fought game resulted in a 30–16 Virginia Tech victory - the reference makes no mention of the game being hard-fought.
  • Removed.
  • Before Virginia Tech was declared the 2007 ACC football champion, cities other than Jacksonville (site of the 2007 ACC Championship Game) presented their plans... - I'm having trouble following the chronology, and the significance of the first part of the sentence. Did this process take place before the 2007 Championship Game, or is there some event at which a team is declared champion?
  • The idea was to use it as a transition sentence between that section and the section before it. The debates about the site of the game began before Virginia Tech won the 2007 game, an event described in the previous section. The events overlap chronologically, if not in subject.
Then it would be simpler to start the sentence with something like "Before the 2007 ACC Championship game..."
  • The Eagles opened the season by traveling to lightly regarded Kent State - the ref does not say anything about Kent State being lightly regarded. Oldelpaso (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. Thank you very much for taking the time to go through the article. It's really appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another well written and comprehensive article by JKBrooks85. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still waiting for image review on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:ACCChampgame.png – There is no info on who the holder of the copyright holder is (attribution). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The images need to be linked from Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia, and I have no idea how to do that, since they both have the same image name on each. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears as if someone has updated the images. Many thank yous to whomever did that! JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concern: the "free" images check out fine. Eric M. Ryan's photos are licensed with the OTRS, and for the exterior stadium shot, Marc Averette is associated with his user name here. The "non-free" logo is the sticking point. I would prefer a defining moment of the match to be the identifying picture&mdashlthe winning touchdown, a terrifying injury, a brilliant catch, a picture that is heavily reported and touted in the media. The trademarked, copyrighted logo as an identifying picture is rather overused, leading to arguments and contentions till there was an RFC that had no concensus. Ignoring that, the logo if used as an identifying image should convince us of its purpose as that, and not because it is "aesthetically pleasing". Neither would it "provides vital information with a simple glance" to the "reader unwilling to delve into the text of the article", because it tells the reader nothing about the two sides that took part or the outcome of the match. "Title sponsor, television broadcaster, and the name of the event" can be represented by text. As it is, the current rationale fails WP:NFCC#1 and #8. The solution is simple, write a stronger rationale that can explain why this logo is instrumental to the 2008 ACC Championship or remove it from the article. Jappalang (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. I have updated the non-free criteria as best as I know how. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is sufficient for identification, the image issue as stated above for this article is resolved. Jappalang (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - meets FA criteria, well written and referenced. Dincher (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [50].

Peter Jones (missionary)[edit]

Nominator(s): User:WilyD
previous FAC (03:54, 24 September 2008)

A few months ago, this ran through a very lacklustre FAC which resulted in no promotion, essentially over concerns about the writing, especially towards the end of the article. Since that time, I've undertaken some re-arranging and clarifications in the text, moved things about a bit and so forth. The article was already fairly close, I think, with most of the bits in place - it passed GAC without any objections, for instance. Figured I'd give this another run through the meatgrinder. WilyD 14:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

These should be simple to rectify. Jappalang (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith, all images are okay. Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The prose is much improved from the last FAC. Excellent work! Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • The second paragraph of the lead dances around the question of Jones' ethnic identity without actually addressing it. It speaks of learning farming from his father, of being "bilingual and bicultural", but it seems to dance around the question of what his father's ethnicity was. (It's resolved in the "Early life" section, but the second para still reads like an attempt to avoid saying something). Simply identifying his father as a Welsh-born Loyalist (or something of the sort) would avoid this problem.
  • In the Raised by his father section, it says that Jones worked "as a brickmaker working for his brother-in-law Archibald Russell". It's unclear where he gets a brother-in-law from...is it the spouse of a half-sister? Clarification would be helpful
    • For someone living in Canada, the only way to acquire a brother-in-law was for someone to marry your sister until ~2004 (after which they can also marry your brother). Archibald is Catherine's husband, for what it's worth, and Catherine is Augustus Jones' daughter, but I'm not sure how this is unclear (it's unclear to me how this is unclear). WilyD
      • Well, there was a second way - you could marry their sister. It was probably just carelessness on my part, but when I got to the statement about Jones working for his brother-in-law, I still had an image of him as a child. It just left me a bit confused..."was he married?"..."was one of his siblings married?"..."was there also a full sister that wasn't mentioned?" Guettarda (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, yeah, I completely failed to realise that. He would've been at least nomainally old enough to marry then - he went to live with his father when he was 14, and so forth. Re-reading, he was 19 or 20 when he was brickmaking, so he certainly could've been married (but I'd hope I'd have mentioned that). Maybe I should change "step-mother and step-siblings" to "step-mother and half-siblings" earlier up in that paragraph? WilyD 16:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Funny how your mind edits things - I just looked over the para, and saw "step-siblings" and automatically corrected it to "half-siblings" as I read it. So yeah, it would be worth fixing that. In an ideal setting, the fix to my "problem" would be to give a bit more of a sense of his family life at his father's farm. There's a vague sense of the personality of Jones senior, but not of Sarah and her children. Of course, I don't know if there are any sources that would shed light on that, and I wouldn't consider it a requirement for this article. Guettarda (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I changed the phrase. The issue is that his life before age 22 or so is essentially from his own recounting, and he really glosses over the whole polygamous father deal. Consequently, we get very little impression of his stepmother. WilyD 16:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "bilingual and bicultural" is OK in the intro, a little forced in the Raised by his father section, and just clumsy when it's repeated a third time in the Conversion section.
    • It's probably least needed in "raised by his father". It is an important part of why William Case took such an interest in him. So I dropped it in "raised by his father". WilyD 23:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image File:PeterJones1845InScotlad.jpg is described as "the oldest surviving photograph of a North American Indian." In the Augustus Jones article, the image File:OjibwaMissionaryPeterJonesInScotland.png is described as "the oldest surviving photograph of a North American Indian". Both of these statements are supported by a reference to Hoxie's "Encyclopedia of North American Indians" (which actually makes that assertion about the latter image); the Peter Jones article also cites a second reference, from Ira Jacknis, to which I don't have access. The National Portrait Gallery website provides a partial answer, when it refers to pboth of these photographs as part of a set of three taken on August 4, 1845.

    As it stands, Hoxie cannot be used to support calling File:PeterJones1845InScotlad.jpg "the oldest" photograph. Since there are at least three photographs of Jones taken by David Octavius Hill on Aug. 4, 1845, and since one of them has been called "the oldest" photo of a North American Indian, how about calling it "part of a group of photographs" which are the oldest...

Guettarda (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. It's a really interesting read. Good job putting it together. Support. Guettarda (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, everything has been addressed or answered. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Comments, leaning toward support. This is very good, and I only have minor quibbles listed below. There's a bit of consistency work and I'd appreciate your addressing or at least arguing your case on the matter of the headings.[reply]
    • "In 1825, he wrote the Indian Department ..." Can we get a link or some context? What is the Indian Department?
    • I really think headings that contain subheading should have some introductory "mini-lead" before proceeding to the first subheading. This may be a subjective matter, but it improves readability and gives the reader an idea of what the subheadings contain.
    • "His father worked as a surveyor in the land unsettled by the British" Suggest "... in the land the British had not settled"
      • Okay, I see how this can be taken to mean "the British caused it to become unsettled" in an anthropomorphising way, so I changed it to "... the land the British planned to settle upon; ..." - it removes the ambiguity in the meaning of "settle" and makes less implicit why he's surveying the land (to prep for settlement, not merely to know what's there). WilyD 13:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... as was common among the European men who worked far from European settlements he adopted the Indian custom of polygamy." Here and in other places, there is a bit of a comma scarcity. If you would pause between "settlements" and "he", it's best to include a comma for readability.
      • There a comma is needed, so I added it [53]. I'll search for further instances (okay, there are actually a bunch) WilyD 14:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a mixture of single quotes ('Captain Jim') and double quotes ("[sacred] waving feathers") around terms—please make consistent.
      • The Captain Jim bit is the only instance of single quotes I can find. It's probably not needed there (in other bits, the double quotes are used to identify either quotations or translations of names, while Captain Jim is neither - it's just an "English name". Probably a scare quote, because the name feels kind of silly in a modern context, but I think that's not preferable and I'll just remove them. WilyD 13:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... travelling west to the Thames valley or Grand valley which were more isolated from white settlers." Please check this, but I think when you are using "valley" as part of the proper name, it should be capitalized.
    • "Sarah Tekarihogan's Iroquois tribe had settled in the Grand River valley ..." Why "Grand River valley" here and "Grand valley" above?
      • Err, yes, this was inconsistant. I moved to "X River valley", mostly on personal preference. I think either "X River valley" or "X Valley" would be correct, but "X River valley" is probably less confusing to readers, and X River in both cases has an article so named, while X Valley does not. WilyD 14:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inconsistency in comma use for phrases like "In 1816" and "In June 1823". Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't—please make consistent.
      • For all the sentences that Open "In year" or "In month year", it's now "In year," or "In month year,". In those cases in the middle of a sentence, it depends on the sentence and flow. WilyD 14:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiosity, what made you choose the style of references you did? I've not seen it done this way before. I'm used to following a note to "Smith (1987), 79" and being able to find Smith easily in a list of references. As it stands, I have to visually scan through a non-alpha list of notes to find the first mention of Smith 1987? Not very intuitive. This is the value of having a separate Notes and References.
      • It evolved from initially being in the habit of using full references every time, and realising a host of full refs for the same book again was dumb and me being lazy. You're probably right about Notes/References, and I'll make the switch. WilyD 14:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [54].

Henry Cornelius Burnett[edit]

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count)

This article details the life of a legislator who served in both the U.S. and Confederate congresses, and who is one of only five persons ever expelled from the U.S. House of Representatives. The article has already passed a GA review, and is supported by a number of reliable sources. I hope to address concerns quickly and see the article promoted. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are referring to "Burnett" being in all caps in the link to the Biographical Directory of Congress. I've fixed that. If that's not what you mean, forgive me for being a little slow. We're still riding out the power outages from the ice storm at my mom's house, and there are eight people living here at present! I'm not quite at myself. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 23:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was it. All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Both images are public domain, with all necessary information included. Other comments: The prose is excellent; in that regard, this is probably the best-prepared FAC I've reviewed (I've done some light copyediting; hopefully it's all noncontentious). A couple of quibbles:

  • There's no follow-up to "Burnett declared that he was undecided as to whether he would take the oath of office if elected." Subsequent information allows the reader to infer that he does take the oath, but I think there should be something explicit.
Hmm. Hadn't thought of that. The sources don't explicitly mention that he took it, but that's to be expected. His taking the oath wouldn't be particularly noteworthy to most people, especially if they weren't aware of his threat. Still, I'd say your inference is correct; I doubt he could have assumed his seat without doing so. I've added a statement that hedges a little, but is probably as definitive as I can make it.
I'm not even sure that you need to explicitly say whether or not he took the oath of office. An explicit statement that he took office would suffice, and was lacking at the time I made my comment. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead doesn't say anything about his pre-political life. The rest of the article doesn't say much, either, but I think something should be included in the lead. Right now, the portion of the lead that says that "He returned to the practice of law" is a little jarring, since by that point in the article the reader doesn't even know that he was a lawyer.
Good point. I've added a sentence that should alleviate this.

Other than that, I believe this article meets all featured article criteria other than 1(c) and 2(c), neither of which I've evaluated. As a final and enormously unhelpful note, I'd like to say that Wikipedia needs more featured articles about subjects who look like bearded twelve year olds. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words regarding the prose. It's nice to hear after my first few FACs all drew a big, fat "needs a thorough copyedit". Maybe I'm getting better. Also, I don't know that the "bearded twelve-year-old" comment was "enormously unhelpful". After the week we've spent digging out of this ice storm, something that makes a person laugh is pretty helpful! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the changes, I can now support this (assuming Ealdgyth's review of the sourcing is accurate and complete, of which I've no doubt). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Am undertaking a thorough review, but "A lawyer by profession, the only public office..." Aiya! In the second sentence too! BuddingJournalist 02:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was momentarily confused when I saw "Craig, "Henry Cornelius Burnett", pp..." and looked down only to find no article starting with "Henry Cornelius Burnett". Did you mean the "Henry C. Burnett..." one? BuddingJournalist 02:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have corrected these citations. Also, I've reworded the sentence you mentioned. I added it in response to SarcasticIdealist's comments above. See if it reads better now. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 03:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Acdixon; forgot to do this one. I might get around to this one later in the week. BuddingJournalist 14:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the references section and the grouped footnotes. The items in quotation marks in the footnotes are journal articles, not book titles. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written, images appear fine, and the refs appear satisfactory from a quick view. For future reference, make sure you check that pesky WP:DASH page from the MoS, there were some small issues in the lead (I fixed them). Other than that, a fun little article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, and it'd be great if you could clean up the image. It was already in the article when I started working on it, and my Photoshop skills are merely adequate at best. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 02:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All the issues I saw have been addressed. Karanacs (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Comments by Karanacs.[reply]

  • Any details on interesting legislation passed by the 34th and 35th Congresses? It might be useful to have a little more details. I'm also not quite sure what the "Comittee on the District of Columbia" did.
  • Apparently not. The List of United States federal legislation has only one entry for the 34th and no entries for the 35th. Even if I did know some major legislation from these congresses, I have no information on how Burnett might have voted on any of it or why. Also, I don't have the foggiest idea what the "Committee on the District of Columbia" did either. All the source says about it is that he served on it. I included it to give a wee bit of robustness to his legislative career prior to the Civil War. Admittedly, it isn't much, but the only other option is to remove it altogether, I think.
  • Quotations need a cite at the end of the sentence, even if that means citations are duplicated in subsequent sentences
  • Fixed all I could find.
  • A lot of people reading this article may not be familiar with the American Civil War. A little more background in the first paragraph of Outset of Civil War section might be useful to them. At the very, very least, more wikilinks are needed (like on Union and Confederates) to help provide more context.
  • I may need a little help here. A discussion of the war's causes, etc. could easily expand into several paragraphs and stray badly off-topic. Can you give a more specific suggestion or an example of what you would add?
  • OK, I lifted part of that paragraph and adapted it to fit in the article. What do you think? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 03:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions that he served in the 34, 35, and 37 Congresses? Was he not in the 36th Congress? If he was, that needs to be mentioned, with a little on what happened; if not, then we need to know why.
  • Yes, he was in the 36th, but I didn't have any information about what he did there. I have altered one sentence that should make it clear that his service was uninterrupted.
  • "Kentucky's neutrality was breached, " - I don't know anything about this, and I am at least somewhat familiar with pieces of the Civil War. Can this be expanded just a wee bit?
  • See my clarification. Is that sufficient?

Karanacs (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. See my responses above. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [55].

Murray Maxwell[edit]

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk)

An article about one of those "Boy's Own" style officers that Britain produced in great numbers during the nineteenth century. Maxwell was shipwrecked three times, captured by the French twice and once marooned on a desert island and attacked by angry "natives". He fought at the Siege of Toulon aged 18, destroyed a French armaments convoy in 1811, met (and was enthusuastically greeted by) Napoleon in 1818 and received the worst wound of his career - from which he never fully recovered - during a political debate in Covent Garden. In his spare time he was the first Briton to make "official" contact with Korea, captured Surinam from the Dutch, observed the Peruvian War of Independence and waged a brief one man war against China. He died (presumably from exhaustion) in 1831 whilst on his way to be a colonial governor in Canada. The article has passed GA and had a Military History Project peer review. Special thanks to User:Rama for filling redlinks and User: EyeSerene for his copyedit. All comments appreciated.Jackyd101 (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Hi, this one looks like fun, but was that Captain Samuel Hood Linzee or Captain Samuel Hood? WereSpielChequers 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a frustrating situation. Samuel Hood (careful, there were two contemporary officers of exactly that name) and Samuel Hood Linzee were different people (from different branches of the same family). Hood already has an article, and Hood Linzee probably deserves one as he crops up repeatedly during the French Revolutionary Wars. However, despite my best efforts I have not found even a short biography from which I can develop an article on Hood Linzee (all I know is that he died in 1820 from injuries caused by falling off his horse some unspecified number of years before) and I'm unwilling to create an uninformative stub given the confusion that might be caused by the similarity in names. When I find more information I will put one together.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks for explanation, perhaps a footnote in this article would help? WereSpielChequers 23:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to expain it better in text, does that help?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup neatly fixed. WereSpielChequers 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images are in the public domain with verifable information. Jappalang (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I took the liberty of fixing your web sources to properly reflect the fact that they are originally published works from dead trees) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done WereSpielChequers 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (as copyeditor). I believe everything is in order, though of course am happy to help to address any concerns. EyeSerenetalk 10:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - great article, just a few points that need to be addressed before I can support.

  • Why is Maxwell introduced as a captain in the lead, and then a vice admiral in the infobox?
I. . . have no idea. Changed.
  • The final two sentences in the first paragraph of the "Early career" section are uncited, and probably should be.
  • The final sentences to both paragraphs in the "Adriatic campaign" section are uncited, and probably should be also.
  • The same again for several sentences at the end of paragraphs in the "Voyage to China and shipwreck" section.
  • "who died in 1874 as a retired admiral of the Royal Navy." - this snippet reads slightly ackward, and should probably be re-written. Perhaps something life "who retired with from the Royal Navy with the rank of admiral before his death in 1874."?
Rephrased

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added or moved a number of refs to cover the ends of paragraphs.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of my comments have been addressed, so I'm happy to support. Well done. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment - well structured/sourced, prose is excellent, supporting materials look fine. I just have a few minor points:

  • In the first line, "particularly" reads better to me than "especially", and this also removes some repetition given that later in the intro you mention him being "specially selected" and "especially commended".
  • Extremely minor but not sure we need "knighted in reward for his services - "knighted for his services" does the trick...
  • Would like to see the first paragraph under Attack by Dayaks finish with a citation.
  • Ditto the last para of that subsection.
  • Ditto the last para of the whole article.
  • I know red links aren't a barrier to FA status but there are quite a few here - are you planning to create articles for all of them? For those that you aren't, I'd remove for the look of the thing, which is otherwise very good.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adjustments made, thankyou for your suggestions. I do not have the source material to create the red links at the moment, but I think they should be and when I find material I will create them, so I'd rather leave them linked for now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, that's fine - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [56].

Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3[edit]

Nominator(s): Ruhrfisch ><>°°

I am nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. It had a very helpful peer review (thanks to Finetooth and Dincher). Several covered bridge Featured Articles served as models, and it was started to remove a red link in the FA Sonestown Covered Bridge, as both were victims of the same flood in 1996. Sadly, this bridge was destroyed then and is no longer extant. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is included in the Historic American Engineering Record. Thanks in advance for any input, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done as always. I made a few minor edits, but there wasn't much to tweak. Good job Ruhrfisch. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your support, kind words, and edits. I used to use too many parentheses, now I will have to work on verb plus -ing constructions. ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support All concerns were taken care of in PR. Excellent work once again. --Dincher (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your support, kind words, and peer review, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — of the six images, five all are "free" with verifiable information and okay. I am on the fence with the non-free image, File:Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3 Summer.jpg. Personally, it is of the same appearance as File:Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3, photo 1, Crop.jpg; hence, the intactness and season rationales are not too convincing. However, it has the human figure, which could fulfill the scale of representation rationale. Jappalang (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and for fixing the LOC tags on the free images. I would appreciate input on the fair use image from any others who have reviewed this (and I will ask the two editors who have already weighed in what they think of the image to try and get consensus).
The fair use image was taken by PennDOT, apparently in 1982, expressly for potential submission to the NRHP. See page 16 (of 47) in the PDF for the Muliple Property Submission here: "During 1982 personnel from each of Penn DOT's eleven engineering districts were trained and dispatched to photograph and gather basic structural data for each of the 1,635 bridges." The question is does this make it a work for the federal (US) government, and thus free / public domain? I also note that the photo is the only one I have found of the intact bridge (pre-flood damage), and is only available at no cost when requested from the National Park Service (they even pay the postage). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of concern to me is purpose statement number 3, which states: "in summer (all other images were taken in January)". What does season have to do with the bridge's appearance? Intactness is also not a factor here, as that is covered by the free image. So we have to evaluate the strength of the "size-and-scale argument". The image is used in the "Description and construction" section. A description section provides the reader with knowledge of the bridge's appearance (of course). A well-written description section (which it is) will give the reader a mental image of the bridge (rhyme not intended), but words can only say so much. Measurements are hard to visualize for most readers. They need a visual and comparison. While the free image provides a visual, the non-free image provides a comparison with the visual so that the reader can better understand how big the bridge really is. Therefore, I believe that the non-free image's usage is warranted. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was trying to point out ways in which the fair-use image differed from the free image(s). I agree the season itself is not that applicable to a fair use rationale, but do note there are plants (ivy?) growing on the stones on the left side of the bridge in the fair use image which are not visible in the free image. As for the intact state shown in the fair use image, a comparison of the fair use and lead free images does allow one to see the cracks caused by the flooding more clearly. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an e-mail this morning to Kara Russell, an architectural historian at PennDot, to ask about the copyright status of the historic bridge collection. Here is her entire response:

"They are in the public domain--you are free to use them. However, the collection from the bridge survey is not on-line as the collection is too large. If you would like the photo of a particular bridge and it is not available to you otherwise (through the National Park Service, etc.) please let me know and I can may be able to email you one (depending upon whether or not it was photographed as part of the historic bridge survey). Kara Russell [,] PennDOT Bureau of Design [,] Environmental Quality Assurance Division"

I believe this solves the problem except for changing the licensing information. I'm not sure how that is done when an e-mail like this is the confirming document. Finetooth (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it OTRS or something like that? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Finetooth! Ms. Russell should send an email to the address shown in Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission, specifying the license. It would be a great help if she mentioned this applies to photos of all 135 "Highway Bridges Owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation" here. My guess is other bridges (at least some covered bridges have been surveyed by PennDOT) would also be covered. Then all these photos would be covered under the same Wikipedia:OTRS ticket. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is an OTRS matter because PD due to Federal government work does not cover the work done by individual states. Jappalang (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent a second e-mail to Ms. Russell along the lines suggested by Ruhrfisch. I think it's too late in the day to expect a response at least until tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She kindly sent permission today by e-mail to the Wikipedia photo submissions address to use any bridge photo owned by PennDOT in any Wikipedia article. This includes the photo in question here. She said, "These images are considered by the Commonwealth/PennDOT to be in the public domain." I'm still quite murky on how the OTRS process works, how long it takes, or what happens next. Finetooth (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evnetually OTRS will add a ticket to the image - see File:Aurora inn wayside.png as one example. I am also not sure how long it takes. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that it might help to add an OTRS pending tag to the image description page. See WP:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed. Finetooth (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had already added the OTRS pending tag to the file here on Wikipedia, but will upload it to Commons and delete it here per the link above next. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is not the uploader who owns the picture, commons:Template:PD-author or commons:Template:PD-copyright holder would be more appropriate in this case. I think the copyright holder template is more appropriate since it is the department and not the photographer who is authorizing the release. Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jappalang, I have made the license change. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something wrong with the OTRS? It is taking quite a long time... Jappalang (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Russell at PennDOT sent an email to OTRS but the address had a typo in it and it is not in the OTRS system. I contacted her again, but she is now on leave until early June. I have emailed another person in the same department, but yesterday was a holiday (President's Day) so the state offices in Pennsylvania were closed. I hope to hear back from the other person today. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS verified, all images in this article are verifiably "free"! No issues. Jappalang (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking the images and for your patience, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and a few comments from one not initiated into the great mysteries of US English:

The bridge is at the mouth of Coal Mine Hollow" - I see from Wiktionary that a hollow in this case is probably a kind of valley, not a shallow depression, which would not have a mouth.
I linked Hollow to Valley#Hollows, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tannery employed "several hundred" - better as "employed "several hundred" workers"?
Maybe I don't see something, but I think "workers" would be redundant. Employees (conveyed in this sense as "employed") are workers. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the word workers - this is an international encyclopedia and we want our articles to be as comprehensible as possible. Thanks for pointing this out, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" These employees lived in 120 company houses, which each rented for $2 a month". I think you mean that the houses each cost $2 a month to rent - the existing phrase is definitely not GB English, in which the phrase clumsily implies the workers each paid $2.
Ichanged the sentence to These employees lived in 120 company houses, which each cost $2 a month to rent. - hopefully this is clearer. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" in and near Williamsport killed six and caused millions of dollars in damage." In the UK "killed six" would be journalese and per the above should read "killed six people" or similar in a respectable publication.
I have added the word people - 20 people were killed in the flooding statewide (but this seems too tangential to include in the article). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" municipal- or state-owned bridges" doubtless Finetooth has some obscure reason for the first hyphen , but it looks wrong to me.
Suspended hyphen. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Dabomb87 for the link - this is indeed how it is meant. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, it is a matter of considerable national shame that our superior Scottish bridges have such inferior articles, and you are welcome to visit them at any time to effect improvements. Ben MacDui 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be proud of the fact that your old stone arch bridges are still standing (although Pennsylvania has one still standing and in use from 1697). Thanks for your support, careful reading and helpful comments, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I made a few edits, please feel free to revert them if they are not an improvement. Please check to see if a simple past tense "was" and "were" can replace "had been" without spoiling the meaning. Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm Talk 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, edits, and kind words. I made one change in your edits, about the 1918 repairs. I restored it to The bridge had needed repairs and reconstruction. from The bridge needed repairs and reconstruction. to make it clearer the repairs were actually done. If there is a better way to say this, please tweak away. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both Ealdgyth for checking refs and links, and to Dabomb87 for fixing the newspaper refs. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is another excellent article in a continuing series about Pennsylvania bridges. Small concerns that I voiced during peer review have been addressed. I believe the remaining image question has been resolved by the transformation from fair use to free use and the addition of PD and OTRS-pending tags to the image description page at the Commons. Finetooth (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your support, peer review, edits, help with the image, and kind words, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and nitpicks A strong candidate, but a few hairsplits that you may wish to ignore. jimfbleak (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3, looking north-northwest - caption should not repeat name, especially as repeated immediately below, what about View from southeast or similar?
    • I did not know the MOS said not to repeat article names in captions, thanks. I have changed the caption to View from southeast in January 1996, with flood damage - is this better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Location of Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3 in Pennsylvania - as above, perhaps Location within Pennsylvania
    • I also did not know this - changed to your suggestion. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it was repaired after a major flood in 1918, a record flood on January 21, 1996, severely damaged the bridge - not sure about although, given the time elapsed, is there a relevant connection (very picky - no need to do anything if you're happy)
    • The problem with the lead is always trying to say things as succinctly as possible. My intent was to contrast the 1918 flood damage (which is also described as cracking the bridge, but was repaired) with the 1996 flood damage (which cracked the bridge and led to its demolition). I may be revealing my POV here (I am sad the bridge was destroyed). If others think this is POV, I will change it. I am also open to other ways to draw the contrast in the lead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • relieving Plunketts Creek Township and Lycoming County of the responsibility - perhaps its responsibility? (as above, no need to do anything if you're happy)
    • While the township is part of the county, they are separate legal entities, so I think this is a plural subject and "its responsibility" is singular. Would "their responsibility" be better? This sentence has given me more trouble than almost any other in the article and has been tweaked by others several times too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second growth forest in the 20th century section is a redirect.
Thanks for your support, careful reading, helpful comments, and kind words, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I missed this at Peer Review so this has been my first reading. In general the article has the qualities of the other bridge articles, carefully prepared, scrupulously referenced and immaculately illustrated. However, I have a slight problem with one aspect of the article—the possible overdetailing on matters not directly related to the subject.

Specifically, the last paragraph of the Villages and Road section gives an interesting account of the Proctor tannery, but the bridge is not mentioned. Then, in the following section, the second paragraph discusses the decline of the villages, but again the bridge doesn't appear. Can these paragraphs be adjusted in some way, so that we don't forget that the central focus of this article is the bridge? I would have made this point at peer review, had I reached the article there.

  • Thanks for pointing this out. Because of the mountainous terrain, the main road to Proctor is the one that comes north from Barbours and crosses the bridge (though there are other, more roundabout ways to get there) and anyone going from one village to the other would have to take the same road and cross the bridge as well. This is why PennDOT was so quick to put up a temporary bridge. So the finished leather leaving the tannery all crossed the bridge going south, and all of the green hides (and some portion of the hemlock bark) coming in would have crossed it too. I have a source on the leather and hides being transported on the road (and thus on the bridge). With the decline in the villages, traffic also declined. I will work on a way to say this. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added mention of the bridge to three paragraphs (the one on the founding of Proctor also did not mention it specifically). The tannery paragraph was rearranged quite a lot in the process, I hope it is still clearly written. I also found on rereading sources that although the tannery and Proctorville were founded in 1868, the tannery was only completed in 1873 and so added this to the article too. Here is the diff. Thanks again for catching this, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a very minor point, both "Native American" and "settler" appear to be linked on their second rather than first mention. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have fixed both of these - thanks for catching them. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all of the points you raised - thanks again for your support, careful reading, helpful comments, and kind words, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I just spent the last half hour searching for the OTRS permission ticket for photo #3. I couldn't find it. More information (such as the email address it came from) is necessary. (I'm going on vacation for the next week so someone else will have to tag the pic) Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a typo in the email address used. I have requested a new email be sent and will ask another OTRS volunteer to help once I know the email has been sent. Thanks again and enjoy your time off, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think I'm right at the end of the support line here, but I haven't had an earlier chance to read it properly. I have no issues which bear on the FA criteria. Another soothing instalment from the Pennsylvania backwoods; keep them coming. Brianboulton (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words and continued support - I am glad the changes I made after your initial comments met with your approval. Just an update, I still am waiting to hear back on the resent email for the photo permission. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appear inadvertently to have registered my support twice - enthusiasm indeed!. Sorry about that, I must be doing too many peer reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know the feeling - I was bold and struck the second support to make counting easier. I have learned that the person who originally gave permission for the PennDOT photo is on leave until June and am contacting someone else. State offices are closed today for the President's Day holiday. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS update My thanks to Kara Russell of PennDOT, who (re)sent an email to the photo permissions just over three hours ago. I am not sure how long it takes to get into the system, but it has been sent (and I have a copy if need be). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS confirmation on the image = Done. See [57] for further info. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cirt! I believe that all issues with this FAC have now been resolved. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [58].

John Whittle[edit]

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk)

I am nominating this article for featured article because it has been passed as both GA and A-Class by Wikipedia:Wikiproject Military history with little trouble, and I believe it meets the criteria. The article has received a copy-edit and third party review by Ian Rose, of which I am very grateful. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with minor proviso that I did, as mentioned, copyedit recently - however Bryce is too kind as there was very little to do. Passed this at GAN, supported at MILHIST ACR and can only repeat what I said at the latter, that this is detailed, balanced, well written, properly sourced. A worthy FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: all images are taken before 1920, thus falling into the public domain. No issues. Jappalang (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
    • I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I have used the Template:Cite web and Template:Australian Dictionary of Biography where applicable for citations, and Template:Citation to list book sources used in the article under the "References" section. I have used the same practice on both of the other articles I have taken through FAC and no comment was said about their use. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm... they shouldn't be mixed, they give inconsistent results, that's the concern. You'll have to ask Sandy for more particulars, I just have this on my "list o things to check that Sandy said to check" (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • To me, it seems that all of the citations conform with each other, as do all books listed in the "References" section. I have no idea how I could get around this if it is in violation as I can't exactly place the books in the cite web template or websources with their links in a citation template. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you never seen the {{cite book}} template? It's pretty easy to not know all our templates... Ealdgyth - Talk 04:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You know what? I think I have actually stumbled across that once before, but just forgot. If I replate the citation template with this, will the issue be addressed? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yep. if you use one (cite) template, you have to use them all. Either all (citation) or all (cite X), that's the deal. Luckily, there are a lot of (cite) templates, covering most all the various types of citations you'd want to use. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no problems on my read-through outside of forced image sizes, which I removed. Yet another great article! :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Ed. I reverted your removal of the forced image sizes, however, as I think it is allowed in this case due to the small default size which makes the images hard to see, particularly in detail. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good, Abraham, can't see anything wrong with it! Skinny87 (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [59].

William McGregor[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk), Oldelpaso (talk)

This is a joint nomination by myself and User:Oldelpaso. The article is an existing GA and has had no less than three PRs, so hopefully there are no significant issues unresolved..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McGregor was an influential association football (soccer) administrator in the 19th century, best known for creating The Football League, the first football league competition in the world. The article summarises pretty much everything that is known about him. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Great article overall on an interesting person who I knew nothing about before reading this. These are all the issues I found during a full reading.

  • "he became involved with local football club Aston Villa and helped establish the club as one of the leading teams in Italy." A little repetition with "club".
  • Association with Aston Villa: "He became interested in joining Villa due to the strong Scottish contingent in the club's ranks, the team's exciting style of play, and the club's connection to a Wesleyan Chapel were also factors." Remove the last three words; if you read the sentence from start to finish, you'll see why.
  • Founder of the Football League: FA Cup link is the second in two sections. Also two Preston North End links in this section.
  • For N.L. Jackson, should there be a space after the first period? That's usually what people with initials have in the titles of their articles. Same for J.J. Bentley.
  • The article we have states that Mitchell St. George was Mitchell St. George's.
  • Hyphen for "first ever"?
  • I think the photo in this section needs a period.
  • Death and legacy: "with clubs sharing ticket revenues and working together in their mutual best interests" is a noun plus -ing sentence structure. To find out why this is not great, and how to fix it, please see this.
  • Comma after "father of The Football League".
  • The before Aston Villa Supporters' Trust?
  • Italics needed for the publishers in refs 6 and 43, assuming that the Birmingham Mail and Post are newspapers. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for your comments, all addressed now apart from the photo caption - as it's a sentence fragment it does not in fact need a full stop (what we in the Old World call what you call a period). Not sure where the reference to Italy in your first point came from though ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A charming, high-quality article that meets FA criteria. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: All three images are good (PD) - unknown author, age 100+. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support high-qualityJALK (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Support Issues resolved.

I enjoyed reading this article and look forward to supporting it soon. It was well written, I did not see any prose issues to correct but I do have some comments that need to be addressed in order to meet the comprehensive criteria.

1)The section "Outside Football" should be merged with "Early life" section and renamed to something like Personal life or the like. I also think it should be expanded a bit if able to find more info on that. A biographical article is about the man also, not just his most notable achievement.
I have merged the paragraphs, but as set out in the nomination, everything that is recorded about McGregor is already included, nothing else about his personal life is known. Although, as details of his wife, children, religious and political views, business interests, and other sporting interests outside football are already included, it seems fairly comprehensive to me already.
2)The section "Founder of the Football League" looks like it does not have any paragraphs. I counted four paragraphs but the last one is all one large paragraph and needs to be split up a bit.
Big paragraph split
3)

"McGregor himself had little interest in the business aspect of football, and was adamant that the Football League should not challenge the longstanding authority of the Football Association"

This sentence introduces the Football Association for the first time. Some explanation should be given, at least a sentence as to what this association is and how it related to the Football League. Did it exist before the League? Was it created in response to it? What purpose did the Association serve? Is it still around today?
Actually the FA is introduced in the section above :-) I've added a clarification on what the FA is and when it was set up. Don't feel that making a point of referring to it as still being around today is relevant to an article on the life of a man who died 98 years ago.
4)The section "Death and Legacy" could be expanded to discuss how that first football league transformed the sport into what it is today. I think this would make the article more complete and comprehensive.
Most of the first paragraph already talks about the impact the creation of the League had on the sport. I'll see if I can turn up anything more, but it probably won't relate specifically to McGregor and might run the risk of rambling off-topic.....
Update: Added a bit..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5)Also, I think it is confusing to those of us in the US who consider "football" a different sport than "soccer". Since this is English Wikipedia maybe this could be made more clear - maybe a sentence explaining that people everywhere except the US refer to the sport of soccer as "football". I won't hold up your FA on this last point if my suggestion does not fit in well, I saw the wikilink in the first sentence addresses that issue but honestly, I read the whole article thinking it was about American football not soccer and then realized my mistake afterward. NancyHeise talk 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I disagree. WP:ENGVAR says that articles should be written in the national form of English appropriate to the subject. It doesn't say that subjects written in UK English should have to include extra chunks essentially saying "for the benefit of Americans, X is what you call Y". As you pointed out, the very first sentence specifically refers to the sport as "association football" as opposed to simply "football" for added clarity.....
Many thanks for your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better now, thanks. Changed to support. NancyHeise talk 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [60].

Nico Ditch[edit]

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum

Although perhaps a little short by some FA standards, I nevertheless believe this to be a comprehensive and well-written account of a long linear earthwork running through Greater Manchester, in England. It was constructed some time between the 5th and 11th centuries, and is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Hi Malleus, interesting read, a few questions:

  • If you've got the date when it was scheduled - if I read it correctly 1997, then it would be nice to tweak it to something like "has been a Scheduled Ancient Monument since 1997".
  • Is the whole of it a Scheduled Ancient Monument, or just the section referred to in "A 135m long section of linear earthwork known as the Nico Ditch situated in Platt Fields is now scheduled. (7)" Thanks Nev1 WereSpielChequers 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that the NW was disputed by the Mercians, Northumbrians and Wessex. Wouldn't that be better as Mercians, Britons, Northumbrians & Danes? (I think Wessex was only briefly that far North circa 829). WereSpielChequers 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hylton states the Mercians, Northumbrians, and Wessex in his book, A History of Manchester; I don't know what more to say. Nev1 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not exactly the clearest or best recorded era of our history. But the Timeline of Anglo-Saxon settlement in Britain shows this area being captured by the Saxons from the British in the early 7th century - possibly with the battle of Chester, there is also a possibility that Rheged got this far south, so sometime between the 5th and 11th centuries certainly includes a Brithonic period. Also the Danelaw got about this far. Thanks WereSpielChequers 22:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Johnstone, F. R. (1967), Eccles, the growth of a Lancashire town" puts the invasion of Lancashire by the Anglo-saxons at AD613 Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've included the Britons and the Danes, and will keep Wessex as Hylton mentions them. Nev1 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support My pedanticsms seem to have been addressed, and it is a well written article that the Wiki can be proud of. Now we just need to get Time team in to get some proper C14 dating evidence from the ditch fill... WereSpielChequers 09:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC) *Comment - I can understand this being a GA, but it seems kind of short... considering it's an article on a ditch. I know Ottava recently brought up a concern about FA notability at WT:FAC... is this really notable? Correct me immediately if you disagree... Ceran→//forge 22:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Surely as a Scheduled thingumie-wotsit it's very notable? I'm no expert, but it sounds like it should be. Skinny87 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to both of the above: any Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) is by definition notable. SAMs are "nationally important" historic sites as defined by English Heritage. The article may be short, but this is the extent of information available. The last excavations were in 1997, and no new information has been discovered since.
  • As for it being a ditch, that doesn't mean it's not notable. There are other notable ditches such as Offa's Dyke. Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, thanks. Striking my comment. Ceran→//forge 01:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, thanks for addressing my comments. --Laser brain (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC) This is looking good, just some minor points of consistency and clarification:[reply]
    • "It was constructed some time between the 5th and 11th centuries." Is it conventional to specify AD/ACE or BC/BCE when phrasing a time period as such?
      • From WP:MOSNUM#Longer periods: "The absence of such an abbreviation [ie: BC/AD or BCE/CE] indicates the default [ie: AD/CE]". In articles which cross from BC to AD, or are in the first few centuries either way, I think it should definitely be used. If it's not clear in this case that all the dates are AD, it would be simple enough to add them. Nev1 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... which can be about 3–4 metres" Do we need to say "about" when we already give a range?
      • Removed "about" as it's unnecessary. 12:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • There seems to be some inconsistency in hyphenating the century statements. I see "19th century", "early-5th century" and "7th-century", for example.
      • When the centuries are used as adjectives, they are hyphenated. From WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words: "Centuries are named in figures: (the 5th century CE; 19th‑century painting); when the adjective is hyphenated, consider nineteenth‑century painting, but not when contrasted with painting in the 20th century". Nev1 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "U-shaped" and "V-shaped", I think.
--Laser brain (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added CE to the earliest date in the mainbody of the text, that should be sufficient to establish that its all in the common era. WereSpielChequers 12:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • You need to fix ref 10 (Townships: Forton...) Use {{cite book}} as it's a published book, just hosted on the British History Online site.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've said before that when using sources from british-history.ac.uk the reference "should be formatted as given in the citation note at the top of the webpage" [61]. I'm fine with applying the cite book template, but I want to be clear whether the template should always be used for british-history.ac.uk sources as I've got a bit of tinkering to do in other articles if it should. Nev1 (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is BHO reprinting a published book, correct? If so, yeah, you should format it like the other books are formatted in the article. IN this case, that means {{cite book}} or hand formatted to match that. If it's BHO putting up original publications, then you'd use {[tl|cite web}} or format like all the other web sources in the article. I wasn't very clear in the Warwick FAC, sorry. You don't want to slavishly copy BHO's formatting, it needs to be formatted to consistently match the rest of that type of source formatting in whatever article its being used in. Did that make sense? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got it, just go for consistency within the article. I've used cite journal rather than cite web as "Townships: Gorton', A History of the County of Lancaster" isn't the title and I wasn't sure how to format it using cite book. Nev1 (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of featuring some old ditch, and am only sorry not to note any relationship between it and Nico. However, it does tell us

Despite heavy weathering, the ditch is still visible in short sections, which can be 3–4 metres wide and up to 1.5 metres deep. A visible 300-metre stretch of the ditch runs through Denton golf course.

both at the head and at the foot, which seems overkill (or overnico): I didn't alter this as I wasn't sure how best to do so. Morenoodles (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to read Despite heavy weathering, the ditch is still visible in short sections, such as a 300-metre stretch in Denton golf course. In the parts which survive, the ditch is 3–4 metres wide and up to 1.5 metres deep. Nev1 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the second paragraph of the lead is no longer a copy of the current status section, which now provides a bit more information.
The lead: The ditch is still visible in short sections, such as a 300-metre stretch in Denton golf course. In the parts which survive, the ditch is 3–4 metres wide and up to 1.5 metres deep. Part of the earthwork is protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument.
Current status: Despite heavy weathering, the ditch is still visible in short sections, which can be 3–4 metres wide and up to 1.5 metres deep. A 300-metre stretch of the ditch that runs through Denton golf course and a section of the ditch running through Platt Fields Park are considered the best persevered remains of the ditch. Nev1 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very well-written. I kept thinking that there must be something else to write about it, but the article answered any questions I had. Good work! Karanacs (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - An extremely interesting and well-written article. Even though it's rather short, I'm actually surprised at how much information there is to write about a ditch. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I didn't find even the tiniest copyediting tweak to be made. Stop this nonsense, or you'll put me out of work! Maralia (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Here in the US, we just have regular ditches with no history attached! Neat article. NancyHeise talk 16:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

  • Whoops, sorted now. I've also included information on where to find the diagram it's based on. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nico ditch 1895 os map.png should help readers to locate the map on old-maps.co.uk. A short description, telling what terms or co-ordinates to use as search terms there, should do; I have no luck finding the map with "Lancashire and Furness" or the co-ordinates provided.

These should be easy to resolve. Jappalang (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been promoted, but the bot hasn't run yet. No further comments should be placed here. Karanacs (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [62].

These Are the Voyages...[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)

The final episode of the ill-fated Star Trek: Enterprise; article has undergone a copyedit and peer review, thanks to all who participated. In response to Ealdgyth's concerns about sources, I offer the following defenses of three sources: TrekNation is a long-standing website owned by UGO Networks and the Hearst Corporation; TrekWeb is less-so (it's hard to fine good mentions in other media to establish reputation when their own stories pop up, but it does have an editor and is only being used to cite someone's opinion, not the views of the site itself.) iF magazine is once again being used only for the interviewee's words, and apparently they do lots of interviews like it. The also have a chief editor and several assistant editors.[63] --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: All of my concerns have been resolved, and I think that the article passes the FA criteria. I made a few minor tweaks to punctuation and grammar, and added {{update after}} so that when the new movie comes out the sentence about it will be updated as soon as possible. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I haven't read the whole article yet, but I've noticed a few places which need citations; at the moment they look like they could be original research.
    • "The show was moved to Fridays in 2004, while the rest of UPN's programming became more female-friendly, in part due to the success of America's Next Top Model."
    • "UPN executives stated that the male-oriented audience of Enterprise did not mesh with the viewership of its other top shows, such as Top Model and Veronica Mars."
    • "a sentiment echoed by producer Rick Berman"
    • "peaking about the cancellation of the series, Braga defended the series and also noted that when The Next Generation was on the air, there was little competition from other science fiction shows, while Enterprise had to contend with a plethora of shows such as Battlestar Galactica."
    • "Despite the cancellation, the fourth season continued production so that Paramount could sell an attractive 98 episodes to syndicates."
  • Also, "Star Trek" should always be italicized. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed the italics. As for the above statements, they are all sourced, just not after the immediate sentence. It's much easier to read to just source everything at the end. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I really couldn't tell about the refs; is there any way that you could reformat that to prevent confusion? -Drilnoth (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really; I've had reviewers complain when sentences.[1] looked like[1] this[2], so I jus try and make sure where one bit of information is sourced and where another begins. Doing it excessively just makes it a pain to read. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Excellent point. I'll probably finish my review tomorrow. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I removed the cap because WP:FAC instructions say to use caps sparingly for template limit and load time reasons. This is a relatively short discussion, please use strikeouts instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah; I see. -Drilnoth (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - David highlighted the concerns I have with the sources, but they are such that I'd leave them for other reviewers to decide for themselves. The TrekWeb bit, as long as it's only expressing TrekWeb's opinion, is fine. TrekNation is a bit more of a concern, it would be nice to find other sources for this information. Same for iF, but again, its enough on the fence for me to leave it for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (not watching this FAC, by the way). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning oppose Was not terribly impressed by what I read (the lead and Background and cancellation)
    • "The story takes place during the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Pegasus"," I was confused by this.
    • "Riker visits the holodeck and turns to the events of the 22nd century for guidance" We're not told when this episode takes place before this, so this reads rather odd for non-Trekkies like me.
    • "quickly slipped as the season continued to a low of 5.9 million viewers" Conflict with word choice ("slipped as...continued...a low"). "As" sets up a cause (for example, "as production ran into problems") but we're instead given a result.
    • "Enterprise to Star Trek: Enterprise" Any significance in the name change? Why was it done?
    • "Various reasons were given for the series' failure." Such an unnecessarily generic sentence (especially with lack of subject for the passive, and "give" as the verb choice).
    • "Actress Jolene Blalock (T'Pol) criticized the early stories, saying that they were boring and lacked intriguing content" Redundancies ("criticized the early stories as boring and lacking in intriguing content").
    • "she felt early" Spot the missing word.
    • "male-oriented audience" A program can be male-oriented. An audience cannot.
    • "from drawing on Star Trek too much in an attempt to milk the franchise for cash" Did not get what this is trying to say; rather generic. What does "drawing on" and "too much" mean? Be more specific. Milk...for cash is rather colloquial.
    • "Speaking about the cancellation of the series, Braga defended the series and also noted that when The Next Generation was on the air, there was little competition from other science fiction shows, while Enterprise had to contend with a plethora of shows such as Battlestar Galactica." Another opportunity to tighten the prose. "Braga defended the series, noting that The Next Generation faced little competition..." etc.
    • "Despite the cancellation, the fourth season continued production" Don't understand the use of "despite the cancellation" here. Earlier, we're given "On February 3, UPN and Paramount announced that the fourth season of the show would be its last." Therefore, why would it be a surprise that they continued production? Also, the rest of that sentence seems to suggest that the only reason production was continued was for syndication purposes.
    • "Berman would not comment on the final episode..." Sentence does not fit well with the narrative flow of the paragraph. BuddingJournalist 16:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I think that I fixed all of those, although I'm not sure about whether one reference is still accurate after a change (as noted in my edit summary). Could someone who has the source take a look? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The citation is still fine. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay; just wanted to check. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The last two sentences still stick out like a sore thumb in that paragraph. They have little to do with the content of the rest of the paragraph. Also: "Berman would not comment on the final episode, saying" <-- Contradictory. If folks can vouch for the other sections being relatively problem-free, then I will strike my oppose and revisit, but I'd recommend giving a full audit of the prose based on what I read. BuddingJournalist 23:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the Braga comment with some clarification; as to the two sentences you feel are tacked on, which ones? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he means "Before its release, Berman would not elaborate on the final episode's content, saying 'It's going to have some surprising twists and turns. It's somewhat of a valentine.'" -Drilnoth (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally came looking to strike out my oppose. However, though I haven't had a chance to thoroughly review the article again, on a cursory glance at the beginning of the Production section:
    • "Enterprise writer Mike Sussman told TrekNation that Braga had considered the idea of an episode crossover featuring characters from other Star Trek series for some time." Date for when he told Treknation? What does "some time" mean?
    • "Suffice to say, my version wouldn't have worked for a series finale at all," Intriguing quotation, but leaves me wondering "why?".
    • "Berman stated the episode..." Missing word and time. Jarring sentence; there was a narrative flow up until here. Next two sentences suddenly switch gears again mid-paragraph.
    • "whom Coto had wanted to a permanent addition" Something went wrong here.
  • This was just skimming the first two paragraphs. Switched to leaning oppose. BuddingJournalist 16:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've moved around some of the content and made the fixes; I didn't add a time for Berman's comments as it seemed to be somewhat chunky thrown in. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I am impressed with the quality of the prose, (apart from "A series-ending wrap party"), and the obvious enthusiasm for the subject that renders the whole article engaging. Clearly, a very well-researched contribution which I am pleased to support. Graham Colm Talk 19:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - being married for 20 year to a die hard Star Trek fan, I appreciate anything Star Trek, including Next Generation. Let me know when the Star Trek Wikipedia article comes up for peer review or FAC again. NancyHeise talk 18:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 04:11, 19 February 2009 [64].

Ealdred (archbishop)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's as complete as I can make without spending way too much money on rare books, I've had it reveiwed at GA, PR and then Malleus and David ran their fine-toothed combs over it, as well as Johnbod contributing art history bits. This is the companion piece to Stigand, Ealdred was the other archbishop in England during the end of Edward the Confessor's reign and the start of William the Conquerors. Ealdred crowned Billy Boy, as well as being one of the more well traveled bishops of his time, having visited Germany, Hungary, France, Rome and Jerusalem. Not a terribly religious man, he's another on of those "Bad-boy bishops" although not nearly so bad as Stigand. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative support—psshh, bad-boy bishops are nothing, I wanna hear more about them lecherous popes! I just realized I forgot to finish that copyedit I promised, I'll get back to you. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images: File:Harold2.jpg is missing an original date of creation (making the author death tag improper), and File:Bayeux Edward Funeral.jpg is a mess from the stupid commonsbot transfer and contains no information on what the image is, author and date. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the funeral image, I've added below a source and such like information for it. While that may not be the exact source of the image, it's a correct source, with page number, etc. Harold's pic also has that information placed below. Both are from the Bayeux Tapestry, made sometime shortly after the Conquest in 1066, so it's well into PD. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's all well and good, it just needs to say that clearly, I did some cleanup to the image description pages, this is kinda what I was looking for in future reference. Anyhow, I finished my copyedit and images meet criteria, so I support. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sources look OK. Links checked out with link checker tool. :) BuddingJournalist 18:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport: I missed the peer review, so this has been my first reading. Although it has apparently been copyedited, there are were numerous prose errors in the article which needed attention. These have all been corrected and my various other suggestions acted on. Good stuff!! Brianboulton (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general point, the word "probably" occurs rather frequently in the article. I understand the need to be tentative when sources are inspecific, but synonyms like "perhaps" or "maybe" etc could be used for variety.
Changed some to "likely"s one to "perhaps" and eliminated one. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bishop and royal adviser: Ref [14] is best moved to the sentence end alongside [15], rather than keeping the ungrammatical comma after "abducting the abbess".
done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diplomatic travels
    • The opening sentence of the last paragraph: "Ealdred administered Ramsbury due to the departure of its bishop, Herman, to the continent" is virtually repeated later in the paragraph: "Ealdred was given the see of Ramsbury to administer while Herman remained outside England." Only one of these is necessary.
Copyedited the first sentence to : "Ealdred became involved with the see of Ramsbury after its bishop Herman got into a dispute with King Edward over the movement of the seat of his bishopric to Malmesbury Abbey. Herman wished to move the seat of his see, but Edward refused permission for the move." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The following sentence: "Herman got into a dispute with King Edward over the movement of the seat of his bishopric to Malmesbury Abbey, which Herman wished to do but Edward refused permission for." Inelegant, with some rough phrasing, and a prepositional ending. Suggested rewording: "Herman, who wished to move the seat of his bishopric to Malmesbury Abbey, was in dispute with the king who refused permission for the move."
See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welsh affairs and Jerusalem
    • I'm not sure that this section heading really covers the content. The first para is about Welsh matters, the second about Jerusalem, but the third is about something else entirely.
"Welsh affairs, Jerusalem, and Worcester" is the new section title. This is really a grab bag section, Ealdred spent so much time traveling it's kinda hard to deal with things ... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The king once more employed..." Suggest "The king again employed..." is better
done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Edward sent the embassy..." For clarity, "Edward sent Ealdred..."
done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...but the oath may not have had any obligation on Gruffydd's part to Edward" Can you explain why this is so? Also, "to Edward on Gruffyd's part" would be better
We don't know the specific wording. Gruffydd had no obligation to attend Edward's court nor help him in war, so it appears that it was a pretty meaningless oath. I've clarified it a bit more in the text. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The diocese" - should specify the Hereford diocese
done. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sentence: "Ealdred was granted the administration in order that the area might someone with experience with the Welsh in charge." Missing words?
I have found and replaced the stray "have" that had wandered away. It is once more in position between "might" and "someone". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1058 made a pilgramage..." Who did?
See! Told you he was a bad-boy bishop, he escaped! I've returned Ealdred to his proper place between "1058" and "made". Tricksy, tricksy bishops... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archbishop of York
    • "Another concern..." As you have early mentioned a few "reasons", this "concern" ought to become a "reason".
done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The intro to the William of Malmesbury quote should read: "William of Malmesbury says that Ealdred, by 'amusing the simplicity'..." etc - otherwise the grammar is wrong.
done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence beginning "Because the position of Stigand..." is convoluted, and should be broken up for the sake of clarity
Changed to "Because the position of Stigand, the archbishop of Canterbury, was irregular, Wulfstan sought and received consecration as a bishop from Ealdred. Normally, Wulfstan would have gone to the archbishop of Canterbury, as the see of Worcester was within Canterbury's province."
  • After the death of Edward the Confessor
    • Harold is mentioned by name four times in the one sentence beginning "Stigand's position..." Is rewording possible, to avoid repetition?
Reworded to "... and as earl Harold had not allowed Stigand to consecrate one of the earl's churches, so it is unlikely that Harold would have allowed Stigand to perform the much more important royal coronation." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...center on the fact that..." seems unwieldly phrasing. How about: "...rely on no other source naming the ecclesiastic..."
reworded to " ... rely on the fact that no other English source names... ". The fact that no other English source names it is an important distinction here. Norman sources rather loudly proclaim Stigand as the cleric. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "loot" sounds rather colloquial. "Plunder" sounds better
I rather like loot though. It's used often enough in the sources... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest insert "ceremony" after "William's coronation"
done. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link required on "thegns"
done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ealdred's curse seems a strange mixture of ancient and modern English - "Thou are..." etc. Can you confirm wording as stated?
That's how Bates translates it. I don't own a copy of W of M that's not in the original Latin (and honestly, my Latin is so rusty that any translation I did would be wildly inaccurate). Bates is just the handiest of the translations, and the most "poetic" so I used his. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy
    • A paragraph break should be given after "Wulfstan II of Worcester"
done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The long sentence beginning "He built the monastic churches..." could really do with splitting.
done Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is, as usual, an impressive piece of scholarship, but attention is needed to these details. Support now indicated, above. Brianboulton (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I'm sorry I don't have any comments to offer for improvement. I did some research into the pope's refusal to elevate him to another see and asking him to give up his present one based on charges of simony. I did not know there were other views of this event and I think the fact that Ealdgyth presents all of these versions is a sign of a quality piece of scholarship.NancyHeise talk 16:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [65].

Greece Runestones[edit]

Nominator(s): Berig (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I hope it satisfies the criteria. I is already of GA status but I have expanded it considerably since it reached GA. Berig (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Sources in a non-English language need to state such in the sources.
  • You need to list the bibliographic details for Rundata, rather than just linking to the wiki article.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I didn't evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to fix the issues you indicated. As for Rundata, I'm not sure what you mean but I've now followed the instructions given by the Rundata project.--Berig (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the Rundata, you need to list who is the publisher of the information, when it was published, etc. Just like you would for a book, etc. A link to their page isn't going to be enough, I'm afraid. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just verified how the database is referred to in the bibliography of a scholarly work (Jesch's book Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age (2001)), and she writes "Samnordisk rundatabas (http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskn/samnord.htm)". If this is how scholars refer to the book in bibliographies, then why it is wrong for WP?--Berig (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Wikipedia MOS doesn't allow the use of bare url links. That's why. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've found a solution.--Berig (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked your solution and we're done! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help!--Berig (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops - I forgot to mention that this image needs a source. All maps need a verifiable source against which to check the information included in them. Awadewit (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have given the source the map. The original source was Rundata 2.0, but after the update of the database it is even more easily verifiable. It's Rundata 2.5 with map functions offering both Google Earth and the Swedish map provider Eniro.--Berig (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all of the self-made images of runestones need a more preceise description than "stone" or "runestone". It is clear from the article that each stone has specific number, for example. I would include the number of the stone and its location on the image description page and any other information you feel is essential to identifying that particular stone.
  • File:U 270, Smedby.jpg, File:U 922, Uppsala cathedral.jpg, and File:U 446, Droppsta.jpg,
  • The descriptions of these images do not specify what they are - please expand them.
  • This image descriptions say that Johan Hadorph is the author of the image. According to Wikipedia's pitiful stub on him, he was an antiquarian who collected art, not an engraver or artist. Is Wikipedia's article simply incomplete (no, it can't be!)?
  • I'm wondering if the Swedish PD release is quite right - what does Swedish law mean by "photographic works"? Does it mean original photographs? Is this image a photograph of the 17th-century engraving and would that count as an original photograph? I would have thought that this image would no longer be under copyright because the author's life + 70 years have passed (being that the author, whoever he was, lived in the 17th century).
  • The descriptions of these images do not specify what they are - please expand them.
  • I have the same question about the Swedish PD release as above.
  • The image descriptions say that Johan Peringskiöld is the author, but our stub on both the elder and younger describes them both as antiquarians, not engravers or artists. Again, is Wikipedia simply missing information?
  • File:Sm 46, Erikstad.jpg - Could we get a first name for the author? Also, I have the same question about the Swedish PD release as above.

Hopefully it will not take much time to resolve these issues. I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address all the issues you have indicated. As to the Swedish antiquarians of the 17th and the early 18th century, they were very different from those of today and they had to undertake considerable field work in order to find and document runestones. Drawing what they found in order to document it was a natural part of their work. The article antiquarian deals with how the profession has changed during the centuries. As to the Swedish PD releases there is the problem that if someone scanned a PD painting and published it after 1969, the particular scan is not free for use on Swedish Wikipedia. This has led some people to want to delete (from the Commons) what might be used on Swedish WP, and the Swedish PD tags are there to remind that the images are free whatever PD concerns that might possibly be raised.--Berig (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS, the article on Johan Peringskiöld explicity says that the elder made drawings of runestones, so I don't think we are missing information in that article.--Berig (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I must have missed that in the JP article - sorry! Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help!--Berig (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an incorrect {{main}} template at the top of the article (see WP:LAYOUT and the instructions on the template), I left edit summaries of MoS fixes needed, and I contacted User:Brighterorange to run his script to correct the faulty endashes in the citations. (I don't know where to categorize this article at WP:FA if it passes.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you help. I have followed your edit summaries and hope that it is more satisfactory according to MoS now. If the article should pass, runology and runestones fall under linguistics at universities.--Berig (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Berig has done some great work here, not least taking so many photographs! As for classifying the article, I think "Art, architecture and archaeology" might be the most appropriate group. Haukur (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, great article. I'm slowly going through it.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent work, Berig. The runestone photographs you've taken are extremely helpful, and prior to your great effort, were scantly found on the internet. I applaud the time and effort you've put forth into this; hunting these stones must have been great fun! I've gone through and done some minor prose adjustments and a little formatting. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article looks really interesting and well made. Ukabia (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article, it manages to present such an inaccessible topic in a very easily comprehensible way. I second Bloodofox' comment on the runestone images, you have clearly devoted yourself to that hunt! –Holt T•C 10:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queries/Comments of --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In which language are the inscriptions in? If i interpret it right, in Old Norse. So why is the Latin transliteration included? Not much use for an English encyclopaedia reader. Even the Old Norse transcription can be put in some "Notes" like section. I just ignored 2 lines 30 times, as i can't understand them and how many readers will be able to read them?
  • I was a little perplexed by the notations U 73, Sö 165, Ög 81. Can they be explained better?
  • I came across Runestones of Högby, which has 3 runestones described (photos of all 3 by Berig, I must say Berig did a great job with the photos), Greece Runestones describes only one, namely Ög 81. 82, 83 are ignored. Can you please explain? --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As is explained in the intro, the language is the Old Norse dialect of Denmark and Sweden (or Old East Norse). Informative articles on runestones usually provide both transliteration, transcription and translation of the inscriptions, and Rundata even provides transcriptions into both Old East Norse and Old West Norse (the Norwegian and Icelandic dialect). The annotations are the names that runestones virtually always have in scholarly literature, so if you read about runes and runestones, the inscriptions are usually named U 73, Sö 165, Ög 81, and so on. The first letter represents the province (U=Uppland) and the number represents the order in which they were documented together. This is scholarly practice. As for the Högby runestones, a great many runestones appear in groups, but they often do not tell a coherent story together as they may have been raised at different times and for different purposes, and among the Högby runestones, only Ög 81 tells about a person who went to Greece. Consequently, Ög 82 and Ög 83 are a bit off-topic in an article on the Greece runestones.--Berig (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the info about the info about the notations somewhere in the article or a footnote. I still would prefer the non-English lines to be in footnotes, not much useful to a general English-understanding person. Haven't read the article in detail. Will surely do that tomorrow. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will add some info about the notations in a footnote as you suggest. I think that the non-English lines are useful since they provide an easily verifiable way for readers to compare the pictures of the runestones with the translation into English thanks to the resource which is linked on the bottom of the page. Just check out words from the Old Norse transcription of any runestone with this tool, and you can verify the translations, and see that the particular runestone is listed with the notation system. Moreover, they don't take much space.--Berig (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images are right-aligned. WP:MOS reads:
    • "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox."
    • "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left"
  • WP:weasel words: add reference and/or name of person who considers.
    • "Búi's location of death is not given, but it was probably in a way which was not considered as glorious as those of his brothers.[109]"
    • "the ornamention is considered unusual"
    • "The personal name that is considered most interesting by scholars is Ormika" exactly who?
  • References needed:
    • Numerical data like "measures 2 m (6.6 ft) in height and 1.2 m (3.9 ft) in width," needs inline citations. Applicable to every section.
    • "Öpir, the most popular and productive of the old runemasters": point of view
  • "The stone (U73) shares the same message as U 72 together with which it once formed a monument" So U 72 discusses Greece too?
  • Please correct the links "refined Urnes (Pr5) style" etc. The organization of the article linked has changed since ;links aere first added. Have changed one, please check it, if correct.
  • Overlink: "unorthodox use of the haglaz rune (ᚼ), as in hut for Old Norse út ("out")." 2 words in the sentence link to the same article. Please remove one.
  • Sentence as above and "as in Ragnvaldr": Why is hut and g bolded? May be italics will be better alternative. ?
  • Prose: Long sentences, which may be split as the reader may lose track of the beginning.
    • "These two brothers then raised the two memorials in honour of their nephews, which was probably due to the nephews having distinguished themselves in the South, but it may have also been in gratitude for wealth gathered by the nephews overseas." ---> for e.g. "These two brothers then raised the two memorials in honour of their nephews, which was probably due to the nephews having distinguished themselves in the South. However it may have also been in gratitude for wealth gathered by the nephews overseas." OR something like that. Can be done in better way when what i have written.
    • "Very few could boast of returning home with the honour of having been the captain of the Varangian Guard, and the name Ragnvaldr shows that he belonged to the higher echelons of Old Norse society, and that he may have been a relative of the ruling dynasty."
    • "Runestone U 328 relates that Ragnvaldr had two aunts, Gyríðr and Guðlaug, and runestone U 336 adds that Ulf of Borresta, who received three Danegelds in England, was Ónæm's paternal nephew and thus Ragnvald's first cousin."
  • <br clear=both> are causing neccessary spaces.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • British English and American English spellings like "grey" and "gray" used together in the article. Stick to one: British or American --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to stagger the images, but doing so only messes up the look of the individual sections. However, MoS only says that they "can" be staggered, not that they "should" or "must", so it does not appear to be necessary. U 72 does not mention Greece, it says "Gerðarr and Jôrundr have raised these stones in memory of their sister's sons Ernmundr and Ingimundr", which was intended to complement that of U 73, which is why they "share the same message". hut needs to be bolded per academic convention as it represents the runemaster's use of runes, and not the transliteration into Old Norse which would be ut or út. I'll remove the bolded g in the name Ragnvaldr since it was only intended to help the reader see what phoneme in the name that was pronounced in a special way. Otherwise, I hope that I have changed according to your suggestions. Please inform me if I have missed anything.--Berig (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing dimensions in "U 140", U 518, U 1087 ("an unusually large and imposing runestone" is a view, numerical data is more precise) etc. Please search for more if any. Checked til U 1087 --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added all the dimensions given in the official publication Sveriges runinskrifter.--Berig (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing date for ref: (Swedish) Nordisk runnamnslexikon by Lena Peterson at the Swedish Institute for Linguistics and Heritage (Institutet för språk och folkminnen). --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done!--Berig (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I doubt that such a map would be feasible considering the great concentration of runestones just north-west of modern Stockholm. The exact location of every runestone is easy to find thanks to Rundata 2.5.Download here.--Berig (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about marking every single location, but you've got an entirely blank map with dots; frankly, that reduces the usefulness of the map to absolutely jack. As for Rundata, I don't have a PC and this article should be able to stand on its own. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links to maps as provided by Rundata 2.5. I hope you think that the article stands more on its own now.--Berig (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would something like {{Earth Labelled Map}} be an idea? Maps like that are incredibly userfriendly and informative. If it's worth the trouble, it'd be ideal. –Holt T•C 11:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that it would be possible to make such a map work, considering the concentrations of stones you can see near Stockholm.--Berig (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] Just noting that this issue is fixed now, thanks to Lokal Profil (talk · contribs). Clickable svg map with proper labels, couldn't ask for more! –Holt (T•C) 16:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thanks to you who asked him :).--Berig (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Redtigerxyz above in that some explanation of the coding is needed for flow (though clearly not too hard to figure out). I would remove the mention of U112 from the lead s it is meaningless until the coding is noted. I'd put a short section called nomenclature or naming below the lead, explaining in 1-3 sentences what the letters and numbers are for, and who actually came up with the classification. This then helps explain the rest of the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done!--Berig (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. One more thing, a sentence at the beginning of that section stating who came up with the original catalogue for all the IDs and when? I note mention of national searches, was that when the bulk of them were found? That would be good to note as well as a one-liner here.
Thanks! I doubt that it think it is possible to find a reference for someone who came up with the IDs as they were the result of many scholars working together to produce catalogues since the 17th c. The custom derives from the runological tradition of just referring to the publication where scholars could read about the stones. In other words, the modern IDs replaced earlier IDs like B 123, where B stood for an 18th c. catalogue named Bautil and the number represented its order in it, or L 123, where L represented a catalogue by a 19th c. scholar named Liljegren. Consequently, when Söderberg and Brate produced the first tome of the official Sveriges runinskrifter, which is named Ölands runinskrifter (1900-1906), it must have been inevitable to continue the convention by simply referring to the Karlevi Runestone as Öl(ands runinskrifter) 1, since it is the first stone listed in the tome.--Berig (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I recall with Stonehenge much discussion on where stones were quarried and transported etc. Were all the stones local? It might be good to note something about common elements of their construction in a construction section (?) (not sure if enough is known (?)) - eg local, what is known about tools etc. all different/similar etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the transportation of loose stones by the great ice cap of the Ice Age, Sweden is incredibly richly endowed with glacial erratics of every possible size - and origin, and so the stones are presumably made from material available locally (it would anyway be impossible to prove any transportation of stones the way they can do in southern England). Often they simply engraved the inscriptions on boulders that they couldn't move, or on flat bedrock. As for the actual procedure of making the runestones, I think the best place for it is in the articles runestone and runemaster.--Berig (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments I hate to say it, but my first thought on skimming this was that it's more of a list than an article. You have a lead and then a long list of items. They have more depth than some lists, but there is no prose flow and typical article organization. I'd like to toss the idea out there that this should be a Featured List Candidate, not an FAC.
    • "Contrary to the popular stereotype of Viking warriors, the individuals who served in the Varangian Guard were not uncouth ruffians ..." This sentence is much too long in the lead. Please break up.
    • "The first part is a letter that represents the area where the runic inscription appears ..." You go on to give examples that are more than one letter.
    • "If the inscription was documented later than the official publication, it is listed according to the publication where it was first described, e.g. Fv1958;252, which stands for Fornvännen, year 1958, p. 252." This doesn't make sense to me. Is Fornvännen the publication, then? The place? Why do you use an example that doesn't appear in the article? If Fornvännen is the city, the where is the page 252?
    • Just out of curiosity, is there a reason we don't provide the depth (thickness) measurement of the stones? Is it because they are all of a nominal depth?
--Laser brain (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have tried to fix the points you indicated. If there is anything I have missed, please tell me. As for the thickness of the stones, it did not seem that relevant. We are for instance not showing images of the runestones from the side.--Berig (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What about my comment that this is more a list than an article? --Laser brain (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I actually thought of it before nominating, but I think the sections are much too full and informative for this article to qualify as a "list". Moreover, you probably wouldn't call a paper encyclopedia, or a tome of Sveriges runinskrifter, "lists" while the topics are presented in the same way as they are here.--Berig (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hm, I see your point and agree. Thanks for your hard work. I switched to support above. --Laser brain (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All Swedish? Not one English source? I feel as if I should oppose based on comprehensiveness because there really should be something in English on the topic. Runes are an important study focus and this would definitely have something. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, more accurately, you could oppose on verifiability. "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." However, I seriously doubt there are authoritative English-language sources for this topic. --Laser brain (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not opposing because my views are normally seen as controversial and I would rather not deal with it. However, I believe that there are many more English sources out there that are not mentioned. I have studied the history of the English language in multiple graduate classes. I have seen a lot of information that talks about runes. There are not that many, so these would have to come up a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are more than 6,500 runic inscriptions in Scandinavia alone, and this article concerns a tiny minority of 30 runestones. If you want to find detailed information about individual runestones such as these, you are restricted to scholarly works in Norwegian, Danish and Swedish.--Berig (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I find that comment to be utterly absurd. Sorry, but I do. As I stated above, this is a major pursuit in those who focus on Indo European languages, which is a large portion of Linguistics. I know many people, Swedish, Hungarian, Romanian, Russian, etc, who focus on runes and who publish primarily in English even though its not their native language. There are also many conferences that take place in English. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Can you please indicate *any* English language source that discusses one of these 30 runic inscriptions in detail, with history of discovery and dimensions?--Berig (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - There was an introduction of multiple English sources and an inclusion of extra background information that provides a more complete understanding that the original lacked. I definitely think that the page improved from the additional content and can be considered complete. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - comprehensiveness. First result in google books: The Varangians of Byzantium. An English work done by non-native English speaker and -translated-. Proof that there are English sources that can be used. Some links so that the writers can go back and have a start in reworking in English sources and making this page comprehensive: 1 and 2. Furthermore, "Greece" Runestones? I don't buy it as a term. Most hits would place "runestones" without capitalization, and many more separate rune from stone. This needs to be reworked with the large amount of English works with official English titles. There are plenty out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - "U 431" was pictured in one of my old linguistic texts. That's what tipped me off to this page being fundamentally flawed. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The major problem with your oppose is that you link to these 1 and 2 searches as indicating any major literature on these stones in English. There is not a single source that you have found that treats any runestone in detail, as they mention these stones in passing, as examples of particular words and voyages, and they can only be used as token references. As for your objections to the name, there is no conventional term for them in English, like there is in Swedish (Greklandsstenar). If you are serious with your oppose you should provide sources that can compare with the Swedish ones, and not just pretend that they exist.--Berig (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid Berig is right. As far as I understand, there is no comprehensive work that approaches this subject in the English language. You might find a picture here and there or an odd article about a specific runestone that has been newly discovered somewhere or about a particular inscription, but that's about the extent of it at this point. Runestones in general are poorly represented in English language texts. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, there are no in-depth studies we know of that treat any parts of this particular subject. The name Greece Runestones is a fully functional and correct translation of the Swedish term, which naturally has not appeared in English yet, as there is no English literature on it. –Holt T•C 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct translation according to whom? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an "incorrect" translation according to whom, Ottava Rima? Holt is a Scandinavian and in a good position to judge the correctness of the translation. If you want to change the name it is up to you to show reliable and verifiable sources for a "correct" and established English translation of Swedish Greklandsstenar other than the one that is used here.--Berig (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even the stone that is at Oxford (U 104) is cited to Swedish sources. It is at the Ashmolean Museum . Nothing can be found in English? I highly doubt that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be no problem for you to provide a good English secondary source on the runestone (if such sources exist as you assert). You can't just assert things without providing any support for your views.--Berig (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a peer review. This is a FAC. I am not going to do all of your research for you because you refused to go down to a library and find appropriate English Sources. What it looks like is that you simply translated from the Swedish page and refused to do any work beyond that. That is not FAC quality and is definitely not appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that you do not know of any secondary sources in English. Moreover, I'd be very interested in seeing that Swedish page, you claim that it looks like I have translated. Your oppose has nothing behind it and is very inappropriate for a FAC.--Berig (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admit what? There are thousands of books on Runes at the Library of Congress. What do you want me to do, march down there and start giving you titles? The simple fact that you tried to claim that there aren't any sources in English is utterly absurd. You can't hide it by trying to claim that -I- have to do something. Your reluctance to even investigate for English sources to begin with shows that you shouldn't have brought this to FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out and that you ignored - one of the rune-stones is at an English museum, and yet you failed to get any English sources on that. Don't try to claim that there aren't any. All museums have records of their holdings. At the bare minimum, there would be an entry listing of the records. Yet, nothing in the article. That only verifies that you haven't done any appropriate research. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your intent is clearly disruptive. You post an oppose falsely claiming that the article excludes an amount of imaginary literature, and since you can't provide any evidence for this non existent literature you refuse to accept any responsibility to prove that you are honest. Anyone can pretend that there are unicorns and shift the burden of evidence on those that disagree.--Berig (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa there. If you want to note something as uncited or inaccurate, you are welcome to post it, but you have yet to show any evidence for your claims. Furtheremore, are you seriously calling Berig lazy? Did you happen to notice that all of the photographs on that article were taken by Berig, that he's been working on this specific article regularly for months, and the he has addressed every concern brought up to him about it? I've always found Berig to be a perfectly reasonable editor here, even when we've disagreed. As I've pointed out before, it has been my experience that you're not going to find a definitive work on these works in English and, once more, you may find a paper about a specific stones or a few specific stones here and there (such as the case you've brought up), but beyond this English works on the subject are lacking. If you can come up with a definitive work covering the subject matter of Greece Runestones in English, I'd be happy to read it myself. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outdent - disruptive? No evidence? Bloodofox and Berig, stop it right now. You have yet to answer why one of these was given to an English Monarch, is in an English Museum, and how there is not one -English- source on this item. English Museums document important pieces. English linguists discuss Runes. The simple fact is that there are sources out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are many English language works on runes. However secondary literature on Swedish runestones in English is something that no one here but you has ever heard about, apparently. Too bad you refuse to cooperate and share any references with the rest of us (if such references actually exist).--Berig (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point this. Now I expect an apology for not only be dragged in the mud, but actually trying to hide from simple research. As I listed before, this was one of the books on the google hits. Everyone can see it and find it. There are plenty more out there. Do the right thing, withdraw this FA and come back when you have finished your research. Furthermore, as the source points out, your translation was horrible sloppy and needs to be re-evaluated by proper sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another tertiary source which adds nothing that is not already provided in a more updated form by Rundata in English. You're gripping at straws, and you do not appear to be familiar with the difference between secondary and tertiary sources.--Berig (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to write the same thing. A tertiary source with little to add. If you look at his references, all the works are Swedish, and they are exactly the same works that Berig has used in this article. This Sigfús Blöndal, probably a good scholar, has not been able to come up with English works with original research. This is evidence pointing in this article's direction. –Holt T•C 20:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with the damn copy editing. It makes it impossible to respond. You have been proven wrong by one simple hit, and it is from a whole book that devotes a large portion to these stones. One book from the first page of the google books hit. That proves that there are plenty out there that even a cursory glance would have discovered some. So, insult away, but this FAC is not even close to being comprehensive, let alone does it fall under Verifiability because it is based on translations that are provingly incorrect. You got the inscriptions wrong according to the source which goes into detail about the whole set of stones and provides legitimate translations for them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is a tertiary source which is outdated compared to Rundata (2008) if they disagree on translation into English. You simply refuse to aknowledge that there are no secondary sources on these runestones in English.--Berig (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14 pages cataloging runes, providing context, and providing actual translation is more than what you have produced for most of them, especially when it puts into doubt your translations. Furthermore, user based translations need to be marked properly, which yours have not. Also, on the Museum stone (thats the only one I'm focusing on now, since it is so easy to find sources): this. It discusses the stone, how it got the stone, etc. So far, two big sources that contradict what you say now and in the article. Need I continue or will you apologize and withdraw already? So far, you are just wasting everyone's time. It is taking me mere seconds to find sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another, p. 361 of this about the presenter of it and how the process happened for it reaching the Museum. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another, U540 here. All it really requires is to type in runestone and the stone. Amazing how many hits come up, and google doesn't even have nearly 10% of books online, let alone journals and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, that beauty right there has most of the Upplandic Runes. But guess what, its a journal devoted to it, in English! Why? Because its a major field within Linguistics and English speakers pursue it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] Due to the low level of accessibility these books and journals have on Google Books, I have not been able to read the whole context, and cannot make a tenable statement on the links you have provided. To quote WP:V again, English sources should be used in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality. This is not the case here, from what I can tell. The best original research that has been carried out on Swedish runestones, is by the Swedes themselves. Tertiary sources are not of equal equality to the Swedish, secondary sources. What do you wish to prove/achieve? –Holt T•C 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that the term "preference" means replacing. No one has stated that these need to be replaced completely. The argument is that this page fails under the requirement that it reflects academic opinion. Ignoring the English interpretations and uses does just that. There is a whole journal devoted to one region listed. And you can use the term "Tertiary" all you want. The state of the article makes it blatant that every source used is tertiary, hence why there is almost no actual information listed on each Runestone. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe you need to reread the definition for "tertiary". A book that discusses the stones as part of the whole cultural phenomenon is not a tertiary source. A journal devoted to the region's runestones is not a tertiary source. A source that forms the Museums catalog and the stone exists at that Museum is not a tertiary source. So, throwing around misapplied ords to try and dismiss a source doesn't actually work. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably return to this soon enough, but I'd like to take a break to let the discussion rest a bit, like the others seem to have done. I believe we have met a dead end. If you wish to continue criticizing the article, I think you ought to write a list of the concrete issues you have encountered, so that others may get a decent overview of what you really are opposing. –Holt T•C 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated before, there is no way this article meets comprehensiveness. There is barely any information as is, and there are very few uses of English sources. The one source about the museum alone would add a few more lines. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Sawyer, B. (2000). The Viking-Age Rune-Stones (first name is Birgit, by the way) listed but not cited? This is a large collection and catalog of each of the runes with all of their important data plus background information. When I was looking through the English sources, I figured that you had this and thus had some, but you don't use this. I picked up a copy of it, and it is a standard within teaching Runes in the US. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cited it previously in the article since it contains some general information about voyages on runestones. However, I had to trim down the lead[66]. Otherwise people would have opposed the article for having too long a lead. Since you have the book in front of you, you can see that the book deals with social life as evidenced on runestones and that it contains precious little on the Greece runestones. Please show us what important information I have left out that relate specifically to these stones.--Berig (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS, for some reason you call Sawyer's book a "catalogue of each of the Runes"[67]. Since I have read the book and it is nothing like a catalogue of runes, could you please explain what you mean? Maybe you are confusing "runes" with "runestones", but it is not a catalogues of runestones either, unless you are talking of the lists in the appendix.--Berig (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its appendix is part of the book that collects a large list of pieces. That is a catalog. If you want, I can put together over 10 sentences to add in just three listings from the sources that I have posted here. Now, as anyone can see this book contains a lot of important background information. You don't explain in the article how the stones are a source for linguistic evidence. You don't explain how they are a source of customs. You go very little into the background of why these stones are even important. As of right now, this is merely a dignified list page. You can fix that by using books like Sawyer's and the Varangians book listed above to flesh out the importance of these stones.
Example of information that should be added: p. 20 "The wider context is suggested by the fact that only certain individuals, mostly men, are honoured, and that the emphasis is put on the sponsers.... Only eight of the (more or less complete) inscriptions lack a commemoration formula, but four of them are parts of double monuments and the formula is found ont he other stone. Two others (U 29 and 73) will be discussed in Chapter 5.6. It is obvious that the relationship between sponsers and the dead weree significant in determining who commemorated whom. A systematic study of all relationships has revealed patterns with distinct differences between regions that cannot be explained as due to chance; there must have been rules, principles, or customs determining who should commemorate the dead in this monumental way, and they were not the same throughout"
This is just information on one stone. There is no equivalent of this vital context within the article on the stone. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, pp. 114-115: "In Spanga parish we meet another Inga who had inhereited from her sons (U 72 and 73). After her death her brothers, Gardar and Jorund, inherited from her, and - as in Gerlog's case - we can only speculate what happened to the inheritance after that. We can be fairly certain that Gerlog did not leave any heirs, and it is at least likely that neither Gardar nor Jorund did so either. Since both inscriptions describing those inheritance cases (29 and 73) are among the very fw that do not state who sponsored them, it may well be that in these cases there was no claimant other than the Church, which then took responsibility for the commemorations." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only Greece runestones that you can find any information on in Sawyer's book are U 73 and U 136, since they concern what Sawyer is interested in. However, I think it is a bit off-topic to add Sawyer's theories on the runestone tradition, since it would bloat an already large article, and such information properly belongs in the article runestone. I still don't understand how you can call Sawyer's book a "catalogue", which it definitely is *not*, as anyone can see in its list of contents[68].--Berig (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bloat? No. This is an incomplete article on a large topic. Adding ten more sentences from Swayer would not bloat it. Adding two more sentences from each of the other sources will not bloat it. You have nothing on the themes and images that connect them, let alone the major tradition. you have stones, a base examination of what they say, and a tiny history. You even only have 129 footnotes. There are much larger and better footnoted articles out there, so don't mention bloating when it comes to an oppose that says that this is not fully comprehensive. You have two books that talk about some of the runes that need to be added. You have a journal that is devoted to all of the U runes that should be examined. You have information on a museum piece that should be discussed. You really should think about adding in some of the required information instead of responding that you can't. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 000 runestones in Scandinavia, of which these runestones constitute 1 %, and there are more than 200 runestones that mentions voyages. The only thing that makes these stones a special topic is the fact that they mention Greece and can be connected to the Varangian Guard. There is nothing else that these stones share that they do not have in common with other runestones. Writing on traditions, "themes and images" is preposterous when these things do not set the Greece runestones from other stones, and are much more appropriately covered in generic articles like runestone and runestone styles. If you want to continue old habits in this discussion and also be the only one to oppose this article, be my guest. I don't think we will get any further in this discussion. Cheers!--Berig (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Berig, now you are being completely incivil. You have failed to address the topic at hand. You were given multiple sources and failed to meet it. This oppose is over a fundamental requirement and can be used to deny the whole page as an FA. I produced two books that heavily deal with these stones and with the Varangians. I produced a whole journal devoted to the one region's stones which have articles talking about many of the stones listed. I have produced articles about the museum piece. What is your response? Attacks, deflections, and claiming that there is no information. You are disrupting your own FAC by refusing to fix the blatant error. Why? Do you have no respect for this process at all? You obviously have no respect for me with your personal attacks. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to address your objections, Ottava, when they are riddled with factual errors and show a hasty and poor judgment of the topic and sources that appears to be made ad hoc. You call Sawyer's book a "a large collection and catalog of each of the runes with all of their important data plus background information"[69], which is as preposterous as calling a book on medieval manuscripts, a "catalogue of Latin characters", and I hope you understand that people are prone to seriously question your seriousness or honesty when they check out the book's list of contents[70]. You pretend that the two books you refer to "heavily deal with these stones", when Sawyer's book only mentions two of them, and Varangians and Byzantium is a tertiary source that is not specialist literature on these stones, although I agree that it is a useful book. It is difficult for me to find anything that should be worth objecting for in what you write. It is your behaviour here that caused me to check out your block log, which shows that I am far from the only one to have had this kind of discussion with you Ottava. I don't think we get any further in this discussion. Sorry!--Berig (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outdent - Berig, your response does little for you. You attack my use of the term "catalog", when it is clear that the source has a large list of various stones, goes through and analyzes commonalities, and address a lot of points that are not included in the article. Yes, a lot of points are not included in the article. Comprehensiveness means that nothing major is left out. Talking about the classification type of the stones and other linguistic features found in the various sources that I have point out is a major gap. And you can say they are "tertiary" all you want. It does not make them so. Instead, your response makes it seem like you are unwilling to actually do research, which completely undermines any credibility you have at this FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The headache comes when we discuss sourcing if all the Secondary sources are Swedish and the English language ones are all tertiary. I consider myslef fairly well read and I had never in my life heard of these stones before (ever!). Which I was impressed by. I don't have a problem with using swedish only - this is an unusual case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - But File:Greece runestones.JPG does need some context. Maybe just the name of the waters, name of one of the islands, or one current major city, but at least something. Garion96 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good suggestion. Thanks!--Berig (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now uploaded a new version according to your suggestions.--Berig (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for the moment)(see below for my updated opinion) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC): I have to say I'm not a connoisseur in this area, but I do have a number of problems with this article:[reply]

  • 1. the lead does not at all summarize the article content! This is absolutely crucial for being even a good article (see WP:LEAD for the guideline). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have summarized to the best of my ability. If you have any suggestions for how to do it in a better way, I'd be most grateful.--Berig (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as an easy rule of thumb, every (shorter) section (or subsection) in the body should be summarized by one sentence in the lead. Vice versa, a paragraph in the lead should correspond to a (longer) section. From what I can see, the second paragraph in the lead is not at all covered by the main body. You could consider moving this to a sort of "Introduction" section. This would shrink down the lead by about 50%, which gives you the space you need to cover the content of the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now you moved that paragraph as an extra section, which I think is better. The rest of the article still has to be summarized. WP:LEAD puts it very nicely: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." (emph. added). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a new try.--Berig (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. the language, especially in the lead, is not encyclopedic: "the Guard represented an irresistible attraction to young, adventurous Scandinavians" (emphasis added) and further similar phrases sound a bit like a fairy tale. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried to address this now.--Berig (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you did this one. Others remain, e.g. "to enjoy their increased wealth and social status" sounds a bit enthusiastic. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been removed now.--Berig (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. the very first image would be better if it mentions that we are seeing Sweden. Otherwise it may be hard to read. Even better would be to draw the regions mentioned later in the text. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see you have already added some better known locations. They are (IMO) too small to be easily readable in the thumbnail view. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added to the caption that the map shows southern Sweden.--Berig (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. Why is it that practically no english source appears? The titles Swedish sources should be translated. Also Rundata 2.5 for Windows is overlinked (in the footnotes). The external link lacks an accessdate. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is virtually no secondary literature on these runestones in English. You can find them mentioned in some English secondary literature, such as Jesch's Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age: The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Skaldic Verse, but they don't specialize on these runestones and only mention them superficially.--Berig (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This claim has been exploded in the above discussion. There is a journal devoted to just the one type of stones, two books that, if used, would double the size of two of the stones, background information on another stone, which means at least three (discounting the journal) sections could be double their current size with new information that is lacking. That is a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5. The article seems to lack good global structure. Actually, it could be a candidate for Featured List instead? From what I can tell, a section summarizing the common features of the stones would be good (or necessary), answering questions such as: When have the stones been built/erected? Who coined the term "Greece Runestones"? Are there other runestones from a similar period, but unrelated to Greece? (The navbox at the top makes me think so). In other words, more context should be provided. When have they first been studied/described in scholarly literature? What, in addition to all of them being related to "Greece", makes them one entity, so that a common name (and a common WP article) is justified? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a category of runestones, and not a special topic in runology. They don't have an established name in English, but they are called Greklandsstenar in Swedish of which Greece Runestones is a reasonable translation, IMO. The only thing that sets these stones appart from other runestones is the fact that they mention Greece, and so IMO the things you ask for are more properly treated in the article runestone.--Berig (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fact that there is a parent article on runestones does not exempt you from the duty to give the context of your topic w.r.t. more general topics or related topics. The information you just provided above would be good to tell in the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for my not considering it a list I have answered the question above, but I'll repeat it here for convenience: I actually thought of it before nominating, but I think the sections are much too full and informative for this article to qualify as a "list". Moreover, you probably wouldn't call a paper encyclopedia, or a tome of Sveriges runinskrifter, "lists" while the topics are presented in the same way as they are here.--Berig (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is a bit at the border between article and list. See below for a suggestion. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do the signs "×" etc in the latin transliteration mean? Why are they boldface and the Norsk transcription italic (neither should be highlighted, according to MoS). Also uncommon letters like þ should be explained, perhaps in a footnote. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to scholarly convention, transliterations of runes into Latin letters are to be in bold, while the transcription into a normalized Old Norse are to be in italics. Surely, WP should respect such conventions. As for the x sign it represents a dividing marker in runic inscriptions, but it can also look like a *. I don't think it is actionable to make Greece Runestones into an extensive discussion on runic transliteration and transcription for which there is already an article.--Berig (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added a line that should help with the queries you have.--Berig (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I still don't find it particularly enlightening. I was thinking of having a brief section à la "[Most of] The stones use the dialect of ... The meaning of ×, þ is the following: ... " Try to write an inviting, yet brief overview of what is needed to appreciate/understand the sequel! Pointing to Runic transliteration and transcription and Runestone styles is not doing the job, mainly since the article should make an effort of being reasonably self-contained, and also since the two articles are not terribly helpful (they don't mention the x signs, for example). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section on this now. I hope that the present version is more helpful.--Berig (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Jakob, for your comments. This article has been listed here for almost a month, and finally a person arrives to convince me that this topic cannot possibly become the subject an FA. I have asked SandyGeorgia to delist it[71]. Thanks, again!--Berig (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm not sure it is impossible to make it an FA. Many of my concerns above are amenable in an article but it would require a fair amount of additional effort, I guess. However, I also think doing that in short time may be too much, so delisting seems the best plan. Good luck with the topic... Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia says that there's a good level of support for the article being an FA, so maybe I should make a try. Although I'm not sure whether I'll be able to satisfy your terms enough for you to support the article, I'll try to amend what I think is actionable.--Berig (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob makes some good points. This can be an FA and will need some tweaking. Don't be afraid to withdraw, rejig and renom, or maybe have a go now. Much of the lead is actually background expalnation which should be a section called Purpose or something (not a general Introducion or Overview section as it is quite specific - the reasons teh stones were built. This is very doable, but it is late here and I need to sleep. I am juggling too much but may have a look tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. Any help at improving the article will be most welcome :).--Berig (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To what extent did you use the website nationmaster.com for writing this article? That page is incredibly close, both in terms of article structure and content. There are differences, but I'm led to believe that the WP article is a derivation of the said website and not the other way round. For example "Most of the men for whom the stones were raised died there, but some returned with riches" (nationmaster) and "However, some runestones tell of men who returned to enjoy their increased wealth and social status" (WP). It looks like the WP version tried to reword the Nationmaster version. Another example, Berig derived the very first image in the article from this file on meta (by removing some of the irrelevant dots, it seems) and very recently (today) added captions to the image (Oslo, Stockholm etc.). The new version of the file looks exactly the same as the corresponding illustration at the nationmaster article. Unless there is a good explanation that I do not see right now, I believe this article contains a fair amount of copyright infringement. Berig, and others who are writing on the article, please explain. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you automatically assume that we have taken any information from Nationmaster, and not the other way round? I'm sorry but I didn't even know that NationMaster existed until now, but apparently it uses content from WP.--Berig (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got the impression, but I asked you. I also just see that it uses WP content. So, don't worry. Probably they just copied an old version of the WP page. Never mind. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it uses a very early version of the article, from long before it was nominated for GA.--Berig (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the previous comment. I should have checked more calmly. However, other issues and ideas come to light when reading more in detail:

  • Johannes Bureus is overlinked. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After thinking more about it, I would suggest reformatting the article. The current problem is still that the reader will have a hard time telling what the common features are and what makes certain stones particular in certain respects. For example, imagine a reader that is curious about who did scholarly research on the gadgets. The article leaves him/her puzzled, since the information is all over the place. Here is my suggestion for a, as I think better, article structure:
  • 1) Lead section (summarizing everything with appropriate weight)
  • 2) "Historical background" (brief mention of Varangian guard and generalities on Swedish or Scandinavic warriors abroad or such things)
  • 3) "Runological background" (or a more intelligent title) (expound on the language back in 10xy; key notions of runology, in particular explaining the signs showing up later; description of (really only) main facets of the runology styles that you use later; things like "The erratic use of the h-phoneme..." belong here)
  • 4) "Research" (start off with Johan Peringskiöld (1654–1720), to finish with the Rundata project; somehow indicate that most or all of the research is done by Swedish people; nomenclature)
  • 5) "Description of the stones" (this is the most difficult section, I guess): writing one section about general features of the stones. Try to delineate what is more or less the same with every stone. Try to highlight interdependencies such as the one U 112 and U 328,336. Leave any interesting particular facts about individual stones for following section
  • 6) "Particular features of individual stones". Don't be shy about trimming down. IMO, things like "Although the landowner was reported to have been careful when he raised the stone, some pieces were accidentally chipped away and the upper parts of some runes were lost." could do with some trimming. Likewise, "... The next time Djurklou visited the location, he was satisfied to find the stone raised in the cemetery." Also "satisfied" is clearly superfluous.
  • 7) A table about minor facts, such as heights, material etc., or even consider putting that into a separate list-style article.
Name Height, width Location Material
U 73 2 m (6.6 ft), 1.2 m (3.9 ft) Hansta(lund) ...
U 104 ... ... ...

Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is the verse on Ög 81 repeated twice? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The first time, it shows how the poetry is intended to be read, but I'll remove it since you think it is superfluous.--Berig (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "Danegelds" mean? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Protection money paid to Viking chieftains so they would leave England alone. I have linked it now.--Berig (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I striked out some comments of mine which are now addressed. I don't want to insist on a reformat of the whole article (even if I think it would improve the article a lot, make it possible even shorter(!), and more understandable do a broad audience). However, the criticism w.r.t the lead is still not covered adequatly, in my view. Once this issue is resolved, I'm going to change my vote to neutral. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to expand the the lead to summarize the entire article without going too much into detail which would explode the size of the lead. I agree that doing as you suggest could make the article shorter, but it would make it look like these stones are unusual in other respects than the fact that they mention Greece. Every runestone is unique, but AFAIK, the Greece Runestones are only a special group by mentioning Greece.--Berig (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I've struck my oppose vote above and change it to neutral. I still think there is space to improve the article, along the lines outlined above; but the article definitely did improve quite a bit in the last weeks, thanks to Berig's concentrated efforts. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Your suggestions have helped improve the article.--Berig (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Not there yet in terms of professional-standard prose. Too much redundancy and awkward phrasing. Spot check on a couple paragraphs reveals this:

  • "The stone was already in a ruined state when Rogberg depicted it in 1763." What is "it" referring to here?
  • "used to be located outside the church of Kölaby in the cemetery"
  • "The stone consists of flaking gneiss and it measures 1.85 m (6.1 ft) in height and it is 1.18 m (3.9 ft) wide." "and ... and" is an indicator of too many ideas in one sentence as it is currently phrased.
  • "that it was located in the rock fence"
  • "It was in the same spot in 1869, when Djurklou visited the stone." The logical order of the sentence is confusing. Try "When Djurklou visited the stone in 1869, it was still in the same spot."
  • "Djurklou considered its state to be unhelpful" What does "state" mean here?
  • "since a part of the runic band was buried in the soil," "since" is often ambiguous, do you mean "because"?
  • "There was only one rune stone in Småland that mentioned Greece. The stone has disappeared, but not before its inscription was recorded by runologists." Source?
  • "a statement which is contradicted by later depictions."-->a statement that is contradicted by later depictions.
  • "In a traveller's journal made in 1792 by Hilfeling" You don't "make" journals, you write them.
  • "it is likely that it was indeed at their time used as a bridge." What does "indeed" add here? The order is off; try "it is likely that it was used as a bridge at their time." It is unclear what "at their time" means (who is "their").
  • "In 1822, Liljegren arrived to depict it and a surviving yet unsigned drawing is attributed to him (see illustration)." These ideas seem unrelated, why are they connected by "and"?
  • "that the runestone some 40 years earlier "-->that some 40 years earlier, the runestone
  • "Someone had at that time decided to remove" Obviously it was at that time
  • "However, it was not possible for the runologist to find any remaining runes on what was supposed to be the runestone." Was it really impossible or was he just unsuccessful in his foray? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of your objections are a matter of taste, but never mind. I have changed according to your suggestions. If you spot any further cases of poor English, please inform me and I'll take care of it right away.--Berig (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great article about an interesting subject. Meets all FA criteria, I hope it gets featured. I did not find the prose to be a problem and I thought the sources were fine. I liked the structure of the article and I found it very comprehensive with terrific pictures. While I think the article could be improved as per Ottava's and Dabomb87's concerns, I don't think that they should prohibit advancement to FA because at present the article meets FA criteria and these comments could be addressed with minor adjustments afterward. NancyHeise talk 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading the article, I agree that while prose needs some polishing, it is not urgent enough to impeded FA status. I struck my oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done!--Berig (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments Not going to block its promotion, but I still see some issues.

  • "About 3.000 runestones" Use commas, not decimal points, to break the sequence of every three zeros.
  • "9,1–10%" And here, use a decimal point (period), not a comma.
  • "Several runestones explicity talk of inheritance such as " I don't thing runestones have a voice.
  • "The last stone to be found was a stone in Nolinge" The second "stone" is redundant.
  • "The older version of the Westrogothic law, which was written down by Eskil Magnusson who was the "-->The older version of the Westrogothic law, which was written down by Eskil Magnusson, the
  • "The later version which was written down 1250–1300 adds"-->The later version, which was written down from 1250 to 1300, adds
  • "Among the runestones, 9,1–10% report that they were raised in memory of people who went abroad,[13] and the runestones that mention Greece constitute the largest group of them,[14] being only rivalled by those that mention England,[5] and the Ingvar Runestones raised in memory of the Ingvar expedition." A bit long and rambling. Split this up. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dabomb87! I have fixed these issues.--Berig (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [72].

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)

Did you know? That Sigourney Weaver was the inspiration behind the shapeshifting convict Martia, but the role went to supermodel Iman? That actress Kim Cattrall posed for nude photos draped on the USS Enterprise bridge set; the resulting shots were deemed dangerous to the franchise and Leonard Nimoy personally ripped them all up? That the alien Klingons claim Shakespeare to be one of them? You would if you read this article. Images were run through by Awadewit (see article talk page) as were refs by Ealdgyth, I don't believe they've changed much. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I watched this film so many times when it first came out on VHS . . .

  • Is it necessary to note in the first paragraph that the film came out during the franchise's 25th anniversary? The second paragraph provides better context.
  • Don't need to note Eidelmann's age in the lead.
  • The plot summary needs a copy edit.
  • "Casting director Mary Jo Slater loaded the film with as many Hollywood stars as they could afford, including a cameo appearance by Christian Slater in a likely attempt to lure younger audiences" That sounds like speculation.
  • Any reason as to why the filmmakers gave Sulu his own command?
  • Maybe it's just me, but I find it hilarious that the Valeris link takes people to a list entry that's even shorter than the space devoted to her in this page. You really don't need the link, or similar links for minor characters without their own article.
  • Add a citation to the information contained in the Christopher Plummer photo.
  • The mention of Rene Abjenjrhnds;gjkbskopous being cast as Odo later on is essentially trivia.
  • The production section is massive. The subsections within are massive. I'd advise removing the "Production" heading and make all the third level headings second level headings. While you're at it, make a a subsection devoted exclusively to makeup, since the "Design" section spends four weighty paragraphs on it.
  • "Less evenly received than other elements were the Cold War allegory and the whodunit aspects of the film" This seems like too much of an assertion to make. Rephrase.

That's the basics of what should be addressed. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone through and delinked, removed, and cited as above, did as best a copyedit as I could on the film (it probably needs someone unfamiliar with the text to check it though.) Two things, however; I've reworded the bit about critical reception, but I'm not sure if that addressed your point or not. Also, breaking up production into further sections would result in excessive whitespace due to image placement, and I don't really see how removing a heading helps any. I figure it makes sense to keep production elements identifiably organized (similar methods are used in video game articles, for example subsections in Halo 3#Development).
Just remove some images. We really don't need that image of Walter Koening, for example. WesleyDodds (talk)
It's in the beginning of the development section, removing it will only leave a block of text you dislike. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down on some images and cut the huge blocks of text into more manageable subsections, as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial comment: Check yer dabs! I'll give the article itself a read closer to the weekend. Steve T • C 09:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let us get started then.
  • File:Star Trek VI-poster.png: a rationale for this image as an idenitification shot too?
  • File:St6-excelsior and shock wave.png: I am not certain we need to illustrate Excelsior, but the Praxis effect has a strong case. The question is would this or this be better pictures to illustrate this technique?
  • File:Hiro narita.jpg: if the author wishes to release under another license other than what Flickr specifies, then it should be through the OTRS. Stifle has pointed out that submitted OTRS:2380210 is yet again different from the information given. You might want to investigate the situation further.
  • File:St6-galley pot vaporization.png: the rationales are not convincing; illustration of main character and phasers would not hurt the article if removed. The explanatory labels are too small to be read. The subtly worn areas might just be lighting and texture, not paint, hence questionable. The cramped set design could qualify, but would this or [73] serve that rationale better?
  • File:David-warner-2008.jpg: though CC-2.0, the caption could be misleading; he is not in his make-up.
  • File:St6-klingon dinner party.png: again, illustration of characters is not a strong point. Showing the reuse of a set is not strong either, since readers might not be familiar with TNG in the first place to make the association. Costumes and cuisine choice could qualify, but would this, this, this, or this be better choices? Costume might be more clearly illustrated with this.
  • File:St6-klingon blood.png: the rationale could be better focused on the CG-ed blood, describing the image is to illustrate the shape and dynamics. Personally, I think this is a better image to do that.
Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the extraneous tags to the hiro narita image, as the OTRS wasn't really essential with the Flickr link anyhow since he changed the license; I've also added to the FUR of the poster and reworded the caption so it's clear that just David Warner. In regards to rationales; I'm trying to cram in as many elements as is possible. Segregating fair use images into sections that only illustrate single elements is a bad idea. Yes, there are pictures that better show blood and better show blue food and better show characters and better show the wear and tear built into the design and better show the gallery and better show the set and better show the uniforms, but I am constrained by minimal use and have thus chosen images which combine as many of these elements as possible; featuring the Excelsior, filmed specially for this film with a different lighting scheme, as well as the Praxis wave. Main characters commented upon in the text, as well as props, a point of contention amongst fans (the galley), the wear on the vessel and explanatory labels (I don't think you really need to read a label to understand what it is, especially when the captions tell readers exactly what they are looking at.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair-use pictures are to clearly illustrate and help the commentary/criticism. The current picture of Valeris and the phasers, for example, does not convey a sense of cramped spaces (although that rationale can be removed). The explanatory labels in this picture is not clear enough to illustrate that they are in such detail that Nimoy called corrections for typos. Personally, tuc0641 better illustrates cramped spaces and could qualify on the same level as the Valeris shot for explanatory label (there is one on the upper left). The quality of tuc0641 is, however, poor; the shot lacks an object of focus. Image tuc0443 is a lesser shot for cramped space (but better than Valeris), and shows a large part of the cast with uniforms and on the same level for "painted wear and tear" with the Valeris shot (bottom right corner). For the blood part, the suggested picture shows the dynamics better than the current picture (more distinctive globules and spray pattern), and even serves for the demonstration of costume that the current image's rationale purports. Neither shot aptly demonstrates the Klingon corridors though. For the dinner picture, tuc0148 shows Gorkon's costume at about the same level of detail and better illustrates the disgusting appearance of the food. Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the FUR for the Klingon blood and replaced the image, as I agree it is a better shot. But I still have to disagree with the others. The image of just the wave, for example, gives readers no sense of scale; the ship is integral to providing that, and adds more usefulness to the image. Swapping out the galley shot for an image of the uniforms is foolish, as they are already discussed in Star Trek II in length and they are visible in the shot as well. I'm trying to place in as many elements as possible, I do not see why this is an issue; if you think the resolution can be bumped up, that is a different matter, but it's per spec with rez guidelines. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Excelsior as a scaling device is a good one, and I agree with that. I have rewritten the rationale of that picture to reflect that (please review it), and struck it off as an issue. Images have to show its purpose clearly, regardless of whether the intent is shown only in a small portion or as the main subject. The Valeris shot's kitchen utensils are blurry, even on the original screen capture, and might be mistaken for something else. I would posit that for a combined rationale of galley, labels, and wear and tear of walls, this (tuc0387), this (tuc0389), or this (tuc0390) (not so much as the first two) are better as they show the kitchen with greater clarity while retaining the same level of details as the Valeris shot. Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original image I had in the shot was of Valeris vaporizing the pot (tuc0389.jpg) but Awadewit voiced the opinion that the labels and wear and tear were much less visible, hence the shot was replaced with the current one. Chekov is currently in an article and probably will be again, and Spock is in the dinner scene with Gorkon (and in a side profile, which has the advantage of better showing the ear design which Nimoy specifically asked for.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpick: original shot of Valeris vaporizing the pot is tuc0388, not tuc0389, and the current image has only a partial back shot of Spock (not really identifying). How about putting tuc390 (Spock with labels and clear pots) in, and replacing the dinner shot (no food, partial back of Spock, partial Gorkon's and Azerbur's fronts) with tuc0137 (clear food, other Klingons, Gorkon's back, and Azetbur's front) or tuc0148 (clear food, other Klingons, full smaller Gorkon's front, no Azerbur)? For the last image, Gorkon's costume would likely not be visible in default thumbnail, but is visible in the 450px wide resolution for the File page. Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we still lose Valeris, who isn't going to be found in any other article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain that is a reason, it is not possible to have a picture of every character in every film in this project while abiding the policies. I do not see the non-depiction of Valeris as a loss. Anyway, the last two images, in my opinion are not opposable issues (the opinions involved are mainly subjective); I just think they could be better. They are left unstruck for discussion. Jappalang (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dinner and Valeris images were removed per below, thus stricken. Jappalang (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I never get to do full reviews of these articles... they always get promoted before I get to them! (Shows how useful I am.) Anyway, I am hesitant about the usage of File:St6-excelsior and shock wave.png. It is not immediately clear what the fair use rationale is (one has to go to the image description image to find out). So its presence in the "Plot" section appears to be decorative, since that section cannot support any image. We have at WP:FILMNFI: "Since a film article's "Plot" section contains descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source (the film) and not information found in reliable sources regarding the film, the section is not considered critical commentary or discussion of film. Thus, non-free images need to belong in other sections in which they can be supported by critical commentary." Either it could be moved, or an explanatory sentence could be inserted a la Dirty Dancing, but the latter approach feels very awkward to me. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't around when the film guideline was crafted, so I can't speak for it. Common sense: images are always decorative in some fashion. In terms of images, moving the Excelsior later results in an article that is frankly not that interesting to look at above the fold, with squashed together images later on that is similarly unappealing; while that's not exactly the best defense, the image is still covered by NFCC in that it provides immediate visual information that is referenced several times throughout the article, starting from simple plot illustration to aiding critical commentary. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the visual appeal, but not the above-the-fold argument. Even with the TOC hidden, I only see a sliver of the image at my 1280x800 resolution, and it seems like a bigger resolution is necessary to even view the image. Why can the "Plot" section not exist without any images? Can the sections not be re-shuffled to put those with visual appeal at the top? There is no clear guideline for placement, but I don't think it's within NFCC to say that the screenshot can illustrate the plot on a simple level. It seems a bit of a reach for readers to understand the significance of an image when the commentary for it is either in the image description page or at another part of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Praxis effect shot can exist, even in the Plot section; the image, however, must clearly illustrate the effect, explain why this shot illustrates the effect and why removing it would hamper the readers' understanding of the effect. Furthermore, the caption should be appropriate, relating to both plot (for context) and effect (a successful technique that would be used for other films). Jappalang (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Either use pp or don't use it. Need consistency there. Also, pp. is usually only used for more than one p.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Films are a bit out of my comfort zone, but the article looks be of high quality.

  • My main concern is that the length is a lot to take in. I'm not complaining about the details, but I found myself having to refer back to the "Plot" section frequently for reminders of what element (especially with a large number of unconventional names) was being discussed to fully understand the later "Production" subsections. Not sure how to fix this though. Maybe include a few reminders or hints here and there about the element. "Penal colony Rura Penthe" is a good example of one that helped me remember, but something like "The battle above Khitomer" had me scratching my head until I checked the plot again.
  • I agree with the comments above for File:St6-galley pot vaporization.png and File:St6-klingon dinner party.png. Those two images add the least to the article. I know images that consolidate elements are preferred, but these end up showing very little of their intended elements. I don't think much is lost by their removal. For instance, I didn't really need an image to visualize dyed squid and pasta or wear and tear on sets.
  • There are several lengthy quotes in the "Reception" section that should be paraphrased/summarized.

Those are the main things that popped out to me. Overall, the article is in excellent shape. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've removed the images, and gone through to shorten/paraphrase some of the passages. Do they look better now? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes you tweaked are better, but it's still too much in my opinion. I think more summarizing would be better.
In regard to Laser's opposition below, I don't think the "Themes" section is a disappoint. But after looking at that section again, I do think the last paragraph of it should be further expanded if there are the sources to do it. It seemed to me that the Shakespeare portion overshadowed the themes of change, which looked to be the themes the production staff were really going for. (Guyinblack25 talk)
I like the extra bits you added to that last paragraph. My only remaining issue is the lengthy quotes in the "Critical response" section. I don't think much is gained from reading the critics' exact words, and believe the same information could be condensed if paraphrased. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
But I don't really see why it needs to be paraphrased. As far as I can see, the quotes aren't obstructing flow but adding description to declarations; I'd rather let critics speak for themselves (they are more interesting than me reciting their list of grievances). If you can point out a policy page that prohibits such use, feel free to correct me :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's more my personal preference. I don't believe it's in any policy or guideline. I've always felt that if readers wanted to know exactly what critics said, they could read the review. But that's just me.
Weak support: As I said before, films are not my forte, but the article looks of high quality. The length can make it bit inaccessible for some readers, but everything else looks good. It's well written, properly sourced, and comprehensive. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose, 1b. I do so with no pleasure, because the article is well-written. However, the Themes section is a disappointment. Most of the section outlines how Shakespeare was worked into the film's dialog, but much more work is needed on the film's major themes and what they mean. This section should contain information drawn from major sources of film criticism that exist for the Star Trek films. For example, one of the most important books is Enterprise Zones: Critical Positions On Star Trek by Harrison, et al. This and other books will include important criticism that you can use to flesh out the article. For some examples of other film articles where this is done well, see Mulholland Drive (film) and Barton Fink. --Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In re to both Guy and you: I assure you I've looked for sources on the thematic front. I'm currently seeing if there's a little more to make a decent paragraph about the parallels between the obsolescence of the cast and what shows up on the final print, but with all bluntness, Star Trek VI isn't Mulholland Drive; Nicholas Meyer didn't have big artsy pretenses when he set out to make the movie. :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But.. have you looked at the Enterprise Zones book? It is an entire book devoted to serious review and criticism of the Star Trek films. From the Amazon synopsis: "... Enterprise Zones dissects the episodes and films. The contributors challenge Star Trek's avowed utopian vision and liberal humanism, demonstrating the concerns of recent cultural studies in academe. Essays explore such topics as Captain Kirk's masculinity, Lt. Commander Data's cyborg nature, and Counselor Troi's costumes. Emphasis is given to the politics of the original series and The Next Generation, and both are discussed in terms of militarism and neocolonialism. The contributors write with suspicion, insight, and respect for their subject matter, making this a sterling addition for any academic library." I don't see how we can, in good conscience, leave out such a promising source when that section is so slight. --Laser brain (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey now, I wasn't saying I wouldn't go out and get it (it's at my library), I'm just saying that don't hold your breath for serious philosophical points here; from what I can tell the only entirely Star Trek VI-related piece is on Chang as homoerotic something or rather. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that is just comedy gold. I smell a Cracked pitch. --Laser brain (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, I tried submissions like that and Cracked said they don't take pitches relating to only one film/series (and my Jurassic Park one was killer too :( ). Anyway I'm off to the library to see what I can find of actual merit :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking at the book now, and unfortunately I don't think there's anything good for this article in it. STVI is only referenced in "Enjoyment (in) Between Fathers; General Chang as Homoerotic Enablement in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country". Besides the fact I have found no indication that the author's views have been given much credence elsewhere, I present the following passage: "...That is, how does Chief of Staff General Chang's presence, in all its complex figuration, adumbrate a homoerotic economy? How does heterosexuality emerge and function as a nodal point that does not simply exclude homosexuality but excludes its own nodality? Such a reification of what has hitherto been contingent is heterosexuality's instituting repudiation, the constitutive repression that is indistinguishable from the return of the repressed." And it goes on like that for pages. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! Well, there goes that idea. I'm sorry you had to waste your time going to look at the book. However, maybe you can ascertain if it would be useful for any other Star Trek film articles, assuming you plan to do more of them. --Laser brain (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so much the movies, from what I saw, but a lot for The Next Generation and their characters (Worf, Troi, Data)... the rest of the essays seem less BS and jargon filled. :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose; the prose could do with a tweak in a few places, but it's nothing major and I'll go into that later. Content-wise for now I've only a couple of issues/queries:
    • The "Reception" section is a little all-encompassing. Do you think there is scope here for splitting it into two sections: theatrical release/performance and critics' remarks? And is there any more information on releases and performance in English-speaking countries other than the United States? It should also be noted that Box Office Mojo rolls the performance figures of the United States and Canada into one, so consider altering references here to "North America". There are also a couple of instances where quotes are attributed to a publication, rather than the writer of the review. If the reviewer is named, this should be used.
    • Some of the other sections are likewise a little long. A good thing for comprehensiveness, but consider splitting those under "Production" into further subsections for ease of navigation and reading. Information in the "Development" section could, for example, be split off into one on "Writing", with similar splits in "Makeup", "Design", "Filming" and "Effects" if possible (or desirable). Let me know if you want any suggestions on this score.
    • What was the film's budget? Constant mentions are made of "budget cuts" and attempts to stretch the "limited budget", but we're never actually told what it was.
  • But overall, another nice job. The issue that Laser brain brings up with regard to Enterprise Zones might be a stumbling block down the line, but I'll await your reply to that issue before remarking on it further. All the best, Steve T • C 11:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone ahead and split reception, changed US to North America, and added in reviewer's names (there's only one I left the way it was, because we don't actually have the guy's first name and I thought it would be strange.) For subsections, what do you think they could be split in to? I've already separated makeup from design, but I'm at a loss to other clear splits. Finally, in regards to budget: I've found a reported $27,000 1991 figure at The Numbers,[74] but I am not sure as to the reliability of the site. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, The Numbers can likely be proved reliable. However, if you want to stick to the mainstream sources, try this from The New York Times:

          ...The asking prices of all the stars, including William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy, and costs for the special effects and elaborate sets envisioned by the producers would have added up to $41 million. That is not an outrageous sum to make a movie generally, but it is for a "Star Trek" movie. The series has had little appeal abroad and would be unlikely to sell $100 million in tickets at the box office in the United States, the minimum needed for a $41 million film to break even... [snip information already in Wiki article] ... The film's production budget was reduced to $27 million, and filming begins this month.

          HTH. I'll take a look at those subsections now. Steve T • C 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think there is a strong case for splitting the "Design" section into "Production design", "Models and props", and "Make-up". "Make-up" itself could also be split into "Klingons" and "Other aliens". A rough test of this can be seen in this revision. Further tweaks, to both the layout and the section headings, would probably be required, but I think doing something along these lines would be a good aid to navigation. Steve T • C 19:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not one for a large table of contents, myself. I regrouped elements in design and spun off a "props" section, but I'm wary about adding even more section headers. As for the budget, I integrated it into the article (NYT; thanks for the find.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Is it just an aesthetic consideration, your not wanting a large TOC, or do you think as currently structured the sections present the information in the best possible way? (Struck resolved, btw). Steve T • C 22:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • A mixture of both; I just think it's better to have fuller sections then segregate all the content; it has the side effect of hampering article flow, I feel. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Fair enough; I still disagree, but that's a valid editorial reason, so I'll strike that oppose. The last thing I'll say on this is that you can subsection "Design" without losing the layout or interrupting the flow, with "Makeup" and "Props" as subsections in "Design", and the text currently in the "Design" section contained within a "Production design" subsection. Anyway, some brief comments on the prose to come later today. Steve T • C 09:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Because the prose is already pretty good, with only a few tweaks required IMO, I hope you don't mind my making the alterations outright; it would take longer to type out and post the list here TBH. Feel free to revert any you see that you happen to disagree with. Steve T • C 11:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Why the hell would I? They look good so far :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Struck oppose; will also post at bottom below for ease of navigation for delegate. Steve T • C 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with critical comments. A comprehensive, engaging and generally well-written article. I have some comments:

  • Is the article written is US or UK English? There are "usefullness", "modelled", "traveller", "oderous" (sic) and "colourful".
  • Here Meyer picked Cliff Eidelman to produce the film's score; the resulting music was darker and purposefully different than any previous Star Trek offering - "the resulting music" sounds a little silly, how about "Meyer picked Cliff Eidelman to produce the film's score which is darker and purposefully different to any previous Star Trek offering."
  • Here, The Undiscovered Country was completed in just 11 months, for release in December 1991 - how about "and was released"?
  • And here, On release, The Undiscovered Country garnered positive reviews, - the "on release" is redundant as is the "(in order) to" later on.
  • Here A special collectors' edition DVD version of the film was released in 2004, with Meyer making minor alterations to his cut of the movie. - how about "for which Meyer made"? Also, none of the "special collectors" at the bottom of the article have the possessive.

*There is a problem with "protege". I prefer the acute accents as in "protégé" but I am prepared to let this go if something is done about "protegé" later on. Thank you for an interesting hour. Graham Colm Talk 20:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review :) I have made your changes above, the only BritEng word I didn't change was "traveller", as it's direct quotation from shakespeare. The rest were just me being confused about where I live. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full support and best wishes. Graham. :-)) Graham Colm Talk 21:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on resolved issues. Still not wild about the section structure, but it's not a major issue. Nice work. Steve T • C 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just got through the "Development" subsection; great article so far! Hope you do not mind, but I clarified some wiki-links. Also, for film titles, there seemed to be inconsistency in identifying the Roman numeral or not. How do you want to treat it? Also, another issue is the "See Cast" bit in the infobox; it seems self-referential, basically saying "Visit the 'Cast' section if you want more information." Is there no way to provide a short list of the top-liners in this field? Will continue reading and copy-editing; let me know if any of my edits are out of order. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed your edit to clarify the film titles; I don't have too strong a feeling one way or the other about this, but thought I'd explain the reasons behind my formatting them like they were in my recent minor copy edit. The article previously used a mix of the main title (e.g. Star Trek V) and the subtitle (The Final Frontier). My thinking was to use the full title (Star Trek V: The Final Frontier) for the first instance in the article only, with only the subtitle used thereafter. This offered to my mind the best mix of giving the reader enough information to know which film was being referenced, without sentences becoming clunky and overburdened by using the full titles. Steve T • C 16:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what you intended. I thought it was strange to see "The Wrath of Khan and co-wrote Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" and "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and The Voyage Home" -- struck me as inconsistent. Should I restore the previous formatting, or is there another solution we can use? Also, a question for the primary contributor... is the usage of "pryo" in the "Effects" subsection how it was printed in the reference? Maybe use [sic] instead? It just seems strange to see this misspelling since "pyro" is the typical shorthand. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this comprehensive article; reflects the qualities of Wikipedia in being the best (and most accessible) source of information about this film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as minor contributor. It just amazes me how in-depth this article became so I felt so unworthy of reviewing it, but considering others' issues have been resolved I now endorse it. Alientraveller (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I performed a light copyedit prior to FAC (for all the good that actually did, I'm a rubbish copyeditor), but I'm happy to lend my support now its been vetted by more experienced users. There's no problems I can make out, the article is comprehensive, informative and reads well. -- Sabre (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [75].

Edgar Speyer[edit]

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk)

I'm renominating this biographical article for featured article status because of the subject's interesting life and status as one of only a few people to be struck-off as members of the Privy Council. The article was previously nominated on 2 December and the comments that it attracted were dealt with as far as possible. One "oppose" was outstanding when the candidacy was ended on 20 December 2008, although it is impossible to provide the additional information requested. Minor changes have been made to the article since nomination was ended. DavidCane (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I supported this at its previous FAC, and see no reason for withholding now. It is a well-written, comprehensive article about an interesting life. Brianboulton (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Support: A very nice article. I have a couple of comments before I can support it though. (They are not all essential to gaining my support, but if you chose not to implement them please explain why here). Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be possible to place the quoted letter form Speyer to Asquith in blockquote format to differentiate it from the surrounding text?
  • The nine points raised by the inquiry: Were they the actual findings of the inquiry verbatim or is this a later synthesis by the editors of this page or subsequent historians? If it is a quote then this should be made explicit. If it is a later synthesis then there are a couple of punctuation errors that I didn't want to correct without establishing the lists origin.
    • They're my synthesis of the official report which was published in full in the Times on 7 January 1922 (ref 50). I think, I may have corrected the punctuation now but let me know if there is anything else which needs revision. --DavidCane (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legacy section feels a little bit short: I suggest providing a brief mention of the histories of the tube lines and the Proms since Speyer's death (which tube lines were they by the way?). Is the house in Norfolk still a hotel? Does it have any form of government listing as a heritage site? His wife and children - what was their subsequent history after his death? Has there been any scholarship into the inquiry that either agrees with or disagrees with it? Have there been any calls for his name to be posthumously cleared? These are just ideas, but I think the section needs to be improved and expanded before this can be promoted.
  • Thanks for the suggestions:
  • The Norfolk house is still a hotel and is grade II listed. I have added this with a reference.
  • His wife, who has her own article, was a poet and lived until 1956.
  • Nothing much is recorded of their children apart from society page reports in the New York Times of their various weddings in the 1930s. They don't appear to have done anything notable or married anyone notable.
  • The underground lines were the Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway (now part of the Northern line), the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (now the Bakerloo line) and the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway (now part of the Piccadilly line). These are listed in ref 5 already but I have added a bit more in the legacy section.
  • There appears to have been no scholarly review of his denaturalisation and no real call for a posthumous clearance, however:
    • The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article (ref 1) does end with the following "His services to London's transport, music, and hospitals need not be obscured by the events of 1915; but, though it may be that he was guilty of no more than minor technical offences against the laws of his adopted country, there can be no doubt of his pro-German sympathies." This was included in the 1949 original Dictionary of National Biography article on Speyer of which the ONDB version is an update.
    • The abstract of the Leanne Langley talk (ref 21) ends with "Speyer’s rescue of the Proms preceded the BBC’s by a generation, his own point of departure in a cloud of political controversy in 1915 ensured his contribution would be tarnished – still a blemish on the nation – which deserves redress."
I decided not to include these views in the article as they are really personal opinions and there is no campaign as such to have him cleared.
--DavidCane (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds fair enough, although I have combined a couple of the floating one line paragraphs in the legacy section to make a more coherent paragraph structure. Hope this is OK.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Many issues were resolved at the last FAC, which I did look over, though I did not !vote because I thought it would pass then. Still leaves that effect on me. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review
  • File:London Underground Electric Railways.png - Do you have any more publication information on the source for this image? Note that WP:IUP states: "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information)".
    • The image is from the cover of a free route map published in 1908. The publishers would have been the Underground Electric Railway acting together with the other lines shown on the map (CLR, C&SLR, GN&CR and the MR). A History of London Tube Maps has a colour version giving details and an image of the map itself. The copy that I uploaded was from a photocopy I was given of a similar one. I've changed the image license to {{PD-UK-unknown}} which is more appropriate. --DavidCane (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Qnshall.jpg - Do we know where this was first published? For pre-1923 licenses, this is good information to have so that we can consider transferring the image to Commons. Also, who is the author of this image?
    • I didn't upload this image but, during the previous FAC, I corrected its source info. It is from a previous version of this page which contains a slightly differently cropped version of the image. The caption there indicates that it is drawing of the opening concert for the hall in 1893. I imagine that it would have been first published shortly afterwards by the Queen's Hall's management.--DavidCane (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note Jamd and Getty Images, the image is now in the possession of the Hulton Archive. The year of creation is established to be 1893; however, no author or date of publication is listed. The key question here: is the image from a drawing or an engraving? If the former, then it would have been in the public domain in 1943 (according to Crown Copyrights). However, if it was from an engraving, then the issue of publication comes into play. If it is unpublished, then it would enter public domain only in 31 December 2039. If not, its copyright expires 50 years from the date of publishing. We have to ask: is this image found in Robert Elkin's Queen's Hall 1893 – 1941 (1944, which would have made the image PD in 1994)? NQHO states that "most of the facts and photographs for this article are taken" from Elkin's book; that means, there is a chance that the Queen's Hall image did not come from it. If it did not (and if the image was from an engraving), then this image is not PD. Jappalang (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for helping out here! DC, what have you been able to find out about this image in regards to Jappalang's questions? Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks Jappalang for your research. I cannot say where the image came from or when it was first published, but a close-up view of the image appears to indicate that it is a drawing. For example, the shading under the boxes on the left and along the front of the stage seems to have been done as a wash rather than hatching - the more usual method for an engraving. That said, I do not think the image is vital and if it features on Getty Images I am quite happy to remove it from the article, if you think that is the appropriate action to take. I will see if I can find another for the hall.--DavidCane (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • If it is a drawing, then there should be no problem with the image as PD in UK (although finding the proper license tag for its use on US servers would be another issue, see the FAC for Operation Brevity above). It would be best if there is a source that can confirm the nature of the image. Can anyone try to locate Elkin's book in his or her library and confirm if the image is in there (and if it is a drawing)? Jappalang (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I haven't been able to find an alternative, so I have removed the image and replaced it with one of the Whitechapel Gallery (File:The Whitechapel Gallery.jpg). This is an attribution share-alike image taken from Flickr, so usability is clear. It has the additional benefit of bringing a bit of colour to the article.--DavidCane (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All image concerns have been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on sources, unstruck sourcing questions on previous FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the above note; the following three sources were questioned in the first FAC by Ealdgyth. After explanations for their use were given, he left them for others to decide on their suitability:
--DavidCane (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose by karanacs. I believe this is overall a very good article, but there are quite a few niggling things and an unreliable source. I am willing to strike my oppose provided the sourcing and the majority of the other small things I found are fixed.

  • Suggest that you spell out (and wikilink if appropriate) abbreviations the first time they are used in the body of the article, even if they were used in the lead. For example, UERL.
    • Done, although there are only two abbreviations used in the article: UERL and PC. The first is defined with its abbreviation in the lead and the second is defined in the Philanthropist and patron section. All other abbreviations are in the notes section and are defined on first use. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Speyer serve as UERL chairman at the same time that he was chairman of Speyer Brothers?
    • Yes, he was head of both at the same time. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see a need for the headings "Life to 1914" and "Life after 1914", as there is nothing in those sections that is not already including in the subsections. I would just move the subsections up.
    • I would rather keep them as it helps make a clear distinction between the period before and after the attacks were made against his name.--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the subheading titles make that pretty clear already. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose in the Financier section bothers me a bit. It seems clunky - I suspect that the prose could be tightened to get rid of unnecessary words and it would read much better.
    • Could you elaborate about which bits you have difficulties with?--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the hard part - I didn't see any one major thing that needed to be fixed. I just had to read the section a few times to follow what was going on. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The works were carried out by Detmar Blow and Fernand Billery in 1910 and 1911" - I am not sure what "the works" is supposed to mean here. I'm not as familiar with British English - perhaps this is something expressed differently than in American English?
    • Done. "The works" are the rebuilding works. To make this unambiguous I have changed this to "rebuilding work". --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about Speyer donating money to save the Needham Market bank seems to have nothing to do with the rest of that paragraph (which discusses his homes). That sentence needs to be moved, or a better transition needs to be created.
    • Done. I put it there because Needham Market is in Suffolk which is the next county to Norfolk (where his country house was), but have moved it to follow the King Edward's Hospital Fund donation where it's chronology also fits better. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • was described as "the sole monetary force which kept the Queen's Hall Orchestra afloat". - described by whom? Yes, this is cited, but is the quote from the source or someone the source is quoting?
    • This is from the source, John Bird. The link in the reference takes you to the page in his book on Percy Grainger where this appears. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps this could be attributed directly in the paragraph? "He was described by John Bird..." Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of Philanthropist and patron seems to meander around; the first half of the paragraph flows well, but then I feel like it jumps a bit from idea to idea. A bit of reorganization of the paragraph might help (and it might need to be two paragraphs).
    • I have separated the bits that are not related to music and joined them to the paragraph about the fund for Scott's expedition and have moved the bit on the violins up to the end of the second paragraph. Does that help? --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is much better, but the last two sentences in the music paragraph still seem tacked on rather than a good continuation of the paragraph. 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I've reworded slightly to try and pull them in more.--DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really important that he owned Stradavarius and Guarneri violins? That seems like trivia. It is especially inappropriate because the information does not appear to come from a reliable source (from the website..Cozio Publishing disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material displayed in the Cozio Publishing web site)
    • I think it is important for two reasons: his wife was a concert violinist and he funded the Proms concerts. Whilst she does not appear to have played professionally after their marriage, she did play in concerts at home and elsewhere and would have certainly have used these instruments. Stradivarius and Guarneri violins were prized instruments and, as now, they were often owned by wealthy patrons and loaned to violinist to play. It is therefore likely that he would have leant them for use in Proms concerts, although this is not recorded.
    • regarding the disclaimer: this is a standard legal disclaimer and is there because cozio.com is a business and operates as a place to buy and sell antique violins. For similar reasons, Wikipedia has its own disclaimers. Cozio.com is referenced on a number of wikipedia articles about specific instruments, e.g. Du Pré Stradivarius or Davidov Stradivarius, and is in fifteen of the references in the Stradivarius article where it is is accepted as a "generally reliable source". For the sources of the information on Cozio.com, see its library section which lists 2175 referenced documents. If you do a search on Cozio Publishing, the company behind Cozio.com you will find that they have published in conjunction with Sotherby's a book on Violins.
    • Incidentally, the portrait of his wife painted by John Singer Sargent (see her article) shows here playing a violin - probably the Guarneri.--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking beyond the reliability of the source (which also allows individuals to submit information), what you have written above would make the information about him owning the violins much more relevant in the article. Without that level of detail, however, it just appears to be a random fact. I see that this was removed, so I'll strike. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only one sentence about Speyer being on the Privy Council. Did he actually do anything? Was this an in-name-only type of appointment?
    • Being a member of the Privy Council is not a sinecure. Its members are advisers to the monarch and council meetings are held regularly. Although modern practice means that those that now participate are the members of the government, this was not the case at the beginning of the 20th century when King Edward VII appointed members from a larger range. Which meetings he attended and what advice he gave would be recorded in the National Archives. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did he do to impress Kaiser Wilhelm so much?
    • It's probable that he lent the Kaiser or his government some money. About the same time, his brother-in-law and partner in the Frankfurt bank, Edward Beit was "made a von" and took the name of his wife's family's home town (Speyer) as his geographic distinction. The Order of the Crown was the lowest ranking Prussian order and his rank in the order was the middle of six classes, so it was not a particularly high status award. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further investigations of Anglo-German relationships at the time indicate that he helped found the Anglo-German Union Club in 1907 with Sir Ernest Cassels and Bruno Schröder, so that may also may have had something to do with it - although it does not appear in his ONDB biography but Schröder's.--DavidCane (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information about the novels before WWI does not seem all that relevant to me. I would suspect that similar warnings were issued in newspapers, etc. Why pick out these two novels in particular?
    • Like the image of the Kaiser stubbing his toe, these were picked as examples of context. They are the two best known examples of the genre. The link under anti-German sentiment gives more detailed background. Yes, the papers were behind a lot of the sentiment and the Quex's book was serialised in the Daily Mail. --DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It still doesn't seem to fit. Why focus on the novels (which makes it feel like a manufactured concern that people aren't really experiencing) rather than on the real-life reports that increased the hysteria? If you want to focus on the novels, then we probably need some cited information that discusses their impact. As written, I just thought "so what - there are novels about all kinds of things and how does this impact Speyer?" Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The linked article on anti-German sentiment gives examples of the impact and provides citations, but, as I haven't read the books cited, I didn't want to add them here. Accusations against Speyer specifically are mentioned in the next paragraph.--DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure that each quote has a citation, even if that means the cite is duplicated across subsequent sentences. I saw several issues with this in the Revocation... section.

Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am worried about some weight issues. There is a lot dedicated to his resignation and the "Revocation of naturalisation". Is it appropriate to list all of the findings like that? Can't we have a small summary of results? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the recovation findings were very interesting and relevant. In reading the article, I had seen no real clues as to why he would have his citizenship stripped; this section answered that question. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is as brief a summary as I could make it and still explain the issues. --DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are biographies supposed to be 20% about a tiny portion of a life that is negative? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The course of Speyer's life was substantially and fundamentally altered by the events during and immediately after WWI. If the war hadn't come and he hadn't been subject to unjust anti-German attacks (remember he was born in the US and had been a British citizen for 22 years by that time), he would almost certainly have remained in the centre of British musical society and finance and as Chairman of the UERL and would be remembered for completely different reasons. Therefore, I think, a fifth of the article dedicated to this matter is not unreasonable. --DavidCane (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is only required to establish the basis of having an article, not what the article is supposed to be about. This is a biography. I would expect a well thought out discussion of his life and not giving to one tiny moment that may have changed his life, but getting married, being run down by a bus, etc, can also change one's life. It seems like it is far too negative to dominate in such a large facet, especially when this guy is notable also for being on the PC. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry, I put a lot of thought into this and I cannot, with a clean conscience, support an article that devotes so much to one aspect of an individual's life in such an undue manner. He was a member of the PC, a very important role, and yet that doesn't even have as much size or even close to as much size as the "Revocation of naturalisation" section. It goes against every single instinct that I have in regards to biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A note on the above - he was a Privy Counsellor from 1909 to 1914. Nothing is said about this. 5 years at a position and nothing. We get him being kicked out for a section. Privy Counsellors are notable. Baronets are notable. I would expect at least a section at least twice as large as his removal devoted to his time as a Privy Counsellor. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst it is notable that he was a Privy Counsellor, what he did as one is not necessarily notable. It was an advisory position not legislative - a record of what he did would be just a list of meetings attended. Of these, the truly notable meeting would be the one on 7 May 1910 at which King George V was proclaimed King (see here for the announcement).
    Looking at recent main page featured biography articles, this concentration on the important aspects of a subject's life is not uncommon. For example, the Richard Hawes article concentrates on his 3-years as Confederate Governor of Kentucky. His four-year term as a member of the House of Representatives, when he actually had power to influence legislation, is covered by a single sentence. In the Robert Sterling Yard article, 35 years of his journalistic and publishing career (1880 to 1915) is covered in a single, three-sentence paragraph and the majority of the article covers his time in the National Parks movement.--DavidCane (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but your comments are 100% unacceptable. I will refrain from expressing the moral outrage that I feel in response to what you have stated. 5 years of a person's life and career cannot be ignored. There is a clear POV expressed in this article, and it is an anti-Speyer bias. You have contradicted most of the ethics that go into Wikipedia, and if this article is put in as an FA in its shape, I would be deeply ashamed at this community for allowing such a thing to happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on this point I think the coverage of these issues is fine. Privy Council does not explain these matters all that well, but in all probability his first meeting and the one proclaiming the new king were the only meetings Speyer ever attended. Being a PC was by this date a formal thing, though relevant for ministers etc, but for the likes of Speyer essentially just an honour. Probably a sentence explaining the very limited nature of the function should be added, since the PC does feature largely in the article. OR is however right that "notability" is the wrong word to use when talking about article content. The rest of the article looks FA quality, but I haven't read it all. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Ottava Rima I'm sorry to have outraged your morals in some way, although I am at a loss to see how simple comparison with the structure of other featured articles can have caused this.
    • I have not ignored the period of his life when he was a Privy Counsellor as you seem to think - much of the sections on finance and philanthropy cover this period. As for his activities in the Privy Council, I could put in the fact that he was present at the new king's proclamation in 1910, but that is really just triva. There really is nothing more to record.
    • My bias is most certainly not anti-Speyer and I don't believe the article can be read that way. If I was anti-Speyer, I would simply have left out everything in the pre-1914 part of the article which clearly show his willingness to contribute time and money to the public's benefit.
      • Personally, having read the decision of the committee that recommended his denaturalisation, I feel he was made a scape-goat. Of all the issues that were examined by the committee, the only one that really indicates foolishness on Speyer's part is his attempt to maintain a correspondence with his brother-in-law (and through him his sister) and to evade the censor in doing so. A number of the matters considered seem trivial in the extreme and there seems to have been no consideration given to his long-term support of the arts, the hospital, the King's fund or his service in putting the London Underground on a more sound financial footing (although, as an investor, he did have a personal interest in the last of these).
      • The section on anti-German bias gives a very clear explanation of why Speyer was under pressure and why he chose to leave Britain and is not anti-Speyer; nor is the section on his philanthropy.
      • In drafting the section on the committee's decision, I have used a far more neutral tone than that in which the decision was phrased and in which it was reported in the Press.
      • Personally, I think it is possible that the decision of the committee was at least partly political, a result of the split in the Liberal party. Speyer was a friend of H.H. Asquith, the former Prime Minister and leader of one branch of the party, whereas the committee was established under the National Government of David Lloyd George, the leader of the other half of the party and Asquith's political rival. There is none of this in the article as it is all my conjecture, personal point of view and would be considered original research.
    • As you will see in my answer above to Jackyd101 on the matter of posthumous rehabilitation, I decided not to include the comments from two of the sources used about the unjustness of his treatment because they are really just their personal views rather than a concerted effort at rehabilitation. --DavidCane (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cover this area? Really? I reread it. Not only are the times completely unstructured making it almost impossible to read the article as a biography in a standard biographical sense, the weight on two moments dominates the whole page. That is completely unacceptable in terms of weight, comprehensiveness, or the rest. If the position was only honorary, you can state exactly that and explain why. There are very few exact dates listed, there are very few exact moments, and I would honestly hesitate accepting the page as a Good Article Nominee in its current state. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To reinforce what I state. It took me two seconds to find this from Offer, Avner. "Empire and Social Reform: British Overseas Investment and Domestic Politics, 1908-1914 Empire and Social Reform: British Overseas Investment and Domestic Politics, 1908-1914." The Historical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 1983), pp. 119-138.
    • It mentions: "By 1912 he was deeply involved in Brazilian railway schemes" (p. 124). There is no equivalent in the article. It also states that Sir Almeric Fitzroy, clerk of the PC, was upset that Speyer was placed on the PC. This is not in the article. There is nothing about an important individual named Sir George Paish and his involvement with Lloyd George through Speyer. There is also: ""Speyer then delivered the same message in a speech to the Institute of Bankers, which, if it did not actually signal the start of the Edwardian capital export boom, (as Paish later claimed), at least broadly coincided with it." (p. 125)
  • This is one tiny article that deals with the missing time period and how the position of PC needs more information. There is a lot more out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well thank you for that. You must have access through an academic membership as jstor.org is not open to individuals nor can it be searched by non-users. Its content is, therefore, effectively invisible to outsiders and my library does not subscribe to it or the Historical Journal referenced. The article does state that Speyer Brothers were involved in the finance of railway projects although, I admit, it does not mention Brazil specifically. If you'd like to forward the text of the article (you can paste it, and anything else from Jstor, here if you'd like) I will very happily incorporate information from it. Paish was a statistical economist who specialised in railways so I can see how he and Speyer would have crossed paths.
    • If you can give me the information, I will add a note on Fitzroy's being upset that Speyer was made a counsellor, but whether his opinion was of any value is debatable. He sound an interesting character as his ONDB entry includes the following: "His routine work, however, was simply to organize meetings of the privy council and to arrange for the formal presentation to the sovereign of legislation brought into force by orders in council. Much concerned with ceremony and protocol, FitzRoy read the official proclamation of the accession of Edward VII in 1901 and that of George V in 1910; in 1917 he also submitted a draft of the declaration by which George V changed the name of the royal family to Windsor. But despite FitzRoy's self-important air and his relish for being at the centre of events, attributes which attracted some mockery, he played no part in the formation of policy." ONDB also describes his indiscreet memoirs upsetting Queen Mary and a minor scandal in which he was convicted and fined for "wilfully interfering with and annoying persons using Hyde Park". Although subsequently cleared, this led to his resignation from the clerkship in 1923.--DavidCane (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point of the one article was to show that a cursory look through information could find something. You have many biographies listed, surely one or two has information on the time period. I can try to get portions of the article for you tomorrow. However, personal constraints keep me from being able to devote a significant portion of this. If it was the summertime, I would spend a few days at the Loc just digging up enough information to almost double the page. There seemed to be that much out there. He met a lot of important people. He gave quite a few speeches. He wrote some letters and some people wrote some letters about him. He was more memorable than what the article gives him credit for being. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. The prose needs significant work:

  • "Sir Edgar and Lady Leonora were the basis of the characters Sir Hermann and Lady Aline Gurtner in E F Benson's 1919 novel Robin Linnet." The characters of ... were based on ...?
    • The existing sentence seems preferable to me than the alternative formulation. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I see this has been changed. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... to point to a strip of material evidence that would induce any fairminded main to support the monstrous conclusions of this report." Does the source really say "main"?
  • "After their return to America, Lady Leonora began writing poetry and won the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry in 1927." After whose return to America?
  • "Accusations of his disloyalty and treachery appeared in the Press ...". Why is "Press" capitalised? The use of capitalisation needs to be looked at throughout the whole article.
    • This was requested in the Good Article review. Please identify any others. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have gone through the article again an believe that capitalisation is fully regularised now. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pre-opening estimates of passenger numbers proved to be greatly over-optimistic ...". When would an estimate ever be post the event?
    • Estimates can be done at any time as part of normal financial planning be it monthly profit, quarterly cash flow or annual turnover estimates. --DavidCane (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I see this has been changed to preliminary. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... he came to London to capitalise on the emerging opportunities for new deep level underground "tube" railways there." Came to London? Is that where this article was written?

These are just a few examples. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I really think, if the above oppose is being maintained, that further instances should be provided of the "significant" work that the prose is supposed to need, otherwise the oppose is unactionable. Personally I think the prose is well up to standard, though I suppose it's always possible to quibble. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were just examples, as I said, and I am not satisfied that they have yet been properly dealt with. A few more examples:
  • "He was chairman of the Classical Concert Society until 1912 and, following financial problems experienced by Robert Newman, chairman of the Queen's Hall Concert board from 1902 to 1914, paying £2,000 per year (£160,000.00 today)[7] to underwrite the Promenade Concerts."
    I see this has been changed for the better.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speyer's friendship was recognised by the dedications to him of Becker's Three Pieces for Cello with Piano Accompaniment and Strauss's Salome." Awkward passive. Why not something like "Becker dedicated Three Pieces ... to Speyer, in recognition of their friendship."
    I see this has been changed.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speyer collected ... room interiors". How can a room interior be collected?
You buy it, get workmen to dismantle the panelling or (harder) plasterwork, & re-erect it elsewhere. This was the great period for this, though many went to the US. The Victoria & Albert or Metropolitan are full of them - perhaps there are some in Manchester too. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a well known practice, but to avoid further complaints I changed it, reducing the significance of its meaning. I replaced the more enlightening term in an attempt to satisfy those who are not familiar with the practice. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The Sheppard reference states that many of these were obtained from the continent. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Nonetheless, suspicions against Speyer's German parentage ...". Against?
    I see this has been changed for the better.--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant sections of the article, for instance Philanthropist and patron, are a series of short, disjointed sentences with no discernible flow.
    I have done some work on that bit to try and improve the flow. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short, I think this article still needs to be thoroughly copyedited. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a fine article and a moving story told with an absence of flourish and irrelevant detail that renders this article all the more effective. I have gone through the entire article looking for prose and other issues. I find that it meets the FAC criteria. I am not persuaded by the rationale of the opposes. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The writing is mostly OK. I've looked at the lead and first few sections: here are a few suggestions.

  • Opening para: "the company opened three underground railway lines, electrified another and took over two more". Was the one he electrified among the three he opened? Unclear categories. (one of which he electrified, and ...?). Or use the wording further down.
    • The one that was electrified was separate from the three new ones. I have clarified this. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not compatible"; where a compound negative is available, probably better: "incompatible".
  • "he became a subject of anti-German attacks" --> "the subject" may be better.
  • "In 1884, Speyer became a partner in each of his father's companies. He headed the Frankfurt office for three years before taking control of the London office, Speyer Brothers, in 1887." Is it possible lose "for three years"? Seems redundant after the "1884".
  • "deep level underground" (hyphen) TONY

(talk) 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS Could you take the pennies out of 160 thousand pounds?
    • Done. It was annoying me as well. I have found out how to get rid of these. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In summary, I think Malleus's general concerns need to be addressed by a fine eye cast through it. Tony (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if they were "companies" they had directors not "partners", to be picky. Or were they partnerships? Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well spotted. They were partnerships so I have changed "companies" to the more encompassing "businesses". --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've struck my earlier oppose and am now ready to support based largely on the excellent copyediting job done by Mattisse. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [76].

John Calvin[edit]

previous FAC withdrawn
Nominator(s): RelHistBuff (talk)

This article has been rewritten since reaching GA and has gone through peer review. Looking forward to all your comments. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article is neither a road, nor a hurricane, nor a wrestler or wrestling move, and as such clearly fails Wikipedia's notability criterion. Suggest AfD. Another option would be to reframe content as a video game or grudge match wrestling article, e.g. Alien vs Calvin. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, it is not an article on a minor actor, a pop singer, a television show, a military operation, a sports figure, a US politician, or an university-related subject either. You see I am trying to contribute to systemic bias of Wikipedia toward major, but fairly boring historical figures. I know we have too many of those around here. The next article I will work on is Guitar Hero V - High School Musical version. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you promise to take Guitar Hero to FAC, I'll strike my Oppose. Striking now. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (And I can't wait to see RelHistBuff do a video game FAC.. this should be entertaining...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I have been a contributor to this article in the past, and RelHistBuff has done a great job on rewriting it. Kudos! A few specific comments (more to follow as time allows):

  • There are small comma issues throughout, particularly when used in apposition (cf. Apposition#Restrictive versus non-restrictive). I have tried to correct them in the lede and the first section and will try to attend to the other sections as I have time, but feel free to take a whack at it if you are so inclined.
  • MOS:IMAGE says that it is preferable for portraits to look toward the article text, though it is not strictly necessary. This is not true of the first two images in the article. FWIW, There are a goodly number of other free images of Calvin available that would could fit the bill. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from the preface to Calvin's commentary on the Psalms could be quoted directly from a free source such as the CCEL ([77]) rather than from a secondary source, which are cited in the following sentence for their analysis anyway.
  • In that same following sentence ("Scholars have argued on the interpretation of this account, but it is agreed that his conversion corresponded with a rupture with the Roman church."), I'm not clear on what sort of "rupture" is in view here -- a local, regional, or global event -- or how it relates to Calvin's conversion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
  • On the comma issue, I will try to filter through the article.
  • Concerning the images, I also would prefer that the images face in toward the text. For the lead image, I changed it to the left side like another FA, Joseph Priestley, but when I last tried a similiar action in John Knox, Raul changed it back to the right side. However, as MOS guidelines call for facing inward, maybe it is ok now (at least Priestley has been untouched). On the second image, if it is placed on the left, then the indent for the quote disappears making it look like another paragraph. So I would prefer to keep the second image on the right. As for using other images, there may be some free ones, but the problem is getting good source description information. Otherwise they will not pass FA muster. I have personally added in the description information for the two that are used, so I have confidence in defending them.
  • On the quote, I have at least two translations from secondary sources, Parker and Cottret. As they provided (or at least accepted from another source) the English translation, we can be confident that the quote has the backing of a modern scholar. The CCEL version is a translation made by Arthur Golding in 1571.
  • On "rupture", I meant "breach" or "break". I changed it with a possessive.
--RelHistBuff (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The translation by Golding Anderson is from the mid to late 1800s when the Calvin Society was actively publishing Calvin's works in English. Do the translations you have differ significantly with each other? If not, I'd still prefer the primary source link since it gives greater context for the quote and since you immediately give sources where scholars present and evaluate the quote. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. Golding's translation is from 1571, but that is only used in the dedicatory. I took a look at the ASCII text version on CCEL and their version is actually Anderson's from 1845, which is what Cottret uses. So the current citation is correct in that Anderson is properly credited and the source used is Cottret. I added a link to Anderson's text on CCEL in the footnote. By the way, the translation by Parker is quite different from Anderson's. I originally preferred Parker's translation as the English is not quite so stilted. But I went with Cottret because his book is more recent (although admittedly the translation he used is old). --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a bit confused by the modified sentence: "Scholars have argued on the interpretation of this account, but it is agreed that his conversion corresponded with his break from the Roman church." Is it important to mention what specifically scholars disagree over? If not, why mention the disagreement at all? Also, I am still confused by the second part of the sentence. Is it just saying that there was no intervening period of his following another religion (or no religion), i.e., he left the Roman church for the reformed church, rather than that he left it and some time later converted the reformed church? --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parker had a whole appendix devoted to the conversion. Cottret had two subsections starting off with "An enigma lies at the heart of Calvin's life. How did the young and brilliant humanist, author of a commentary on Seneca become Calvin the Reformer?". He follows with arguments from various scholars and then adds his own. The differences stem from the "when" and "how". It gets quite detailed and clearly the event is of interest to historians. So something about the scholars' debate should be mentioned, but in the end it is simply, in Cottret's words, "...Calvin's conversion took place and that it corresponded to a rupture with the old church". I think the sentence that is in the article is a sufficient summary. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we then alter the sentence to something like: "Scholars have debated precisely what factors led to Calvin's change of heart, but they agree that his conversion was coincident with his break from the Roman church."? On another note, what is the meaning of "fugitive from justice" in describing Servetus? Was his only crime heresy? If so, I'd change the wording there since he's really fleeing the ecclesiastical powers that be rather than the civil courts (overlapping though they were at times), and "fugitive from justice" is misleading to the modern ear. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The four sources give scholars' opinions on that passage. I think the minimal statement that is there avoids any potential interpolations. I changed the Servetus text to "ecclesiastical authorities". --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are fine, but I think a brief statement of what their debate is about is in order. It's odd to mention that there is controversy but not say anything at all about the content of the controversy. Do you think "Scholars have debated precisely what factors led to this change of heart" is accurate? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That statement would not be a good summary of what is in the four sources. I think the minimal statement is best and I added some of the scholars' views in a footnote. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good compromise. Thanks. I wonder if you could explain the footnote more or reword them: "Ganoczy ... argues that Calvin conversion took place over several years and that it was not a biographical or chronological event." Huh? Does he mean that it was not a single experience but rather a gradual process? In any case, it was still a biographical ("relating to the facts or events in a person's life" - it is clear that there was a change of his allegiance, which is a biographical fact) and a chronological ("arranged in the order of time" - it occurred after he left home and before he went to Geneva) event. The Olympics is held over an extended period of time, but it is still a chronological event. I just don't understand how the words are being used, I guess.
Continuing: "Cottier quotes Olivier Millet, ... noting a typological rather than a biographical perspective of the account of his conversion." Huh? Calvin was speaking typologically? I know what typology is (particularly in biblical interpretation), but what does it mean in this context? "The biographical argument is promoted by D. Fischer." Does that mean that he takes Calvin's words as an autobiographical and literal description? Parker "concluded that a certain period for his conversion could be determined." Is there a "not" missing here, or are you saying that, in distinction from other historians who feel they can't identify anything about the time of his conversion because he is not speaking literally, Parker thinks he can narrow it to a certain range of years? Thanks for clarifying. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still wondering about this, RelHistBuff. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the specific pages from the two books where I quote the info in the footnote. Ganoczy argues that it was not a sudden event. I really do not want to reword what is there because I have used Cottret’s wording in summarising the views of those scholars. More details can only be obtained by going directly to the scholars’ own articles (which I have not read). I would not like to use different wording because I am not quoting from the articles but from Cottret’s summary. Concerning Parker, his view is in sympathy with Ganoczy, but he does attempt to narrow the time of his conversion. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The lead includes a lot of relatively minor info but leaves out a number of really critical things, including the relationship with Zwingli; the fact that Calvin and Zwingli's differences with Luther formed the first major schism in Protestantism; doctrinal differences between the Calvinists and Lutherans including predestination, abhorrence of images, lack of respect for various rituals, and belief in a personal relationship with God, which combined to make Calvinism much more austere and less authoritarian than Lutheranism or Anglicanism; also the fact that most modern Protestant sects can be classified as either Calvinist, Lutheran, or Anglican in derivation. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the lead now. Looie496 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see about putting in something about his relationship with Zwingli and Luther, perhaps some kind of summary from the article. But as for your other points, these would be relevant in an article on Calvinism not on Calvin. In Calvin's time, "Calvinists", "Lutherans", and "Anglicans" did not exist yet. They were individual reformers who agreed and disagreed with each other and their interactions are in the biography. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with RelHistBuff on Calvinist/Lutheran/Anglican. Moreover, Anglicans aren't Protestants in the proper sense but see themselves as a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism. The third branch should be Anabaptists (or Restorationists). --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, with respect to the intro, I do think the history could be trimmed a bit and a little more from the theology section included. It's surprising to me that the two concepts most often associated with his name -- predestination and total depravity -- don't appear there at all even in spirit. Both concepts do appear, e.g., in the one-sentence summary of Calvinism in a recent article in the NY Times magazine: "you are not captain of your soul or master of your fate but a depraved worm whose hard work and good deeds will get you nowhere, because God marked you for heaven or condemned you to hell before the beginning of time." Compare the American Heritage Dictionary's description: Calvin "emphasiz[ed] the omnipotence of God and the salvation of the elect by God's grace alone." --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A summarising statement in the intro on Calvin's thought is a good idea. I would hesitate though on using terms that came after his life. Also, I would like the statement to be easily supported from one of the references, so I will go back to the sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on anachronistic terminology. Predestination and elect appear throughout the Bible and Calvin's writings, so no problem there. While there is some disagreement over whether Calvin taught a limited atonement, I know of no dispute over his holding the other four points of Calvinism, which were formulated after Calvin's time (even the Arminian Remonstrants, against whom the five points were issued, held to total depravity). One can easily find the concept -- if not the exact phrase -- of total depravity in his works, e.g., "You see that [St. Paul] places unlawful and depraved desires not in the sensual part merely, but in the mind itself, and therefore requires that it should be renewed. Indeed, he had a little before drawn a picture of human nature, which shows that there is no part in which it is not perverted and corrupted."[78] --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought the T of tulip might be anachronistic, at least in using both adj and noun together. A summary from a Calvinist theologian compared to a church historian might have quite different wordings. I will see what I can find in the sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence on predestination to the lead. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following up, I feel that the lead has improved, but along with Ealdgyth below, I still have a sense that it doesn't really convey his importance, both during his lifetime and afterwards, as strongly as it ought to. So I'm not quite ready to switch to a full support yet. Looie496 (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review File:GuillaumeFarel.jpg - We need to list at least a century for this image to demonstrate that it is in the PD. All other images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. (I hope to get around to reviewing the entire article!) Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, while I hunt around looking for info of the original, I will temporarily change this image with a photo of a statue of Farel. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it. It is from Theodore Beza's Icones as I suspected. I updated the description and put the image back in the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All images check out now. Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice article about an interesting person. I hope it makes FA. NancyHeise talk 01:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: A few more minor tweaks are coming, I suspect, but it is already in excellent shape. Great work! --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now Leaning towards support The article needs a thorough copyedit, which I am doing now, and a few clarifications, which I will ask for on the article talk page. I look forward to striking this oppose in the next few days. Awadewit (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am answering as many of these questions as I can with the sources that I have on hand. Unfortunately, a couple of sources are checked out and will not be returned until February, so a few answers will be delayed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished the first round of copyediting - the bulk of the work. Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the huge amount of work! The questions are even more valuable because they force me to go back to the sources and double check on things. I am getting close to answering all the questions that I can answer for the moment. There are two books that are still at the library. If they are not returned, then there is another library further away that might have the books. --RelHistBuff (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you let me know which books you need access to, I can check my library, too. It is only a 15-minute walk away. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished copyediting the article. Most of my questions have been answered and I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your extraordinary efforts for this article! I feel a bit embarrassed, really. I will leave a note on your talk page if I have to take up your offer. I should have some news about the books next week. In the meantime, I hope Raul and Sandy will keep this FAC in the queue. In any case, I assume more votes are needed before a decision can be made. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wiki! We help each other out! :) Awadewit (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of my questions have been addressed - full support. Can I just reiterate how wonderful it is that someone is working on these important articles about Protestant reformers! Thanks again, RelHistBuff! I just directed my class to this article last week. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SupportOppose - for now. I have a few concerns, some quibbles, and a pile of questions. Switch to support, concerns addressed.

  • I think the leads a bit skimpy. You've got 6700 some words in this article, about a man who, arguably, is one of the most important folks in the history of religion, and there's very little meat in the introduction, nothing explaining who important he was in his life. As it is, there isn't really a good feel for why Calvin's a "Big Name" in history.
I added that he was a polemicist and apologist. He was also a preacher, a theologian, and a church organiser, all of which are more-or-less contained in the lead. Is there something else that is missing? What makes him appear to be larger-than-life are the developments that occurred after him. It was his ideas, i.e., Calvinism, that eventually had a great impact, but this is already mentioned in the lead. I think Cottret had a good description of why he does not come across as someone spectacular: "Unlike some modern televangelists, he eludes the camera; he was discreet, secret, and shy. In short, he was the absolute opposite of a movie star,..." --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a stab at setting him in a broader context in the intro. --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RelHistBuff removed some of my changes in this regard out of concern that they might disrupt the FA process and suggested on my talk page that we instead ask what sort of "Big Name" context you (and others) are looking for. Perhaps the removed material would do it, or perhaps not. Let us know! --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flex's proposed text, assuming it's sourced to a reliable source, reads pretty well to me. It's just about right, just enough to give a quick broad overview without being too detailed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will put his text back in. The source (Hall) is from Flex so he can tell you more about it. I have another major source on the subject of Calvin's socio-economic impact so I will likely work on it some more. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably want to give a capsule explanation of what receiving the tonsure means. Most folks (unlike myself..) won't understnad it too well.
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capsule explanation of "humanist" wouldn't hurt either.
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone will probably want a cite for the last few sentences of the second paragraph of Early years.
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, you MUST explain "reformed faith" in the third paragraph of early years. It's not even linked, it needs more context. And WHICH reformed faith was he converted to at this point? Lutheranism? Anabaptism? Something else? It's unclear.
I dropped "reformed faith". See my response to Awadewit's question on the talk page for more details. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention "winding up their father's affairs..." when did papa Calvin die?
26 May 1531. Yes, there is a gap in time before Antoine was in Paris dealing with his father's estate (sold for 144 livres Tournois). This is not explained. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll probably have someone want a cite for the last sentences of the second paragraph of Reform work commences.
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence of the third paragraph of Reform work commences... "subscribed to the confession of faith" implies that there is only one confession ever. Suggest "their confession of faith" or something similar.
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section , last paragraph. I know you have "call" redlinked, but you probably need to explain that a bit in the text.
In fact, I don't think the source meant that Farel received a "call" from God which would be a call in the theological sense. Farel received a call from the authorities in Neuchâtel which is simply a call from another church. I changed it to "invitation". --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, this is the historian Geek in me, but in the Minster to Strasbourg section, what Greek version did Calvin translate Romans from? Septahowever you spell it? Or another one?
Romans, along with the rest of the New Testament, was originally written in Greek. Calvin returning ad fontes for his exegesis is worthy of note because the Latin Vulgate translation had been the main text scholars used for some time. (The Septuagint is an ancient translation of the Old Testament into Greek.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what makes me so glad I'm a medievalist. We don't have to deal with Greek texts on top of the Latin. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were four possible Greek texts that he could have used and the one he most likely used is the edition printed in Paris 1534 by Simon de Colines. I didn't put that in because it seems that that would be more relevant on an article on the Commentary. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was Simon Grynaeus, and why did Calvin dedicate the Commentaries on Romans to him?
Calvin wrote the dedication when he was in Basel and Grynaeus was another reformer based in Basel, but the sources do not indicate why he dedicated it to him. I removed the reference to Grynaeus. It is not important; the main point was his comments on the three reformers. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea why Calvin changed his mind on the first proposed marriage?
The sources do not say, but see my response to Awadewit's question on the talk page for more details. --RelHistBuff (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the added quotes help a bunch. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain what a colloquy was for the non-historians?
Done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that Antoine's family was with John's in Geneva, but never mention when/where/why the brother joined Calvin...
Antoine appears at various moments in Calvin's life and the sources provide no details on what happened in between or the motivation of certain actions. I could just drop the mention of Antoine, if it is a problem. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it was more idle curiosity. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final years section, third paragraph .. the sentence "Some of the professors Calvin tried to recruit for the institute included his old friend Cordier and Emmanuel Tremellius, ..." you say "friend" but the sentences seems to have two objects there .. "Cordier" and "Emmanuel", two different people. Perhaps reword to remove the ambiguity?
Rewritten. --RelHistBuff (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did Joachim Westphal first identify "Calvinism"�?
1552. Included. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that Calvin accepted Lutherans as members of the true church, what was his attitude towards Catholics? Anabaptists? I think I can guess his attitude towards Unitarians...
The information is contradictory concerning the Catholic Church. He clearly said that he left "them" to be under Christ which appears to imply that he did not consider Rome as part of the true church, but he also said that the Catholic Church belong to the "covenant of God" and that their baptisms are accepted. He definitely considered the Anabaptists as heretics and wrote strong polemical treatises against them, but his views would be no different from the prevailing opinions at the time among reformers (such as Luther, Zwingli, and Bucer) and the Catholic Church alike. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything to add about the basis of Calvin's theology? What he built on?
All the elements that influenced him are there in the article, I believe (humanism, Augustine, other reformers). Cottret has a chapter titled after Bernard of Chartres's famous metaphor, "Dwarfs perched on the shoulder of giants".
Some of these are pretty easy to deal with, some may be more difficult. I look forward to supporting when most of them are resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm packing, I'm still connected to the internet and am keeping an eye on this. Never fear. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - there are concerns above that I also hold, but I feel that many of the sentences are wordy or roundabout. Example from the first line: "was an influential French theologian during the Protestant Reformation who expounded a system of reformed Christian theology later referred to as Calvinism." I see four clauses lumped together. Split it up, rearrange, something. (Suggestion - "was an influential French theologian." "During the Protestant Reformation, he expounded <probably not the right word> a system of reformed <definitely not the right word, way too pov and inaccurate> theology that was later called Calvinism." Note, you do not "refer" to it as Calvinism. You label it. There is a difference. Then you have words like "invited" and other such terms that seem inappropriate. Finally, there is a lot of nasty stuff about John Calvin that was not included in the page. If the RCC FAC was heavily criticized for lacking it, it would seem inappropriate for Calvin not to hold up to the same standards. The sources are only from a handful of limited views (most from the Cambridge Companion, which has a unified basis of theory). This causes it to fail comprehensive. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What nasty stuff do you have in mind? It deals with the major incidents like Servetus, Gruett, and Perrin. Please be more specific.
As for the sources, there are several articles from the Cambridge Companion, but the majority of notes do not come from these sources. Cottret and Parker (in several books) are cited repeatedly, for instance. --Flex (talk/contribs) 03:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot of anti-Calvinistic sentiment while he was alive and after. Hell, even Jonathan Swift viciously tore into Calvin in Tale of a Tub. The faithful Anglicans didn't like him. The Catholics didn't like him. You can look to either side there to find out a lot of anti-Calvin sentiment. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the article cite the two modern biographies of Calvin, Cottret and Parker. It includes the most shameful incidents of Calvin's life, Servetus and Gruet. Concerning the polemics, those made after his death would be relevant in the article on Calvinism. In the case of disagreements with Anglicans, the article on Puritanism would be the place for the arguments. At the time of Calvin, he exchanged letters with Cranmer, but that was the extent of Calvin's interactions with the Church of England. The disagreements with the Catholics and the Lutherans during his lifetime are in the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are under the impression that I am referring to negative moments in his life. No, I am referring to negative responses to him as a person and the sheer massive volume of hatred that has been poured out against him since he was 30. There is nothing on the negative pictures, the anti-Calvin pamphlets, the mocking of him through various books, trashing his religious beliefs, etc. The RCC FAC made it clear that the page did not have enough criticism of the Church. This man is one of the main Protestant theorists and he had a lot of criticism. This should be added in. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What anti-Calvin pamphlets do you have in mind? I know Westphal, Caroli, and Pighius disagreed with him, but they were theological disputes, not volumes of "hatred". I could add an additional paragraph describing these disagreements with his theology. Would that be sufficient? --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything, RelHistBuff. There is nothing on the very large amount of anti-Calvin. just look at the sheer volume of works about Calvin out there. I don't think you have nearly enough to reflect academic opinions, let alone harsh criticism of the individual. If you want, I can go down to the Theological College next week and ask for every book that tears apart John Calvin as a theologian, then I can go to the Dominican House of Studies and ask for the same. I know the Catholic Church would be able to provide shelves and shelves devoted to the topic, especially seeing as how they are diametrically opposed to John Calvin. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sebastian Castellio comes to mind. Calvin also debated with various Catholic authorities, but we want secondary source coverage here. As a tertiary source, the Catholic Encyclopedia contains a rather negative view of him[79] and his theology.[80] BTW, a goodly number of the works in your Amazon link are to the books already cited in the article, and many of the others are Calvin's own writings in English translation. On a quick look over the first five pages of results (after which relevance takes a dive), the only one that jumped out as far as criticism was John Calvin and Roman Catholicism: Critique and Engagement, Then and Now. --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph on the controversies in the Theology section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a little more needing to be added. I'm trying to hunt down some Anglican responses. By the way, could you mention in the legacy (one or two lines) that Jonathan Swift mocked Calvin in Tale of a Tub based on theological views? This was a very influential work and represented part of the 18th century Anglican response to Calvin and Calvinism. He was a very hated individual by a lot of people. The legacy needs some of the backlash listed. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that plenty of notable people have viewed Calvin negatively or positively for one reason or another. How do we choose whom to include, how do we make a representative selection? IOW, why include Voltaire, Swift, Rousseau, Max Weber, R. H. Tawney, Will Durant, or George Bush? Why do their views matter in the context of this article? Presumably our selection should be based on secondary sources discussing the expressed opinions and their importance and notability in the grand scheme of things. Obviously we can't include everyone (though a spin-off Criticism of John Calvin or Views of John Calvin article could provide more), so we need such neutral selection criteria. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, views of Calvin are very difficult to discriminate from views of Calvinism. The person's view would be "coloured" by the events of his/her era (as in the case of Swift and Voltaire). I have put in the Voltaire text only because it is included in Cottret's major biography on Calvin. My preference, however, is to leave the Calvin article specifically in its own era. I would like to go back to the original ending just keeping the first two paragraphs of the Legacy section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do their views matter? Because Calvin is not as popular as the article suggests! We are supposed to keep a Neutral Point of View. This article basically worships Calvin. The bias is overwhelming. Too many people complaining about an individual is not an excuse to ignore them all. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a spin off goes against the guidelines on NPOV. You would have to summarize the content on the article, including the criticism. By the way, Tale of a Tub, a very famous work by one of the top English authors and Dean of St. Patricks (Anglican), discusses Calvin as one of the main characters. That is more than just a small commentary on by some random famous person. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for a "Views of Calvin" article, I would fully expect that the material be properly summarized in this article and hence wouldn't be a POV fork, but again we would need similar selection criteria for creating the summary. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about Calvin v. Calvinism. I think we need at least the material about capitalism, representative democracy, and individualism, which is fairly widespread claim in the literature (I'd be shocked if some of your already cited books didn't deal with some or all of these topics at least in passing, and cf. Calvin and Calvinism: Sources of Democracy?). I think it's entirely appropriate to have some representative and notable negative views of the man and his ideas too, but secondary sources must be our gauge of importance. (Does Voltaire's complaint qualify? Does Cottret hold his view to be important or influential?) --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask User:Geogre about the amount of sources dealing with Tale of a Tub and John Calvin. I can count quite a few when I worked on Swift (I focused on his religious works and pamphleteering, not his satire). Voltaire should have a lot of sources, and I would contact the group that worked on the Voltaire FAC. They should be able to provide some. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I had been writing the article (actually, I did write considerable parts of the pre-FAC article), it would have been more theological in nature and less biographical, but I think the latter focus is equally acceptable and probably better for this article. (If desired, the theology of John Calvin (which is not the same as Calvinism) can be covered elsewhere -- cf. Theology of Huldrych Zwingli, which RelHistBuff spun off while taking Huldrych Zwingli to FA.) That biographical focus, however, means that there will necessarily and appropriately be fewer controversies and contemporary negative opinions described throughout the article. I tend to think we're missing criticism from the Catholic Church and perhaps other Protestant contemporaries, but I'm not yet convinced that plaudits and criticisms from Swift, Voltaire, et al. are necessary or appropriate here. (At least there's a book in your Amazon search about Catholic criticisms.) The best (only?) way to determine relevance to any of these articles is with reliable, secondary sources that gauge importance. I don't think we're ready to call in User:Georgre or anyone else to help us until we can first establish the relevance of any person's or institution's opinion. Otherwise, we'd need to go consult about myriad others' views of Calvin. Chances are, we can establish the necessary framework for positive/negative views from the sources already cited. --Flex (talk/contribs) 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned previously, any analysis made that is significantly distant from Calvin’s lifetime will be difficult to differentiate as a view of Calvin or a view of Calvinism. In addition, views change with time and each era (Age of Enlightenment, 19th century/Victorian, current, etc.) has their own biases. The various views would be difficult to filter and prioritise. Even current views are contradictory. Weber’s thesis is well-known, but many have noted that he dealt mainly with Calvin’s heritage as opposed to Calvin himself. Others have disagreements with him. Hall’s view is considered new and provocative. I believe this article should concentrate on his life and theology and I prefer the original Legacy section without the last paragraph. Having said all that, I do not see much of a problem if two opposing point-of-views are presented and it is stated that there are many different opinions. Readers can then do their own research and come to their own conclusions. I consider this matter closed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some problematic language, especially here: "He defends the trinitarian view of God and notes that images of God lead to idolatry, a strong polemical stand against the Catholic Church". The sentence reads as if "a strong polemical stand against the Catholic Church" modifies the -complete sentence-. Thus, it would be saying that Catholics don't have a Trinitarian view of God. This should be rewritten. Also, you have "He often cited the Church Fathers in order to defend the reformed cause" but don't put anything about the attacks that he received. You should probably separate this into a paragraph and include who the attacks came from. Otherwise, you created a strawman. Finally, the Theology section reads like a summary of Institutes of the Christian Religion instead of about his theology as a whole. Its one thing to refer to it, but calling it a "magnum opus" and breaking down book by book seems a tad excessive, especially when it doesn't include his whole theology, which is far more nuanced and developed over time. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the trinity sentence. I'll let RelHistBuff handle the "attacks" part from the sources. (In essence, I'd guess that Catholics were arguing that Protestant doctrine was novel and that Calvin responded by trying to show it wasn't by quoting the Fathers. But I'd like to see it cited rather than just asserted.) As for the Theology section, the Institutes *is* a summary of his entire theology, and so it seems appropos to summarize it in order to summarize his theology. As the article says, he revised it several times, but it almost always expanded to cover additional topics rather than changed coverage of existing topics. Hence, his theology was pretty stable over time. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Comment: Ottava Rima dislikes the complexity of the syntax. Since I teach second language students, I've become reasonably adept at reducing the cognitive load created by syntactic complexity. Anyone mind if I look 'n see what I might simplify? Feel free to revert me if I turn silk purses into sow's ears. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, so please go ahead. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oi, are there two Philibert Bertheliers? How could he be in a dispute in 1553 if he was beheaded in 1519? ...... Oh OK. Father/son; daddy beheaded in 1519. Got it. Wikipedia needs to draw ths distinction. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Support. I commented during the peer review, and I think the article has much improved since then. I do think some of the detail in the Early life section could be trimmed out - for example, where he hid out during his period of hiding after Cop's speech. There are other tidbits like this throughout the article that could be removed without really losing anything important. As written, though, the article seems comprehensive and reasonably well-written. Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comprehensive and well written, this article deserves recognition as a featured article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coemgenus (talk • contribs)

Support. Nasty lead image location (flush right is the only way to go!), but a solid article. Nicely done. (Just do something about that image!) --Spangineerws (háblame) 00:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS recommends portraits look towards the text. It is bizarre aesthetically to have a person staring off of the screen. Awadewit (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: There are some comments about this near the top of the FAC. Other FAs such as Joseph Priestley have the image on the left. Another editor added some special parameters concerning the TOC that should make the flush-left image to fit better. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reversed the image and moved it rightward. That's one small flip for PaintShopPro; one giant flip for Wikipedia. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I am not sure if that is allowed or desired. I think this kind of image flip has been discussed in other forums and the idea has been deprecated. Personally, I am not too keen on messing around with someone else's painting. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit's comment makes sense, but I think Ling.Nut's edit "aesthetically" is the best overall. But if there is a major issue with flipping images, I'll relent. --Spangineerws (háblame) 13:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flipping images is a terrible idea. We don't alter quotations in this way, so we shouldn't alter images. It is best to retain the artist's intention. I've reverted this change. Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • "France was taking an interest in Geneva": what kind of interest?
To form an alliance. I added a clause. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Philibert Berthelier asked the council for permission to take communion": why was he excommunicated?
Interesting coincidence. I had just finished a stub article on Berthelier. He and two others had insulted a minister. I added a sentence. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this article should be prohibited from becoming FA only because of Ottava Riva's strong oppose. I also think that religious articles like this one and RCC should not be prohibited from becoming FA based on desires of people to have huge amounts of negative opinions of non -believers included in the article. If we require these articles to include such info, they will be too large and will not help Reader find the facts about the article they came to seek. All of these articles have some summary of criticism with a link to a main article discussing criticisms in greater detail. Let's not toss someone's huge contribution to Wikipedia just because we don't like the subject matter or because we feel we have been treated unfairly or held to different standards at another FA. NancyHeise talk 16:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'd add that RelHistBuff has done a great job in reconstructing the article and responding to criticism here and on the article's talk page in a timely fashion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [81].

Sideshow Bob[edit]

Nominator(s): Scorpion0422

My first FA of 2009 is one I've been meaning to do for a while but just recently got around to it. I'll finish this nom with some wisdom from Bob himself:

"I'll be back. You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever. And when they get in, I'm back on the street! With all of my criminal buddies! Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha!" - Sideshow Bob, 1992

Anyway, as always, all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion0422 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.moviesonline.ca/
      • It's a movie news site and they do check their sources. Unfortunately, I can't find any other online articles from better sources, but I have found several on NewsBank. However, I think NewsBank should only be used as a last resort. -- Scorpion0422 00:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think what Ealdgyth is looking for is some kind of proof that the site is to be considered reliable beyond an editor statement that "It's a movie news site and they do check their sources." Something like the site's being considered reliable by a more obviously reliable source. Luckily for MoviesOnline, it has been cited by publications such as New York Magazine (here), and MSNBC (here). Maybe that'll be enough. If it isn't, then check the Google News Archive for further instances. Steve T • C 01:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd give it a "on the fence" statement for those. (Thanks, Steve, btw!) Why are sources on NewsBank to be used only on a last resort? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because not everyone has access to them. I prefer to use sources that everyone can immediately see. -- Scorpion0422 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm inclined to think it's unreliable, but I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves.Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Then add both refs like<ref>(i) [insert reliable source]<br>(ii) [insert accessible source] Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note the link checker tool is showing the billboard link as dead, but it works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, replaced with a NewsBank Hamilton Spectator ref. -- Scorpion0422 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Please check citations for consistency in usage of p or pp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It uses p in cases where there is just one page, and pp for multiple. -- Scorpion0422 00:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I think it was that some pg no's had dots after them, some others didn't. Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Cecil and Bob.png - I am on the fence about this fair use image. There is critical commentary in the article comparing the two characters, but I am not sure that we need to show Cecil. Apparently, Cecil is meant to look "related" to Bob. On the one hand, I think showing the two characters is helpful, because I wouldn't have guessed they were supposed to look alike. On the other hand, this article is about Bob, and I wonder how necessary this image of Cecil really is. My concerns here fall under WP:NFCC #8. I would appreciate feedback from other reviewers on this issue. Awadewit (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this problem can be solved by adding to the intro a statement on the lines: "only one relative of Bob has been introduced on the show, Cecil". This way having a section and a image with him would make it more ok. Nergaal (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple members of the Sideshow family have been introduced on the show, including both of his parents, a wife and a child. Otto4711 (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The intro's a little long, but it's all substance. Good work. Tezkag72 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please comment on the fair use image per my request above? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be left in, but I see how it might not be justified. See what others say. Tezkag72 16:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So have you reached a decision on the image? I can remove it if you like. -- Scorpion0422 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent article, though my comment on the PR was not addressed. There are multiple cases of repetition in the article. One is how Bob is stalled by reciting the HMS Pinafore and is captured, which is in both the Appearances and Analysis sections. Reywas92Talk 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can't really be avoided though. It's a major plot point, so it should be mentioned in appearances but it's also cited as an example in the book we use. You have to assume that the reader is not familiar with The Simpsons (or that they bothered to read the entire article), so in both cases a short description is provided. -- Scorpion0422 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not at all close to 1a. Update: Scartol's copyedit has greatly improved the prose.
  • From the lead:
    • "He began as a sidekick " Began is quite vague here...began as a character (out of universe, and began is still too unspecific) or began his career (in universe)?
    • "involve Bob/him [verb]-ing" is quite ungainly, especially in two sentences in a row.
      • Do you have any suggestions?
    • "Sideshow Bob has been described as "Frasier pickled in arsenic"," Citation for quotation? Passive perfect tense is weak.
      • Per WP:LEAD, citations are not needed in the lead if there is a citation later in the article. And the complete version of that quote is used (and cited) later.
        • Per WP:LEADCITE: "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alright then. Done.
    • "has since been praised for his portrayals" Yet more passive perfect. What's the "since" doing here?
      • Removed.
    • "Several parallels have been drawn in the show" And more. In fact, the weak perfect tense is used throughout the lead.
      • So what is wrong with the sentence?
        • Nothing wrong grammatically; I'm pointing out that it, plus numerous other sentences, use the perfect perfect progressive. They often beg the question, "by whom?" If this can be answered, then a recast into an active voice often leads to stronger prose. BuddingJournalist 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the premise of the Coyote chasing the Road Runner by having Bob unexpectedly inserting himself into Bart's life." These two ideas, connected by the "by", don't seem to relate to each other.
      • They do too. Have you ever seen the Coyote and Road Runner cartoons?
        • I have, but how does "Bob unexpectedly inserting himself into Bart's life" connect with this idea? BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, you have to remember that it's just the lead and the idea is exanded upon in the development section. But the Coyote is a self-proclaimed genius who continually chases this stupid bird for whatever reason and always loses. This premise is similar to Bob & Bart. Also, that idea was mentioned by a producer in one of the DVD commentaries. -- Scorpion0422 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • One of the tough parts of the lead is balancing clarity with succinctness. "Bob unexpectedly inserting himself into Bart's life" is vague and does not seem to connect to the previous idea of "chasing". Draw the parallel explicitly. BuddingJournalist 00:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay.
                • I'm still not seeing the connection of "Bob unexpectedly inserting himself into Bart's life" with Coyote/Road Runner (note that this exact phrase is used later as well). The recurring theme of the cartoons is that the coyote repeatedly tries and fails to kill the road runner, which seems to be the correct parallel, not the vague "unexpectedly inserting himself", no? BuddingJournalist 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a role as the main antagonist in The Simpsons Ride and several of Grammer's musical..." Broken list: either "and a role...The Simpsons Ride, and several" or recast "and several of Grammer's..." so that parallelism is kept through the list.
      • I split it into two sentences.
    • Looking at some sentences at random below the lead:
    • "decided to have Bob return to get revenge" This is just begging for a recast.
      • Why?
        • There are much stronger words to use than those two here. BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and the directors think they are always crazy and fun for them to animate" Encyclopedic prose, please.
      • To be fair, "crazy and fun" is in quotations; so it must come from the directors themselves. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The quotations weren't in there before. I have since changed it to a different quote. -- Scorpion0422 23:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wasn't in quotations when I made the above comment. BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The writers believe that Grammer has a great voice and try to create something for him to sing each time he appears." Yet more simplistic prose.
      • And?
        • And what? BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've re-written it, is it better? -- Scorpion0422 00:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, at least "something" has been eliminated. Great is not the most encyclopedic adjective. Now there's nothing objectively wrong with "The writers believe that Grammer has a great singing voice and try to write a song for him every time Bob appears", but it is rather simplistic, wordy, and dry. "Grammer's singing talent inspires the writers..." is just one example of a pithier way of expressing this idea. BuddingJournalist 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His intelligence can sometimes be a plus such as in "Cape Feare". A Parole Board asks Bob why he has a tattoo that said "Die, Bart, Die" and he replies that it is German for "The, Bart, The"." Huh? Is the second sentence supposed to serve as an example of why this is a "plus" (note also the un-encyclopedic and vague use of "plus")? If so, I'm not seeing the connection.
      • I added a bit more detail. Better?
        • Ah, now it makes a bit more sense, but what exactly are they impressed about? The sentence seems to imply that the important information is that they believe him. BuddingJournalist 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd have to add a bit more detail (generally I try to keep plot details as brief as possible), but I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion0422 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not seeing the necessity for more detail; I'm just wondering whether "impressed" should be replaced by "believes him" or something similar. But then again, I don't know the episode. BuddingJournalist 00:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems far from 1a standard and needs a significant copy-edit. Whoever decides to undertake the copy-edit will probably need access to the sources to rewrite much of the rather simplistic language and sentence structure that is used throughout the article. BuddingJournalist 13:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion0422 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to keep you up to date, I am still looking for a copyeditor (the user I would normally go to is busy), do you know any? As well, which of your concerns listed above are still not fully addressed? -- Scorpion0422 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • As for copyeditors, maybe User:Cirt? I struck the ones I believe have been addressed, although I may have overlooked some things. But these were just examples; there are many areas for improvement in the prose throughout the article.
          • Take this paragraph, for example: "Cecil returned in "Funeral for a Fiend" in season 19, along with their previously unseen father, Dr. Robert Terwilliger, who was played by John Mahoney. Mahoney had also played Martin Crane, the father of Grammer's and Pierce's characters in Frasier. However, the dynamic of the characters was changed: [While] in Frasier, Mahoney played the "down-to-earth, average guy" to Grammer's and Hyde Pierce's "uppity snobs"[,]; but Robert Terwilliger was portrayed as being just as highbrow as Bob. Bob also has a wife named Francesca (voiced by Maria Grazia Cucinotta) and a son named Gino, both of whom were introduced in the season 17 episode "The Italian Bob" and returned for "Funeral for a Fiend"."
            • Easily spotted errors such as "their", "Grammer...characters"/"Grammer..."uppity snobs"", and using a semicolon incorrectly should really be resolved in a copyedit/proofread before FAC.
            • Redundancies such as "who was", "also", and "being" can be eliminated in favor of crisper prose.
            • Since the contrast of the dynamics is explicitly laid out, the "However, the dynamic of the characters was changed" can be safely eliminated for a simpler comparison.
            • "played" gets a bit repetitive.
            • "returned" clashes with "along with...previously unseen". You'll need to find a way to recast this sentence.
            • The last "also" is a weak way of transitioning to Bob's wife and son. It really ought to be eliminated, but doing so makes the break in discussion more jarring. Is there a better place within the Family section for this sentence—perhaps at the very beginning? BuddingJournalist 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • BuddingJournalist, could you comment on the fair use issue I raised above? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately, I'm no image expert. I hold the same view you do; I think it'd be fine in an article on Cecil, but am unsure of its utility in this article. BuddingJournalist 05:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Update Cirt, has started doing a copyedit and has done the lead. However, this will likely be archived tomorrow so I'll probably have to give it another try. -- Scorpion0422 00:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Another fine Simpsons article that is strong on substance and sources. Has no strong considerable problems and appears to be complete. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Could you please comment on the fair use issue I raised above? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think above you made reference to "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The "topic" in question here is "Bob's family". Given that, I think having the picture showing the 2 characters together does significantly increase my understanding of how they are drawn to resemble each other as family would be, and not having the picture would be detrimental to my understanding of that. In my opinion it qualifies as fair use. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm I would stay away from statements like "Sideshow Bob has become a popular character from the series". Without a reference it is POV-pushing. Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wouldn't it be useful to end the article with a section that lists the ten episodes he appears in? EnemyOfTheState|talk 23:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like this? -- Scorpion0422 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My bad, though a proper section might still not be the worst of ideas. This template doesn't exactly catch your eye (as I unintentionally demonstrated). EnemyOfTheState|talk 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • A section might not be a bad idea, but there isn't one because of precedent. In the past, every character had a "major episodes" section. For Sideshow Bob, this isn't a problem, but with the majority of the rest of the characters it was because it can be very subjective. We finally decided to get rid of the sections and I would prefer not to bring any of them back. I can make the template non-collapsed so it will be more noticeable. -- Scorpion0422 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was confusing to have the first navbox collapsed and the second not, so I made the second navbox autocollapse. It should be easier to spot the first one now. Gary King (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I peer reviewed this, felt it was very close to FA standards at the time, and believe that the edits since have only improved it. I think the image of the brothers is acceptable as a fair use image. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WHile I believe the Bob and Cecil image meets WP:NFCC, I am also OK with its removal. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—style and prose concerns, crit. 1–3. In several places the wording is clunky and choppy, i.e., "Sideshow Bob has been described as "Frasier pickled in arsenic";[1] Frasier Crane is Grammer's character on the sitcoms Cheers and Frasier." Then there's the fact that the appearances section is written in past tense, in contradiction to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I'm not convinced that File:SideshowBobsfirstappearance.png significantly increases reader understanding, as required by WP:NFCC. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the appearances section, up until recently it WAS written in present tense but it was changed. [82] I have since taken it back to present. Why aren't you convinced about SideshowBobsfirstappearance.png? -- Scorpion0422 03:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, before I even edited the article, half of the Appearances section was already in past tense. I just followed whatever tense it was using the most while copyediting it ;) Gary King (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, we're none of us perfect. I think I've caught a lot of the past tense. However, the section starts off with past tense because it recounts things that happened in the past in the show. -- Scorpion0422 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to pass on the image as the other one has been removed. However there should be some care in terms of the free images added; in some places they are aligned left in violation of MoS rules regarding images, and clutter up the text, breaking up section headers and adding whitespace; add breaks if you're going to have so many. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried shifting the images around and I uploaded cropped versions of the Grammer and Hyde Pierce image. Is it better now? -- Scorpion0422 20:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who added the images — I felt they helped break up walls of copy. What MOS violation are you referring to? The only one I can imagine is not left-aligning images just below level-three headers, which I always carefully avoid. In any case, it looks like Scorpion has fixed the clutter problem. Scartol • Tok 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, criterion 3. The Cecil and Bob image is a deal-breaker at this time. --Laser brain (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? I've got three different image reviewers telling me three different things. Awadewit says she isn't sure, David Fuchs apparantly doesn't have any objections and you find it opposeable over. -- Scorpion0422 23:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a subjective matter. I don't believe it lends anything to understanding the material, and we are trying to build a free encyclopedia which means we must keep non-free content to a bare minimum. I don't even care for the image in the infobox but I'm afraid one must be tolerated. --Laser brain (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there anything I can do (ie. Fixing the rationale or using a different image) to change your opinion, or will you only change your mind with the removal of the image? For what it's worth, I asked some users on IRC and they thought the image was okay. -- Scorpion0422 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the only way the image would be acceptable is if it was accompanied by sourced, critical commentary that is essential to understanding the character. --Laser brain (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, personally I think it does already do that, but it's really not worth having this fail over, so I removed it. -- Scorpion0422 17:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I have stricken my image comment above, but upon examination of the prose, this is far from meeting 1a. It needs a thorough copyedit. I agree with BuddingJournalist's assessment that the prose is very simplistic, reading more like a episode guide than an encyclopedia article. Random samples just from the first section:
    • Confusing mixture of past and present tense when talking about Bob's history. I thought you had a system going, but it breaks down quickly.
      • There is a system going. Events that appear in the show are in present tense, events that were not depicted in the show are in past tense.
        • I understand that. I'm saying you aren't following the system. --Laser brain (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This was part of a scheme to gain access to ..." Avoid using "this" to refer to a previous concept without restating.
    • "After this escapade, Bob is genuinely redeemed ..." We have to wait a tortuously long time before reading how he was redeemed.
      • What? That was part of the plot of the episode, Bob was genuinely changed and thus he was released.
    • The whole section, actually, is not a compelling read. The long list of "Bob is released from prison. Bob does something. Bob is returned from prison." is a labor to read through. Sorry, but this has quite a way to go.
      • Have you ever tried condensing the plots of 10 full episodes into a three paragraph section? It's immensely to explain the same basic premise over and over again in such little space without sounding repetitive. -- Scorpion0422 14:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure it's difficult but that's part of the challenge of meeting criterion 1a. --Laser brain (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm going to do as thorough a copyedit as I can, starting today. Hopefully I can help finesse the prose a bit. Scartol • Tok 14:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I've finished my copyedit. I hope it helps. Scartol • Tok 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stricken my opposition above. It's looking much better. --Laser brain (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything that can be done to get you to support? -- Scorpion0422 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking much better.
    • Still not convinced by "having Bob unexpectedly insert himself into Bart's life". At the least the first time this is used, there is an "and attempt to kill him." The recurring motif of the the Coyote/Road Runner cartoons is that the Coyote repeatedly tries to kill the Road Runner in elaborate ways, no? Therefore, "by having Bob repeatedly attempt to kill Bart" or something similar makes much more sense to me.
    • Okay, I can go for that. Done.
      • Forgot to mention: this is actually what happens in the episode though, right (that he repeatedly attempts to kill him)? I've never seen it; I was just extrapolating from the comparison. BuddingJournalist 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't think of that. Usually the episodes revolve around one plan to kill Bart, rather than numerous failed attempts, so the previous wording was more accurate. -- Scorpion0422 22:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I guess I'm still left wondering about the comparison then. I can understand how the comparison can be made across multiple episodes, since he repeatedly fails at killing Bart, but the current wording suggests something specific about that one episode that recalls the Coyote/Road Runner episodes. BuddingJournalist 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cecil returned in "Funeral for a Fiend" during season 19, along with the brothers' previously unseen father, Dr. Robert Terwilliger, played by John Mahoney." "Returned" clashes with "along with...previously unseen".
      • Fixed (I think).
        • Not quite. What I mean is that the second clause basically clashes with the verb choice of "return". Since Dr. Robert Terwillinger is "previously unseen", then his appearance can't be a "return". See my tweak. BuddingJournalist 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Believing that "nobody who speaks German could be an evil man", they release him" Quotation needs citation. BuddingJournalist 22:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it was covered by the book cite, but I did add a cite for the specific episode as well. Thanks again for your input. -- Scorpion0422 22:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I gave the article a quick read-through and found just two items, which I fixed myself. Good work by everyone who contributed to the article. I only wish that every Wikiproject had as dedicated and organized a crew as Wikiproject Simpsons. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [83].

In Utero[edit]

Nominator(s): WesleyDodds (talk)

It's been a while since an article relating to the seminal alternative rock band Nirvana has been nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. The main reason for this is that there is such a wealth of material on the group it takes a long time to sort through everything and then fashion it into an exemplary article. As proof of this, I've been working on this article about the band's third (and final) album off and on for well over a year (although not as long as I've been working on Nevermind, which I hope to get ready for FAC by 2011 at the latest). Thanks to the occasional assistance from fellow members of WikiProject Alternative music (particularly Brandt Luke Zorn) and plenty of intensive work by myself in recent months, I feel that the article now meets all Featured Article criteria (I know the soundclips are a bit long, but that will be sorted out pretty soon). If you have any comments or concerns, please let me know (hopefully as soon as possible, because I really should return some of these books to my library at some point). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Media review
The two images (front cover and back) are okay with the fair-use rationales and supporting commentary given.

  • File:Nirvana - Heart Shaped Box.ogg and File:Nirvana - Milk It.ogg, however, have the same rationales ("Allows the reader to understand the stylistic approach of the album and the loud-quiet techniques that are typical throughout. and Exemplifies the grittier and rougher production of In Utero in contrast to the band's previous album Nevermind.). Obviously if both songs serve the same purpose, then one should be removed (the one least fitting the rationales). It could be an oversight of copy-and-pasting, but the purposes the two songs serve should be different.

Awaiting comments and feedback. Jappalang (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All images media check out fine (hmm... should be media review). Jappalang (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never seen the album, but it was always my understanding that the song "tourette's" was intentionally not capitalized. Is that untrue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it isn't capitalized, but because of Wikipedia's grammar rules, it is left capitalized. Also the reason that the rest of the song's titles aren't completely capitalized (e.g. "Serve The Servants", which is how it's listed on the CD; I own it). As for the rest of the article, I'll have to read it more before supporting or opposing it. I passed this article's GA review, but it might not be ready for FA. Tezkag72 16:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there's something somewhere in MoS that allows for things like eBay; if I was correct that it's not capitalized, it should be shown that way in the article. I think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed per suggestion. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I think it should be capitalized. WP:MOS#Capital letters point to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), which points to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Capitalization for Music albums. In the last, it states "In titles of songs, albums, and band names in the English language, the project standard is to capitalize the first word and last word in the title." Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the song title is intentionally lowercased it should be reflected as such in the article - that's what I've always thought, anyway. Giggy (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've not been able to find anything in the MOS to say that a lowercase first letter for the song is allowed. As already mentioned WP:ALBUMCAPS disagrees and the eBay/iPod rule is for when the first letter is lowercase and pronounced as a letter per MOS:TM, which I don't think applies in this case. --JD554 (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not WP:IAR? The song name is intentionally lower case. (Although this issue isn't important enough to hijack the FAC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to hijack FAC, I was simply trying to see if you or Giggy could show why you felt your positions to be the case. I am happy for IAR to be the case here as it's such a minor point. --JD554 (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oops, sorry; I wasn't implying that you were, JD554 (I was the one who raised the issue). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the song is consistently referred to in secondary sources as "tourette's". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Pennyroyal Tea was a single, why aren't any of its chart positions listed in the "singles" subsection under "chart positions"? There was a "Latvian Airplay" chart position listed on the Pennyroyal Tea article; are there any sources? Tezkag72 16:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JD554 added the singles chart positions, so I'll see what he thinks. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
The Latvian chart position for Pennyroyal Tea is uncited. However, I couldn't find a source (reliable or otherwise) to verify it so felt it best to not include it. --JD554 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Yeah, I just noticed that the Featured List Nirvana discography doesn't list any chart placings for the song. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (WP:ALM member.) The prose is a bit dense at times, but I too believe that the article fits all the criteria. Tezkag72 21:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • References (even printed ones that aren't on the web) in non-English languages need to note that in the footnotes.
  • Current refs 83 (Scapolo...), 90 (Kent, David..), 91 (Collin, Robert...), 92 (Pennanen ...), and 95 (Scapolo) are lacking page numbers
  • Current ref 83 (Scapolo...) is lacking a publisher
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked JD554 about this, so it should be taken care of quickly. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had AGF'd those sources as they were already there. However, I've been unable to get them confirmed so I've changed the references/data per Charts.org.nz, Australian-charts.com, Ultratop.be and Finnishcharts.com. This created space in the singles table to add the Netherlands position for "Heart Shaped Box" citing Dutchcharts.nl. --JD554 (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So all the ones lacking page numbers are replaced? And did the non-English sources get noted? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—Surprisingly, there is no mention that InUtero is on the Rolling Stone "500 greatest albums" list (which should probably be in the lead), and generally, on many such "greatest albums ever" lists. There's a standard table that many classic-album articles have that lists all the accolades the album has received; we should probably add one here. I wonder if a Legacy section could be warranted considering that many (including the band) consider it to be the "true" Nirvana album, as opposed to the overproduced Nevermind, as well one of the most important records of the 1990s. indopug (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been considering that. I'll add a paragraph tomorrow (although we probably don't need a whole new section for it). There used to be an "accolades" table, but I removed it because a lot of it was unreferenced and it's better dealt with in prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. One more thing, are you sure none of that paragraph deserves a mention in the lead? indopug (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The broad sentence about critical acclaim sufficies, I think. None of the accolades really call out to be singled out in the lead. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe the RS500 deserves a mention in the lead, but you're probably a better judge of that than I am. Tezkag72 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always hate when an album or song's placing on the Rolling Stone lists is listed in the lead. Definitely worth noting in an article, but not so important it deserves a mention in the same breath as, say, a Grammy win or being added to the Library of Congress at the top of the page. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is one of the best articles I've seen for an album that was listed in the RS500. (I own the book.) Tezkag72 03:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as WP:ALM member. WesleyDodds has outdone himself and once again makes the rest of us look bad, the bastard. indopug (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm getting together a list of issues. I will post them here when I am done. NSR77 T 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is all the information on "Heart-Shaped Box" listed entirely in the sound-sample description? That location is designated for a short summation of the info that should be in the prose. There should be no citations in this area unless new information is introduced. Please transport the—rather lengthy—info from the sound-sample description to the "Music" section of the prose and then write up a short summary of what the clip is supposed to represent. NSR77 T 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the information is present in the production controversy section. Thematically I felt the sound clip fits better in the Music section, but it can be moved to the other section if you want. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems more logical to have the info in the "Music" section. Then you wouldn't have to take the sample out of context; could be confusing to some readers. More comments are to come. NSR77 T 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just move it to the next section, since the remixing is discussed there. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments...I'll give this the ol' once over...or twice....and drop some notes below. Over the line prose-wise. heh Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Released on September 13, 1993 by DGC Records, the band intended the record to be significantly divergent from the polished production of its previous album Nevermind (1991). - I know active is usually preferred to passive but the subject has shifted and it sounds funny. (i.e. the subject of the first clause is the album, then the band is the subject of the second. I'd make the second clause passive or try - "The band intended the record, which was released on September 13, 1993 by DGC Records, to be significantly divergent from the polished production of its previous album Nevermind (1991)." or just split them. Have a play anyway.
I fixed this by simply moving the clause to the first sentence, where it was originally. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To capture a more abrasive and natural sound - for mine, the bolded adjective "natural" is vague to the point of meaningless and adds nothing. I know what you are getting at ("raw", but that sounds too music-jargonny) or ? "less-produced"/"underproduced" or something which means somesuch..."spontaneous" (?) - anyway, have a play.
"Natural": that's what Albini and the band wanted, judging by the sources. I could go with just abrasive if you think that would suffice. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(bloody grunge music...sigh) I am happy to go with the flow here, if the term has a specific enough meaning that is implied :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments, leaning toward supporting. This is very good. I made some minor fixes as I was reading, but listed some below for your consideration:
    • "Upon release, the album debuted at number one ..." Is the "upon release" necessary? I think it's assumed that it can't debut until it's released.
    • I never really understood this concept, but is an "album" the same as a "record"? Because you call it both in the lead.
      • Yes, although some older folks instantly think "vinyl" when they heard the word. Still beats saying "album" all the time. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... with work proceeding slowly ..." Avoid the ungrammatical noun plus -ing construction; please check for these throughout.
      • Why is this considered incorrect? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've never been as good at explaining it as Tony1 is, so I'll direct you to his entry about it here. --Laser brain (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've altered most of them, but I left a few that if removed would have made the sentences worse. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In October 1992, Nirvana recorded several songs (mainly as instrumentals) that would later appear on In Utero during a demo session with Endino in Seattle." This is ambiguously worded as to sound like the songs appeared on the album during the time of the demo session. It can be solved by moving the ending clause to the middle.
    • Make sure that if a quotation ends in a period, you put the period inside the closing quote. Please check throughout, as there are a few of them wrong. (ex. "Albini observed that 'they wanted to make precisely the sort of record that I'm comfortable doing'.")
      • That's a quote fragment, and per the the Manual of Style punctuation is placed on the outside for that sort of thing (I know that in American grammar we are taught that punctuation always goes inside of quotes, but I've long ago come to accept this quirk of Wikipedia). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The band recorded the tracks live ..." As opposed to?
      • Recorded live means they all recorded together at the same time, instead of each doing their own takes which are later pieced together, which is the typical way of recording a big-budget album. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know what you meant when reading it in context, but it seems like there would be a better way to say this. Isn't there a recording industry term for when the musicians record synchronously in the studio? "Recorded live" usually means the album was recorded from a live performance with audience. --Laser brain (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rewrote. Also, I just noticed looking back at the Azerrad book that he explains the definition of recording live. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... with some dating back to 1990." Another noun plus -ing.
    • "The phrase had originated in mid-1992 as Cobain's response whenever the question 'How are you?' was asked of him, was intended as humorous." This is ungrammatical.. I'll leave the revision to you in this case.
--Laser brain (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was added by another editor from a source I don't own. I'll try and fix it. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed thanks to Google Book search and re-reading the Azerrad book for additional context. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article. Wish I could write like this. However, the paragraph attached to the sound sample of "Heart-shaped Box" is extremely difficult to read. Could it be shortened? The length of the caption makes it look like you could find anywhere in the article to put the info.-- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 01:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The caption helps justify fair use. I can try cutting it by a line or two. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template is not mandatory and is in fact needlessly complicated and difficult to edit. It's the same reason I don't use the cite tempaltes anymore. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [84].

United States Military Academy[edit]

Nominator(s): — BQZip01 —, Ahodges7, Madcoverboy, Alex Middleton, BlueAg09

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is well-referenced, well-constructed, and one of the best articles I've seen here on Wikipedia. It meets all the standards and would be a fine addition to the list of FAs. Props to Ahodges7 for pushing this one! — BQZip01 — talk 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support refs have improved and the article checks all the boxes. WP can be proud of this article. Comment I think the citations still need some more standardization and work to increase reliability. Sources like flickr, admissions office, GoArmySports, geocities are borderline reliability as either authorities or SPS. Not insurmountable, but my primary concern. Standardizing formatting of citations also needs some massaging. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments
  • Wilco on the massaging. On a related note, some of the refs' links (see the tools on the right) seem to have gone bad since the beginning of January. I'll double check. SPS aren't prohibitted, but their information should be suspect. If there are extraordinary claims, I would expect backup from another unrelated source. The admissions office is a primary source for basic information like enrollment figures and is appropriate in this case. — BQZip01 — talk 18:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the reference cite*d by geocities; it was a factoid not necessary for the article. The flickr reference is merely a picture of what the sentence claims and it is also backed up by another reference, so, while flickr isn't necessarily the best source, it certainly paints an accurate picture in this case. The rest are primary sources of information and are not controversial points of fact (enrollment, record of football team, etc.). BTW, I put you in as a co-nominator. If you don't want to do so, feel free to remove your name. — BQZip01 — talk 18:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the Flikr reference. I reworded the sentence and provided a photograph in the article to verify the statement that "Beat Navy" is prominently displayed on campus (the Beat Navy tunnel in particular). Sorry to have wasted so many people's time with a Flickr citation when I could (should have) just taken the photo myself.  Ahodges7  20:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if the Flickr ref. is backed up by another (reliable source), what about it merits its inclusion? It's still practically a self-published source, and while Wiki allows for self-published sources in some cases (if the author has been published in a reliable third-party source), there's nothing to indicate that the author of the Flickr picture being cited is such an author. Also, if the picture itself is being cited, there isn't anything in the picture to back up the statement (that "Beat Navy" is painted on the bleachers). Same goes for the YouTube ref; there's nothing to indicate that the videos meet WP's criteria for the inclusion of self-published sources.
Also, in some cases, a magazine's title is italicized, while in others, it isn't. Shouldn't the magazines' titles be in the "work" field of the citation template and the publishing company in the "publisher" field? That would also solve the consistency problem with the italicization of titles, I think. Ink Runner (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Right you are. I've removed the sentence backed up by YouTube and the flickr ref (wasn't really needed anyway). My reference to SPS's is for matters of public record for which USMA (as a segment of the Executive Branch) is responsible for publishing. While USMA may publish them and the article is about USMA, these facts are backed up by the federal government and a well-respected institution of higher learning and should be accepted for basic claims (student population, demographics, etc) as they are primary sources. Working on the inconsistencies in the citation templates. — BQZip01 — talk 22:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fixed all the refs. The Flickr picture should stay. It isn't an SPS because it was taken by someone else other than a USMA employee IAW his/her duties. As for the medium in which it is published, a picture is, by definition, an original source. It can't be anything else. It is fine and should stay, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see comment about Flickr resolution above (it's no longer in the article).  Ahodges7  20:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on criterion 3 - Significant work needs to be done to bring the images into compliance with WP:IUP: Awadewit (talk · contribs)
  • File:WP Ring.jpg now File:WP Ring 2.jpg - The jeweler owns some copyright in this image and thus this image requires a fair use rationale, if the jeweler is not the US federal government. See, for example, File:AggieRing.jpg.
    Replaced image and added copyright info, but with Fair Use tag. The manufacturer may not own a copyright on the design, but that doesn't mean that someone else doesn't own the rights (such as the Class of 07 class council or something like that)
    We need to list the copyright holder and I'm wondering if the resolution is too high on this image. Usually, fair use images have a lower resolution than this - well under 1000px on each side. Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that we don't know who the copyright holder is. All the designs are made by the cadets while the 3-D implementation and the actual molds are retained by Jostens. Quite frankly, both are given appropriate credit and this is a fair use application of the image no matter which entity controls the copyright. As for the resolution, there is more to it than just the size of the image, but the detail contained in said image. The image at this magnification has a quite low resolution. I could take this image and blow it up to 10x the size, but it wouldn't increase the resolution. As stated on the image page, the resolution is low and it cannot be used in any appreciable way to infringe on any copyright. — BQZip01 — talk 19:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Franklin Hagenbeck.jpg - Can you find me a statement on the website that says all material is in the PD or something to that effect?
    Note: This is the sole remaining "unresolved" photo from Awadewit (talk · contribs) original comments. The remaining objection to it is incorrect. The photo is an official army command photo, the same as seen in the articles: Wesley Clark, David Petraeus, or Richard A. Cody. It should be considered resolved and struck.  Ahodges7   talk 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This photo is no longer in the article. I've replaced it with File:Sec Def Gates & LTG Hagenbeck at USMA.jpg, which is sourced, attributed, and tagged PD. Should be resolved.  Ahodges7   talk 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Official photographic portraits are PD, by definition, as much as any other official Federal document. — BQZip01 — talk 23:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am simply looking for a statement on the website that says this material is in the PD - I looked for a while, but I couldn't find it. Again, we need proof. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I've updated File:Franklin Hagenbeck.jpg with a correct link for its source and author with proper PD tag.  Ahodges7  11:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      How do we know "USMA Public Affairs Office" is the author? Can you add such a link to the image description page?Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      You are welcome to call and verify this is the case. What is it you are looking for? Obviously we aren't providing the information you want. — BQZip01 — talk 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I will repeat myself: The image description page claims that USMA Public Affairs Office is the author of this photo and, thus, that the image is in the PD. I cannot verify that information any where on the website, as required by WP:IUP. Just show me where it says this on the website. Awadewit (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      You are not required to verify this information on a website IAW WP:IUP. The policy you are citing only states that asone of the options:
      "Whenever you upload an image, you should meet the following minimal requirements.
      1. Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images.
        done
      2. Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer..."
        done
      I think some of this may be a misunderstanding too. Not all military images are kept on the internet. The vast majority are retained on local Intranets that encompass the base with limited access to other bases as well. Military members such as myself and Ahodges7 have access to stock photography that may or may not be on a publicly accessible website. Personally, I have about 120 such images but I have chosen not to upload them here (most are just neat photos with limited encyclopedic value). They also haven't been placed anywhere online for the general public (keeping all of them available everywhere & all the time is cost-prohibitive). In the case of these images, the best information we can give you is that they came from a specified source and give their contact information. Should those images be placed on a website, I would have no problem citing that website. Should we get more information, we would be happy to place it on the image pages. — BQZip01 — talk 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I contacted the PAO office and got the name of the photographer. The image now has the source and controlling agency link attached as well as the author's name. What else does it need to satisfy your issue with it being in the public domain?  Ahodges7  talk 18:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Possibly an OTRS verification per comments at the Bob Knight picture below. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      This information is not required. All required information is available. If the same user uploaded a picture from within a book published in 1919, there would be no reason to believe it is anything other than PD. An applicable source, credit where credit is due, contact information, etc. is all available. — BQZip01 — talk 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      (undent) On a stretch here, but: Army websites would use Official Military Photos that are taken by authorized studios (explanation of these Photos here). Illustration of the portraits for promotable colonels and generals could be seen at the Pentagon Portrait/Department of the Army (DA) Studio. Would this be convincing enough to state that all portrait images on official US army websites are Official Military Photos (especially those of colonels and generals with the American flags in the background); thus the Hagenbeck image here can be PD-USArmy even though it would have "unknown" in its author field? Jappalang (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      These photos aren't taken by "authorized" studios. They are taken by soldiers (or Department of the Army civilians) whose primary career field is professional photography. They are usually taken on the installation in which they are stationed, though I've seen a few taken at previous assignments where they actually received promotions too. Aside from that little misunderstanding (which I think I could have explained better earlier). I think it would be perfectly acceptable to make that assertion, but the unit and/or installation that created the photos should be credited if no author can be identified ("HEY Murray! Do you know who took the photo of the Commandant?...Yeah, me neither.") If the Army is anything like the Air Force, Public Affairs or a separate photography unit took the photos. Let me know if I'm on the money or way off Hodge. — BQZip01 — talk11:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      BQZip01 is on the money, except I've already done the legwork for the user by contacting the Public Affairs Office and getting the name of the photographer of the Supe's photo. The "authorized Visual Information (VI) activities" thatJappalang referenced here are official government photography shops, run by Department of the Army civilians or military photographers. As a result, the photos that they create are official US Army (and hence US Government) documents, and are PD, just like any other Unclassified government document, OR like the official photos of elected officials.  Ahodges7   talk 16:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:West Point Fortifications.jpg - This image looks like it is copied from a powerpoint presentation for a class. We need to know where it was originally published to establish that is in the PD because it is a work of the federal government.
    Note: this image is no longer in the article, but the opposing editor has yet to strike the comment.  Ahodges7   talk 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to be from a class at West Point (noting the logo in the lower corner). The images on here appear to be public maps (planning charts, etc.). My career field is navigation and I can assure you that these are PD and the work of a federal entity. The fact that they are published now by a federal entity is the key, though. With no disclaimers, this document, as a production of a federal entity, is PD as are any images contained in it. — BQZip01 — talk 23:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Including something in a powerpoint presentation for a class is not "publication". To establish that this image is in the PD, we need to know the original publication information. It does indeed look like other US maps I've seen that have been made by the military, but that is not enough. We have to be able to prove the PD claim and so far we cannot. Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've located the course description for the current version of the class cited as the source. The class nomenclature has changed since the source link was posted. I'll track down the course director on Monday to get updated information on the image. What would satisfy the criteria beyond establishing that it is a work of the USMA Dept of Geography and being used in its Military Geography class?  Ahodges7  12:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That it is being used in a military geography class is irrelevant. We need to find out when and where it was published and who wrote it. That information needs to be verifiable by users. Hopefully the course instructor knows the original publication information. Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what we're both getting at is that this information was published as part of the courseware. The important thing is that the USMA Department of Geography is the publisher of the image. Their academic standing is on the line and they wouldn't publish something like this without it being a PD image or clarifying it as such (a violation of copyright is a pretty serious offense in academia). — BQZip01 — talk 00:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence that this powerpoint presentation has been published by anyone - that it has undergone editorial oversight. We need to know the origin of this image - that is what establishes the PD claim. Awadewit (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? I'm sorry. It is a PDF of a Powerpoint presentation that is part of the published courseware for a class at the Academy. Why doesn't it meet all the criteria you mentioned? — BQZip01 — talk 06:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that it is Scott (http://www.i3mm.com/#page=scott) who uploaded that powerpoint to Scribd.com and not the USMA, it might be prudent to inquire if he was the author of the picture in question. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not claiming he is the author, so, no. This was a USMA-produced document. That Scott posted it is irrelevant to its original source. — BQZip01 — talk 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is a USMA-produced document, it should likely be on the USMA site, yes? Jappalang (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. The individual departments publish their course documents online from time to time, but the vast majority of this exists behind the USMA firewall. Because of the (nearly) unique status of USMA being a top-level college and at the same time a military installation, the academy balances the need for openness to foster collaberation and learning along with the need to protect its network from cyper-terrism and hackers. So long answer to your quesiton is "no", just because the academy produced the document, it doesn't mean that document will be on-line. Like BQZip01 has tried to explain, you can contact the Department of Geography to verify if the document came from them, but you are unlikely to find it on the academy's or department's website for the reasons I just listed.  Ahodges7   talk 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (undent) For the sake of progress, could this rough sketch of a map from a powerpoint presentation of unverifiable origin not be replaced by the old maps here, here, here, or this book? Jappalang (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It can. I've replaced File:West Point Fortifications.jpg with File:1780 Map of West Point Defenses.jpg. The monochrome sketch map looks more appropriate given the Colonial period being described anyway. Thanks to Jappalang for posting this image. I still side with BQZip01 as to the PD status of the previous image, but this resolution should move us towards resolving objections to the article on image rights disputes.  Ahodges7   talk 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:USMA-BlackKnights-Logo.svg - This may need a fair use rationale - I'm not totally sure. I'll look into it.
    Note: This image is no longer in the article, but the objection remains unstruck.  Ahodges7   talk 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FUR only applies to copyrighted images. It doesn't apply to trademarks. As such, trademarks are free images which have restrictions on commercial applications. — BQZip01 — talk 23:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trademarks are different from copyrights. Ignoring the troubles that brew behind the scenes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#The use of graphic logos and Wikipedia:Logos#Trademark concerns state that such logos used here are for identification of a primary subject (i.e. at the start of the article). This article is about the USMA, not the Black Knights. Public domain or not, trademarks must be used appropriately on Wikipedia. Personally, the article must discuss about the logo in question to qualify for "criticism or commentary" of the subject (e.g. discuss how the logo came about). Putting it here without such information renders the purpose of use as purely decorative, the logo is just there because the body it represents was mentioned. Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It actually doesn't say that. It applies to "Product logos and corporate logos". As this is not a product nor a company, this guideline does not apply. Furthermore, and I really hate to go toe-to-toe with you on this, your personal ideas as to when a logo is appropriate in your eyes is not policy or a guideline. It has no backing with regards to consensus. Neither source you provided states "logos used...are for identification of a primary subject (i.e. at the start of the article)." — BQZip01 — talk 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just see below, but short version: this doesn't apply because it is not a product, corporation, company, or service. This doesn't meet the criteria described above. — BQZip01 — talk 05:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the below, it is relevant because this trademark, aside from branding the team, is for commercial marking of merchandise associated with the team. Hence it is for commercial use (product). Jappalang (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:USMA-BlackKnights-Logo.svg is part of the USMA.edu Public Affairs press release website. The purpose of this website is to allow the use of the image to represent Army Athletics for identification, such as with news agencies. I don't see why its is an issue to use it to identify the athletic program on the Wikipedia article for USMA. Regardless, I am in the process of contacting Mr. Jim Flowers, the director of licensing for USMA athletics to gains written permission. Will that satisfy your objection?  Ahodges7   talk 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the logo from the article. This should end the debate.  Ahodges7   talk 02:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bob Knight & Coach K at USMA.jpg - We need a more specific source for this image, which users can verify themselves.
    Note: This image is no longer in the article, but the objection remains unstruck.  Ahodges7   talk 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can contact the USMA DPE if you wish to verify the photo. — BQZip01 — talk 23:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This source is too vague - most users will not know what "USMA DPE" means nor how to contact them. You need to give as much information as possible to allow users to verify this image. Currently, not even its license can be verified. Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced File:Bob Knight & Coach K at USMA.jpg with File:Coach Knight and Coach Krzyzewski at West Point Oct 2007 1.jpg, which came from the USMA Public Affairs office and has a US Govt PD tag on it as well as a link to the PAO's office for verification.  Ahodges7  11:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The new image doesn't have a source link or specific source publication information. We need one or the other. Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't need to be published or have a source link, merely a source. PA usually takes lots of stock images and only uses a few here and there. You can contact them to verify anything needed. Would a phone number help? — BQZip01 — talk 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Users need to be able to verify the image and its license, per WP:IUP. We cannot do that with this image yet. Awadewit (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See above under the general's photo. — BQZip01 — talk 05:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have updated the source link (as good as it is going to get) and the author information. If an editor wishes to verify further, they are going to have to contact PAO because the photo is not on an internet link that the general public can access. I believe that the photo should meet the standard now. It was taken at a public event, by a government photographer in the performance of his duties. It is properly cited and attributed. What else does it need?  Ahodges7   talk 20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, in these cases where the source of the information is not verifiable to the norms (on-line, books, videos), the OTRS is the avenue to pursue; forward confirmation with the USMA that this image was taken by an army employee to the foundation. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This information is not required and jumping through these hoops isn't necessary. All required information is available. If the same user uploaded a picture from within a book published in 1919, there would be no reason to believe it is anything other than PD. An applicable source, credit where credit is due, contact information, etc. is all available. — BQZip01 — talk 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Bob Knight & Coach K at USMA.jpg is no longer in the article. I've replaced it with File:West Point Rugby Player.jpg, which is sourced and should have no issues being PD.  Ahodges7   talk 02:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved image comments from Awadewit (talk · contribs)
Please respond under each image name with questions or comments. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved image comments from Jappalang (talk · contribs)
  1. The reference you cited states, "U.S. law prohibits the reproduction of designated logos of U.S. government agencies without permission. Use restrictions of such logos must be followed and permission obtained before use, if required. However, this does not affect the copyright status, because as works of the federal government, they are automatically in the public domain.". This is primarily for the use of items like the Presidential Seal which is protected by law. There is no evidence that these department logos from West Point fall under such an exemption.
  2. Hopefully that clarification addresses your concerns.
  3. I respectfully request that you put this in your own section as an object or comment. This is another user's section. We may address all of his/her concerns and attain support, but get your support. This is your objection, not his/hers. — BQZip01 — talk 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let us go over the sentences. They state "Use restrictions of such logos must be followed and permission obtained before use, if required. However, this does not affect the copyright status, ..." The meaning is not "public domain trademarks can be freely splashed on any page". "Restrictions of usage" are separate from "copyright status"; the statements declare that a trademark does not affect the copyrights of a logo. This is the principle behind the considerations of trademark use in this project. If a logo is copyright-free but registered as a trademark, the necessity of why such an image should be used in an article must be carefully considered, pertaining to its encyclopaedic purposes. The onus is to show that the USMA allows the insignias of its departments to be used for any purpose. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for moving these comments. This is much better.
  1. I never said "public domain trademarks can be freely splashed on any page". Trademarks are restricted from certain use. They need to be associated with the entity they represent and not another entity. They cannot be used for commercial purposes or to indicate an entity supports or endorses any statement without their consent.
  2. You parsed out a crucial part of the sentence "However, this does not affect the copyright status, because as works of the federal government, they are automatically in the public domain." They are still PD images even if restrictions exist (and I'm not contending they do exist).
  3. "Use of such logos" is in reference to the previous sentence: "U.S. law prohibits the reproduction of designated logos of U.S. government agencies without permission." These designated logos of government agencies are spelled out in U.S. law, primarily, in 18 USC Chapter 33. Some examples: Sec. 711, Sec. 711a, Sec. 712, Sec. 713, Sec. 715. All of these are specifically mentioned in law. Outside of those specifically mentioned, government images are PD. Permission is not needed in this case because it is not a designated logo.
  4. The purpose of this image is to identify the paragraphs related to athletics and the trademarked logo associated with that athletic organization. It is appropriate and is used all over Wikipedia and, more importantly, on almost every featured article about an American university:
    Texas A&M
    Duke
    Michigan State
    University of Michigan
    Florida Atlantic University
    Texas Tech
    UC Riverside
— BQZip01 — talk 05:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not parse out important detail. The crux is "public domain (copyright)" and "trademark (permission)" are two separate concerns, not one. Jappalang (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please look at the trademark link for the USMA you have supplied.[85] Download the ppt pointed by "West Point Institutional Names and Identifying Marks is a visual portfolio of our logos, marks, verbiage, and colors. Please note that this list is non-exhaustive; the absence of a mark from this list does not constitute a waiver of any intellectual property law rights." The insignias and trademarks listed are in the Powerpoint. Regardless, the site itself has stated that permission should be sought to use the marks related to USMA. From the very start, this is not a matter of copyright; it is a matter of permission, and appropriate use of image. Sidenote: refer to {{Insignia}}. Jappalang (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So stricken with the replacement of the insignias. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Abraham, B.S.
    • The following requires a citation: "Since Douglas MacArthur's tenure as superintendent, every cadet has been required to participate in either an intercollegiate sport, a club sport, or an intramural (referred to as "Company Athletics") sport each semester."
      Reference provided now. Ahodges7 (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you might want to revisit this sentence (spelling and gramma): "Cadets are not refereed to its as freshmen, sophomores, juniors, or seniors."
      Spelling and grammar fixed. Sorry for the typos. Ahodges7 (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ealdgyth
    • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
      The only citation I saw with this error was #15 (List of NHL by state from the NPS). It is now fixed. Ahodges7 (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dead links. Link checker tool is showing a number of them, please fix.
      Fixed or removed all dead links per link checker tool. should be good now.  Ahodges7  19:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 130 (USMA, Princton ...) is a .doc, and should be noted in the reference
      The link went dead last week, it is now removed.  Ahodges7  19:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 29 (John Brubacher...) the publisher here is not Google books, which just hosts the scans. Its the original publisher of the printed book. The ref should be formatted as a book, not a website.
      Fair enough, but we should list where we got it, not just who published it. It's fixed now. — BQZip01 — talk 05:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. (I noted current ref 60 (Shcumach..)) but there may be others)
      All the NYT and Pointer View citations are now italicized. Some very senior MoS editors have scrubbed this and not italicized Time Magazine, even though it uses the {{cite news}} template, so I'm leaving those alone.  Ahodges7  11:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't the publisher for current ref 70 (In Memoriam...) the West Point Association of Graduates?
      It is the Association of Graduates. Apologies for the misspelling. AOG typically refers to itself as "The Association of Graduates", not the "West Point Association of Graduates", even though this particular web page does so. Since that is how AOG is titled in this particuliar reference, I'll change it in the citation. Occasionally, "USMA" is added after AOG as well for disambiguation. Ahodges7 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 141 just refers to a wikipedia article, that's not reliable.
      Moved that "ref" to a wikilink. It really wasn't so essential there
    • Current ref 149, is Pointer View a newspaper? If so, should be in italics. (used again 172...)
    • Current ref 176 (Edson...) is lacking a page number.
      The Edson reference (currently #180) is included without a page # because the title of the book is what is need to support the statement. The statement is that the football team has historically been called the "Black Knights" even though that was not a school mascot, and the Edson book is a history of Army football titled "The Black Knights of West Point". Do I need to cite a page number in this instance or does the book title sufice?  Ahodges7   talk 13:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • what makes http://freshmanperspective.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/secrets-of-west-point/ reliable?
      I had included that citation simply for its photograph of the "Beat Navy" tunnel, not for any of the text content. I've removed the citation and placed a self-taken photograph of said tunnel to support the statement concerning the rivalry with the Naval Academy.  Ahodges7  20:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • what makes http://www.aldenpartridge.com/ a reliable source?
      It is not. I've replaced it with a citation from Norwich University.  Ahodges7  11:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With what? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. It's simply been removed. There were two other sources that backed it up and a third simply wasn't needed. — BQZip01 — talk 01:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
from? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://sports.outsidethebeltway.com/2006/10/what-keeps-bill-parcells-awake-at-night/ — BQZip01 — talk 01:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with this site, what makes it reliable? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-respected online journal. That Bill Parcells was an assistant is not a controversial fact and is backed up by numerous references, but apparently these don't meet your concerns; if my answer does not satisfy your concerns, can you pick a site from this list that does meet your reliability concerns? I'll be happy to replace it in the article. — BQZip01 — talk 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/dolphins/content/sports/epaper/2008/11/15/a1b_dolphins_1116.html will work fine. Newspapers will be a lot less open to question when your article hits the main page. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added. — BQZip01 — talk 01:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes. (I noted RMC of Canada...but there may be others...)
    This is in the title of the article. If anyone wants to know more about an acronym used in the article, they are welcome to do so, but that has little to do with the information contained in this article, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 00:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's only common courtesy to spell out abbreviations that folks won't necessarily know. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the context in which it is used, I would assume (I know, I know...) that its usage would be obvious. Still, I annotated the acronym at its first usage in the article, but this isn't a policy or guideline of which I am aware. Please educate me if I am in error. — BQZip01 — talk 01:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, the article needs a lot of WP:MOS cleanup; I left some sample edits, but there is more (also image layout issues). I suggest asking Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to help out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have cleaned up all the disambiguous links other than "USMA" and "West Point" which are at the top of the article. Pardon my ignorance, but I believe this clears up the disambig links? Ahodges7 (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've contacted Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to see if they can help out. As for disambiguating "USMA" and "West Point", I'm not sure what to do there.  Ahodges7  18:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Epbr123 (talk · contribs) has answered the call for help and made many WP:MoS corrections.  Ahodges7  12:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I live less than half an hour from West Point, and have attended a couple of football games at Michie Stadium. I like to comment on the Athletics sections in university articles, and am happy to do so for this one in particular. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (talk · contribs)
    • "U.S. sports media use Army as a synonym for the Academy and is officially endorsed by the Academy." Doesn't work grammatically.
      fixed. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Football: "but Army avenged the loss in Annapolis the following year.[182]The academies...". Space needed.
      space added. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second Earl Blaik link isn't necessary.
      agreed, removed. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cadets attendance is mandatory...". Change to "Cadets' attendance is mandatory...".
      fixed Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In recent years, Army was a member of Conference USA". Instead of using a term like "recent", it would be better to state when they were in the conference.
      dates of membership the the conference are now added and sentence is reconstructed accordingly. Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That covers most of the section. I'll try to do the rest at a later time. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back to conclude the section review.
  • "Every year, Army faces Royal Military College of Canada Palladins in the annual West Point Weekene hockey game." Either add "the" before Royal or drop the Palladins nickname.
    sorry, a previous version had "RMC" not spelled out, when it got spelled out, forgot to add the "the" in front. fixed now.  Ahodges7   talk 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where they lost to the Tennessee, 102–54."
    another correction casualty. was "the Tennessee Volunteers", dropped the Vols, should have dropped the "the" (dang!) - fixed  Ahodges7   talk 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "before moving on to Duke".
    fixed  Ahodges7   talk 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "West Point captured the national title in cycling and women's team handball." Perhaps make "title" plural.
    fixed  Ahodges7   talk 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Future NFL coaching legends Vince Lombardi and Bill Parcells...". A term like "legends" is usually considered point of view for FAC purposes. Also concerned about "historic Michie Stadium".
    while I can see Parcells being debatable as a "legend", surely all would agree to Lombardi's "legendary" status? either way, I understand NPOV rules and "legends" is removed. I've removed "historic" Ahodges7 (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what happened there. It's back to being fixed. The sole remaining "historic" reference to the stadium is in relation to its status as a historical landmark. — BQZip01 — talk 05:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose Being a summary, a well written lead will need few if any refs. Details requiring requiring refs should be in the body. There are 9 refs in this lead. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Rlevse
  • It is my understanding that leads are allowed to have citations, as seen by FA's Texas A&M (2 citations in lead), Duke (8 citations), and Ohio Wesleyan (8 citations). Do you object to this article's lead having citations or to the actual content or structure of the lead section?  Ahodges7   talk 12:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I can't keep an eye on every article and it's lead, but I did see yours. I have not seen the others you mention. Leads can have refs but when I see more then 3 or so, that's a signal of one of two things:
    1. The lead is not a summary and has details that are not repeated in the body
    2. The lead is a summary that is expounded upon in the body and has refs that it really doesn't need
    The problem with this lead is it sounds like a brief intro, it should be a summary of each major topic in body, then you won't need all that detail and refs. You have entire sections of the articel that are not mentioned in the lead.
    So, if you want you can work on this yourself or if you want I'll fix it for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rlevse, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but WP:LEAD says otherwise:
    "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article."
    I concur on so many levels that a lead shouldn't need citations at all since it is a summary of the article below, but inclusion of citations shouldn't be a problem either. I'm sorry it leads you to believe those things, but I have personally faced significant problems when references aren't in the lead because some readers are simply too lazy to look through the article to find out where you got them (and later when you show them, they still insist on a citation in the lead (of course, sometimes these same people make completely unreasonable demands such as, "you need to have everything sourced to someone unfamiliar with the topic" or something like that). IMNSHO, I think leaving the citations in the lead is fine, doesn't contradict any policy or guideline, and potentially prevents problems in the future.
    This issue is completely independent of the content of the lead. It should be both a summary of the article and an intro, per WP:LEAD. — BQZip01 — talk 18:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    'as appropriate is the key here'. If it's well written, the refs won't be needed in the lead. The problem in this case is there are so many details that entire sections of the body are skipped, making it a non summary lead. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reworded the summary and removed citations. All needed citations are now in the body of the article. The lead works better now anyway.  Ahodges7   talk 01:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good! Rlevse, I guess we disagree on appropriateness. — BQZip01 — talk 05:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with Comment In the same way that the lead does not need to be referenced if the info is referenced elsewhere in the article, the infobox does not need references if the info is referenced elsewhere. Since all the information in the infobox is referenced elsewhere in the article, I think all the references in the box should be removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While they do provide summary information, they do not always repeat the same information. An infobox may include information not included elsewhere and the references should be kept, IMHO. On a related note, this was specifically removed from the WP:LEAD section because WP:V requires verifiability when challenged. Keeping the references means we have a way to easily source the information instead of having the reader verify details in significantly varying sections of the article. If this explanation doesn't address your concerns, I guess we agree to disagree, but it isn't a policy or guideline to remove references in either the lead or the infobox, it's a preference. — BQZip01 — talk 00:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a well written, thorough article and has nice supplemental photographs/images. The only real issues I noticed were related to image positioning and subsequent 'text sandwiching' and title displacement. These problems are easily remedied and even if left as-is are not significant enough to prevent a FA blessing (in my opinion).--Elred (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support:
  • From the second para of the lead, should the comma be inside the quotation marks or outside? "a cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do".
    Which comma are we talking about? — BQZip01 — talk 19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, not comma, the period. KnightLago (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Inside/outside is a standard which varies between citation standards. Wikipedia doesn't specify anything in WP:MOS. — BQZip01 — talk 21:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of the academy's age and unique mission, its traditions influenced other institutions. This is not a good sentence to start a paragraph. I am also of the school that "Because" should rarely/never be used to start a paragraph.
    Then I guess we disagree. This sentence is structured properly with respect to grammar and follows WP:MOS — BQZip01 — talk 19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We may disagree, but I still don't think this is great writing. Also, where in the article is the information about how its traditions influenced other institutions? KnightLago (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [86][87][88] all seem to disagree with you. I think the first one explains the rationale best.
    The traditions influenced the building of other technical and military schools. This is addressed in the article. — BQZip01 — talk 06:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't have the time to go read the entire article at the moment. In the interest of getting this FAC over so we can all go back to our lives, which section is it in? KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I now see where it was added. KnightLago (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the school have an endowment?
    It is a federal institution and has the backing of the US government. It doesn't need an endowment. — BQZip01 — talk 19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, then how is the school funded? Does it have a set budget from the Army, or does it go to Congress every year? KnightLago (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It gets money from Congress like just about every other U.S. Government entity (exception: non-appropriated funds entities like AAFES). — BQZip01 — talk 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this in the article somewhere? Non-government universities talk about their endowment in at least a sentence. KnightLago (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Explained its funding line in association with its establishment. — BQZip01 — talk 06:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under athletics in the infobox, I think Black Knights should be in the nickname or mascot field. I would put something like NCAA Division 1, independent or multiple? in the athletics field.
    Fixed, but NCAA Division 1 could be misleading. This is better addressed with an explanation (already contained in the athletics section). — BQZip01 — talk 19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • West Point was first occupied by the Continental Army on 27 January 1778,[7] making it the longest continually occupied post in the United States. Does this meant the town was first occupied?
    This is a common misunderstanding about the term "West Point". There is no town of West Point, though there is a West Point, NY, which is a Census designated place for the purpose of counting the population living on the USMA reservation. During colonial times, the series of defensive forts defending this s-shaped curve in the river was know as "West Point". The closest town to the area is Highland Falls, NY, just outside Thayer gate to the south. So when the article says "West Point first occupied..." it means the physical geographic area where USMA now is located. The Army had a garrison there called "West Point" for 24 years before the academy was founded. The academy is often called "The United States Military Academy at West Point" for this reason.  Ahodges7   talk 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I understand now. Do you think there is anyway to make this more clear for people who aren't from the area? KnightLago (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've debated trying to explain this in the article, but like we've been discussing at the bottom of your comments, there just isn't much more room in the article. I'll try to work something up in the "Campus" section, and keep it short.  Ahodges7   talk 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Founded to be a school of engineering, for the first half of the 19th century, USMA graduates gained recognition for engineering the bulk of the nation's initial railway lines, bridges, harbors and roads. There is a lot going on here. Does this mean that after the first half of the 19th century graduates lost recognition for engineering or did not receive any?
    fixed. — BQZip01 — talk 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The academy was the only engineering school in the country until the founding of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1824, and West Point was so successful in its engineering curriculum that it influenced every American engineering school founded prior to the Civil War. There are two separate thoughts here mashed into a single sentence. Maybe make two sentences?
    Tweaked. — BQZip01 — talk 23:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly every general officer of note from either army during the Civil War was a graduate of West Point. Really? What does of note mean? How many general officers were in the war total? Did West Point have that many graduates at this point?
    "of note" means "notable" It can mean many things, but its general meaning is anything noteworthy. West Point had many graduates at that point. The total number of generals in the civil war is not germane to this context. — BQZip01 — talk 19:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. You're making the assertion that the vast majority of notable general officers in the entire Civil War graduated from the academy. Which source says this specifically? KnightLago (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not making that assertion, Theodore Crackel is. This is a reliable source and a reliable publication.
    As a further explanation, please realize USMA grads comprised nearly half of all generals (pretty much the same percentage on both sides of the civil war [89]. Given that they were professional soldiers schooled in the profession of arms and army tactics, they comprised over half the generals, it is not unreasonable to see that they would likely be standouts in the Armies of both sides. — BQZip01 — talk 20:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Source #1: USMA Bicentennial Website, cited in article, which states "In the end, 89 percent of the graduates living in 1860 served on one side or the other during the Civil War, dominating the leadership of the warring armies. Only one academy graduate, Joseph E. Johnston, Class of 1829, was a Regular Army general before the war, but 294 graduates served as generals for the Union and 151 for the Confederacy." The Simpson reference, which I left at my office, provides the statistic that over every major battle during the Civil War, at least one side was commanded by a USMA graduate. I really don't think that this is a controversial statement. Its my understanding that this is fairly well known.  Ahodges7   talk 20:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I defer to your knowledge of the sources. From someone not very familiar with the academy, this just seemed rather exceptional. Maybe you could add the sources when you get a chance. KnightLago (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is rather exceptional. The Simpson source inclusion should meet the standard, but I'll try to track down an on-line source that can be more easily accessed, as the "every major battle" statistic is commonly quoted in history circles. Admittedly, I was a history major as an undergrad.  Ahodges7   talk 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The academy enjoyed unprecedented fame in the years immediately following the Civil War due to the role its graduates had played. I think this is kinda clunky, can it be reworded somehow? Does the source say unprecedented fame?
    Yes it does, "unprecedented" was directly from the Crackel (2002) text.  Ahodges7   talk 20:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. KnightLago (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Spanish American War caused the class of 1899 to graduate early, while the Philippine Insurrection did the same for the class of 1901. This increased demand for officers led Congress to increase the size of the Corps of Cadets to 481 cadets in 1900. I don't think these fit well. You say that the war caused two classes to graduate early, but you don't really equate it to an actual demand. You just say they graduated early due to the wars.
    Actually, this demand for officers directly resulted in an increase in size of the cadet corps to increase output. — BQZip01 — talk 21:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, maybe I am misreading this, but IMHO you don't equate the graduations to an increased demand resulting from the conflicts leading to an increase in size. Also, if Congress increased the enrollment size in 1900, how does the 1901 class and the Philippine Insurrection result in an increase? Was the 1901 class the class of 1900 - 1901? How about this: As a result of the Spanish American War and the Philippine Insurrection, the classes 1899 and 1901 respectively, graduated early. These conflicts led Congress to increase the size of the Corps of Cadets to 481 cadets in 1900. KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are misreading it. The two are not causally linked. Two classes graduated early to join in conflicts because officers were needed. Because of this increased demand for officers, Congress increased the allowed size of the student body. Just because they graduated early doesn't mean they didn't know this was going to happen in 1900. :*::::"We need more officers!"
    "The soonest we can get them to you is January"
    "Then we need to increase the corps size so this doesn't keep happening..."
    I think you may have misread this and associated the dates too much with the order of things. — BQZip01 — talk 06:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I see what you are saying. KnightLago (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Douglas MacArthur became superintendent in 1919, instituting sweeping reforms to the academic process, including introducing a greater emphasis on history and humanities.[36] He made major changes to the field training regimen and the Cadet Honor Committee was formed under his watch in 1922. Is the under his watch part necessary?
    Yes. He was instrumental in making these changes. To simply state it was created while he was there neglects his influence. — BQZip01 — talk 21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is redundant. You shouldn't emphasize his influence by being repetitious. How about: Under his watch major changes were made to the field training regimen, and in 1922 the Cadet Honor Committee was formed. KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't redundant. There are two verbs for two different actions. The one verb does not apply to to both of them in this case. He didn't "make" the CHC, it was formed with his guidance. By moving the phrase to the beginning, it implies the CHC was formed during his tenure without emphasizing his role in its creation. WP:UNDUE — BQZip01 — talk 06:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • The class of 1943 was graduated in six months early in January 1943 while the next four class years graduated after only three years. In 1943, summer training was formally moved the new area recently acquired southwest of main post, which would later become Camp Buckner. The first sentence needs to be reworded, also would it be possible to not mention 1943 three times in two sentences?
    Fixed — BQZip01 — talk 23:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You fixed the 1943 problem, but "was graduated" is not brilliant writing. KnightLago (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Please don't be so insulting. Please realize there may be more than one way to correctly state something.
    2. "Was graduated" indicates a forced action on the cadets from the perspective of the faculty
    3. To alleviate any concerns, I've removed "was". It is now a passive sentence.
    4. If you can be more specific up front, it would make this a little easier.
    5. You could also simply remove the three letter word and we wouldn't even have to have this multi-paragraph discussion. Just mentioning an alternative you don't have to abide by, but would be quite useful... — BQZip01 — talk 06:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that was graduated is not correct. It is now and was a passive sentence before you removed was. And what do you mean if I can be more specific up front. Do you know how long it took to review this entire article, make extensive comments, and then to respond. I am giving as much detail as I can. If something is vague you only have to ask. If I was to fix every problem I saw I would not be reviweing the article for FAC, I would be working on the article. KnightLago (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WWII abbreviation is not explained anywhere. Like World War Two (WWII).
Done — BQZip01 — talk 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • West Point played a prominent role in WWII; four out of five of the war's five-star generals were graduates and nearly 500 graduates died during the war. Could we cut this down to one use of war?
Done. — BQZip01 — talk 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Korean War did not disrupt class graduation schedules, but most of the senior army leadership during the war were academy graduates while 157 graduates died. Doesn't flow well.
Done — BQZip01 — talk 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the current version: Unlike some other conflicts, the Korean War did not disrupt class graduation schedules. Most of the senior army leadership during the war were academy graduates while 157 graduates perished. Other can be removed. The second sentence still is not brilliant prose. Graduates is used twice within four words. KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — BQZip01 — talk 06:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garrison H. Davidson became superintendent in 1956 and instituted several reforms that included reforming the admissions process, changing the core curriculum to include electives, and increasing the academic degree standards for academy instructors. Two use of reform with 4 words.
Done — BQZip01 — talk 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1960s saw the size of the Corps expand 4,400 cadets while the barracks and academic support structure grew proportionally. Something is missing here.
    Please add something. — BQZip01 — talk 20:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How about adding "to" after expand. KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    done. — BQZip01 — talk 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two paragraphs of the modern era have a lot of In 19XX, starts.
Fixed — BQZip01 — talk 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cadet Leader Development System (CLDS) is used in this form twice.
    fixed — BQZip01 — talk 21:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite its reputation for resisting change, Really? This is the first time this is mentioned.
So what do you want fixed? — BQZip01 — talk 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a saying critical of the academy that "USMA is 200 years of tradition unimpeded by progress." How would you like something like that worked into the article? I don't really think it needs to be stated in so many words, given the lengthy historical section. The idea that USMA was an early adopter of internet and network connectivity should be a fairly obvious contrast to its stark stone walls and wool uniforms from a by-gone era. I think this sentence is just fine, but if you feel otherwise, please change it or suggest a solution.  Ahodges7   talk 00:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My problem here is that you are mentioning its reputation for resistance to change (in those words) but the reputation is not dicussed anywhere in the article. Could this be removed? KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has a resistance to change. That is stated here and it doesn't need to be expanded. It stands alone as a sentence. — BQZip01 — talk 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. You can't just throw a sentence out like that and then say the sentence speaks for itself when it doesn't. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Despite its reputation for resisting change" is removed. The sentence is worded entirely differently now and should good to go.  Ahodges7   talk 18:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the Gulf War, the commander of Allied Forces, General Schwarzkopf was a graduate, while the current senior generals in Iraq, Generals Petraeus, and Odierno are graduates. Flow.
I see nothing wrong here. — BQZip01 — talk 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prose are not brilliant. I am not sure how to improve this sentence, but it needs to be. This could be cut into two sentences or simply mentioned in the alumni section. KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Now "graduates" isn't used twice. — BQZip01 — talk 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the September 11 attacks, applications for admission to the academy increased dramatically, security on campus was increased, and the curriculum now includes coursework on terrorism and military drills in civilian environments. Clunky.
Seems fine to me. — BQZip01 — talk 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have following the September 11 attacks, was attacked, and then later in the sentence the curriculum now includes. This should be a couple of sentences. KnightLago (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — BQZip01 — talk 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the significance both of the Revolutionary War fort ruins and of the military academy itself, the majority of the academy area was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1960. This doesn't fit the lead which says the entire campus.
    The lead says the "entire central campus", not the "entire campus". The reservation is ~16,000 acres, while the "central campus", where the cadet live and attend class is the National Landmark area. I don't feel the statement is misleading or conflicts.
    Maybe the confusion rests in what is the central campus. Another one of my points deals with this. Having never been there I have no idea what the central campus is from this article. You mention it is by some buildings, but that really doesn't clear things up. Is the campus divided into areas? Like North, Central, South? KnightLago (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that every area has a "central" area near the "center". It doesn't really matter too much what is there if all you are describing is the basic location within the entity. — BQZip01 — talk 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though the military reservation is quite large, the academic area of the campus is entirely accessible to cadets or visitors by foot. Is there a source that describes it as quite large?
    as cited in the article for the size of the reservation (~16,000 acres): USMA Facilities. This reference also gives the size of "central campus", which it calls the "immediate post" and lists as only ~2,500 acres. This source is cited in the article and should satisfy your concern without needing to modify the sentence quoted above.  Ahodges7   talk 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked the sentence to better explain the difference between the entire reservation and the "central" or "cadet" area.  Ahodges7   talk 00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The source does not describe it as quite large. You are describing it as quite large. The changes to explain the central/cadet areas are great. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    16,000 acres is "quite large". We do not need to use the exact same verbiage as the text does. This is being a little too picky, IMHO, without being helpful. If there is something you want us to change it to, we'd be happy to do so, provided it is accurate. — BQZip01 — talk 06:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to use the exact wording of the text, but you cannot use your own descriptive words. You are boosting the campus by saying it is quite large. If a source describes it as quite large then it would be fine. Without a source it should be removed. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is boosting anything. The campus is quite a distance to walk if you go end-to-end, but the area we are talking about is proportionally small. rephrased. — BQZip01 — talk 23:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The quite large wording remains, that is what I have been objecting to all along. KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The wording "quite large" is now replaced by the actual size of the campus: 15,974 acres (65 km2).  Ahodges7   talk 01:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is better, but that creates another problem. The first sentence of that paragraph states one number for size, and the sentence you added has a different number. I also think having both numbers is redundant. Could we maybe put the correct number in the first sentence and then maybe move the remaining sentence down or to somewhere else in the article that would flow with it? KnightLago (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the first reference to the # of acres, which was rounded to the nearest thousand anyway. I believe this should alleviate the flow problem. If you can think of a way to write the prose more brilliantly, please do so because I think its fine.  Ahodges7   talk 22:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1902, the Boston architectural firm Cram, Goodhue, and Ferguson was awarded a major construction contract that set the predominately neogothic architectural style still seen today. Does the source say major?
    Yes it does. Cram, Goodhue, and Ferguson were awarded a $10 million dollar contract (in 1903 $s) to build the main administration building (Taylor Hall), the Cadet Chapel, Hayes Gymnasium, and other smaller structures as part of a single contract that is described as "major" in Palka (2008).  Ahodges7   talk 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the central cadet? Is this the same as cadet central which is used a few sentences later?
missing words replaced. — BQZip01 — talk 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Global War on Terror doesn't need to be linked again.
Done. — BQZip01 — talk 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Originally opened to the public in 1854, the West Point Museum is the oldest and largest military museum in the country. Do you have more than one source for this? The oldest and largest? How big is this thing?
The source is acceptable another is not really needed. Yes. Big. — BQZip01 — talk 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Air Force says their museum is the oldest and largest aviation museum. The Air Force is a part of the military. See here. You may have the oldest part won, but what about the largest? KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says it is the largest military museum. The Air Force museum is an aviation museum not exclusively dedicated to military projects/history. — BQZip01 — talk 06:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here the museum says "to view what is considered to be the oldest and largest diversified public collection of miltaria in the Western Hemisphere." So the museum itself says it is considered to be, not that it is. Also, the Air Force is part of the military. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "largest" is removed. I don't think it is inappropriate to consider the aforementioned website or the published source as being suspect. There are know known military museums in America that are older. The AF museum is no doubt "larger" in terms of square footage. The terms "largest" was referring to the number of items in its collection, not its physical size. Do you have an objection to how it is now written?  Ahodges7   talk 18:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not. KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This position is roughly equivalent to the president of a civilian university, but due to the military status of the academy, the Superintendent holds more influence over the daily lives of the cadets than would a civilian university president. President can be linked to University president.
Added — BQZip01 — talk 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since 1812, all Superintendents have themselves been West Point graduates, though this has never been an official prerequisite to hold that position. Themselves can be removed.
done — BQZip01 — talk 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current Superintendent is Lieutenant General Franklin L. Hagenbeck, Superintendent since 9 June 2006. Two uses of Superintendent.
done — BQZip01 — talk 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • where they train for current tactical situations that they will soon face as new platoon leaders. What is a current tactical situation.
    "Current" versus "historical". Tactics of WWII don't directly translate to tactics of modern warfare. This is an example of the differences in training. — BQZip01 — talk 21:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done — BQZip01 — talk 07:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, please work this into the article. Non-military people are not going to know the distinction. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Modern works. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Department of Physical Education (DPE) doesn't seem to be the proper name for an article unless that is the actual name of the department.
    It actually is the name of the department. Like USMA, it is generally known and almost always referred to by its initials only.  Ahodges7   talk 21:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't sound correct. The DPE website here doesn't have Department of Physical Education (DPE) as its name. It simply has Department of Physical Education. The article should be moved to remove its initials from its name. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the name of another article... — BQZip01 — talk 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are advanced combatives?
    Modern Army Combatives which combines jujitsu-style grappling with striking while on the ground or in the clinch (open hand to face, closed fist to body). Originally I have this internally linked for this reason, but a senior copy-edit editor removed the internal link. Do you think I should put it back into the article to explain what "advanced combatives" means?  Ahodges7   talk 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think putting it back would be best so non-military people will understand. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    done. — BQZip01 — talk 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • scuba should probably be scuba diving.
    I agree. It was before another editor shortened it. I could go either way since scuba is well understood in the english language to mean "scuba diving".  Ahodges7   talk 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Scuba is well understood in America to be scuba diving, but I am not sure for Europe. I would add diving. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SCUBA is an acronym: Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus. By definition, it is diving. If they don't know what it is, they can click the link that has now been added — BQZip01 — talk 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if the meaning of scuba is well known outside America, but the link will fix it. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cadets can also take elective physical activity classes such as scuba, rock climbing, aerobic fitness and many others. Flow. How about something like Cadets can also take elective physical activity classes, including... and then drop and many others.
    Done. — BQZip01 — talk 21:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral-ethical development occurs throughout entirety of the cadet experience by living under the honor code, and through the formal leadership programs available at the academy. Move the "the" from after through to after throughout.
    Fixed — BQZip01 — talk 22:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cadets previously enforced an unofficial sanction known as "silencing" by not speaking to cadets accused of violating the honor code, but the practice ended in 1973 after national scrutiny. One of the sources does not attribute a silence to the honor code, but occurring as a result of cadet displeasure at certain officers.
    Well, there are 3 sources. Which one? — BQZip01 — talk 23:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    133 KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    deleted. — BQZip01 — talk 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot just remove the source when it says something different than what you wrote. The source actually gives first hand accounts of why the practice was done. That raises the question of which sources are correct, the one you removed was right, or the other sources that you left? KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I deleted it is because we are talking about cadet vs. cadet not cadet vs. officer. Ergo, the deleted source is talking about something else. — BQZip01 — talk 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Why mention only one over the other then? Cadets did both, why not mention both? KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The complexities of the silencing practice were too extensive to cover in depth in this article, similar to the dialog we've covered on hazing. The vast majority of silencing was as a result of cadets who were honor code violators, but some cadets were silenced for other perceived infractions. The later is a part of the history that should/will be addressed in the History of United States Military Academy, but does not need to be covered in this article or section when discussing violations of the honor code, hence BQZip deleting the confusing citation should clear this concern.  Ahodges7   talk 01:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I understand now. KnightLago (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cadets receive a small annual salary, and all meals in the dining halls are free to the cadets, while internet, phone, and television service is provided free of charge in the barracks rooms,[140] leaving cadets with very few expenses.[5] While usually means that you are going to contrast something, and the is after service should be are. Is there a source for the leaving part?
    "While" indicates something that is happening in conjunction with something else, not necessarily contrast. Fixed the verb tense issue. — BQZip01 — talk 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cadets is used twice in this sentence. Who says the cadets are left with very few expenses? Where in 5? How about: In addition to a small annual salary, Cadets receive free meals in dining halls, and internet, phone, and television in their barracks. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You really should have mentioned the double use the first time. Now it's fixed. The source says they are left with few expenses. This is a summary of what the source says. It doesn't need to be verbatim. — BQZip01 — talk 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed it the first time. The source, under the Estimated Student Expenses section, says no data available. You are putting your own interpretation into the article here. KnightLago (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be the price tag on such expenses, not the number of expenses. This quantity of expenses is much lower than the average college student who pays for all of these things. Ergo, the phrasing included is correct and accurate. — BQZip01 — talk 22:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a source that says that as I asked in the beginning? KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know of a source that uses the exact wording of "leaving", so I have removed this phrase per your concerns. The sentence should stand alone now and have no issues with citation support of the statement.  Ahodges7   talk 22:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • he student population was 4487 cadets for academic year 2007–08. Missing a comma in the number and a the before academic year wouldn't hurt.
    fixed — BQZip01 — talk 22:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The student body is 15.1% female. So I don't have to find a calculator, what is the male percentage.
    That isn't relevant in this context. The point is that there is a sizable percentage of the student population that is female. Additionally, you relly shouldn't need a calculator to figure out 100-15. — BQZip01 — talk 19:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 92% of entering students re-matriculated for a second year, the four-year graduation rate was 80% and the six-year rate was 81%. This is just a bunch of info mashed together because it is related.
    Generally related materials are grouped together into a sentence. — BQZip01 — talk 07:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have two sepeare ideas here mashed togehter. One is the re-matriculated rate. The other is graduations. If not two sentences or a rewording how about a semicolon. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retention and graduation are inherently linked. Added semicolon. — BQZip01 — talk 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The link is tenuous as you are talking about two different things. The semicolon works. KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each company lives grouped together in the same barracks area. Remove grouped.
    fixed — BQZip01 — talk 23:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The academy has the cadets change companies after their freshmen or sophomore years. The source says the cow class, which I believe are juniors.
  • The academy has the cadets change companies after their freshmen or sophomore years. Do they flip a coin to determine when exactly?
    This responses is to the preceding two comments. The source says "new Cow class", which is the start of their junior years, which is the same as saying "they scramble after their sophomore year". The process has changed several times in the last 10 years. Traditionally the scramble was after freshman year, then during the 1990s, it was after sophomore year, then for the class of 2002 and 2003 it there was no scramble. Now the scramble is back. Why, I don't know, the academy has not published its reasoning, but the source cited does not conflict with the article as written which states that "the method of scrambling has changed several times in recent years", and is cited by both a web and published book source. As to the "flip a coin" comment, the book source, Murphy (2008) states that the Class of 2002 actually had the opportunity to vote on if they wanted to scramble or not, but that is extraneous and too lengthy to include in the article.  Ahodges7   talk 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the structured culture of the Corps of Cadets, there is little tradition of Greek fraternal societies at the academy. What does this mean? Is there some or not?
It means some, but not much. — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many? Do they have their own houses? How do they fit within military life? KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't really relevant. We just stated they have little importance/little influence/little impact. There is no need to carry on into an additional sentence. — BQZip01 — talk 07:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant. This is a university. A sentence or two explaining this would be fine. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any greek life currently, but I believe there might have been some in the past. Accordingly I've removed the sentence. — BQZip01 — talk 23:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cadet fitness center, Arvin Gymnasium, which was recently rebuilt in 2004, houses extensive physical fitness facilities and equipment for cadet use. Does cadet need to be used twice.
    No, it doesn't. Fixed. — BQZip01 — talk 07:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each class of cadets elects a class president and several administrative positions. How about several administrators. you are talking about a specific position and then several positions.
Well a secretary, treasurer, class ring representative, etc. are all "administrative positions" while they are not "administrators" — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This still does not flow well. How about: Each class of cadets elects a numbers of students to fill leadership positions, including class president, secretary, treasurer, and class ring representative. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. — BQZip01 — talk 07:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They also elect a ring and crest committee, which designs the class's crest, the emblem that signifies their class for eternity and is embossed upon their class rings. Wouldn't class' be the correct usage?
Again, two schools of thought there. Class is a singular noun and can be used either with an apostrophe or apostrophe+"s". — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DCA is responsible for a wide range of activities that provide improved quality of life for cadets, Source?
See the given source
I looked, where specifically? Who said quality of life was improved? KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a summary of the given source using appropriate word choice. — BQZip01 — talk 07:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary may be that life is improved, I may say that DCA really doesn't improve life. Nobody cares what our opinions are, they care what the sources say. If there isn't a source that says this, even not in these words but with the same meaning, then it should be reworded or removed. KnightLago (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See cadet testimonial here, found on the DCA website. Combine the testimonial with the material published on the DCA website, and I don't think its inaccurate, or my own interpretation, to state that "DCA is responsible for a wide range of activities that provide improved quality of life for cadets". Do you still disagree?  Ahodges7   talk 20:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. KnightLago (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Army, in the army be capitalized?
not necessarily. — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some knowledge is historical such as found in the Bugle Notes. Doesn't flow well.
Tweaked — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cullum number paragraph needs more than a single source.
    Respectfully, no, it doesn't. The source needs to be verifiable and reliable. If you have an issue with the source itself, we can discuss it. — BQZip01 — talk 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is that you are relying on a single source from the USMA for an entire paragraph. Are there not multiple reliable sources? KnightLago (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple sources are not required for Wikipedia. If you want to add another, please take your pick: [90]. — BQZip01 — talk 20:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • West Point began the collegiate tradition of the class ring, beginning with the class of 1835. How did the tradition begin in 1835 when the next two classes did not choose rings?
    That doesn't change the start of the tradition. A tradition need not be an annual event. — BQZip01 — talk 23:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The definition of tradition includes "A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage." KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a single defintion of the word. "Tradition" can mean many things:
    1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, esp. by word of mouth or by practice: a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.
    2. something that is handed down: the traditions of the Eskimos.
    3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting: The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition.
    4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.
    5. a customary or characteristic method or manner: The winner took a victory lap in the usual track tradition.
    Hodge and I are both alumni of schools steeped in tradition. I assure you, this is the appropriate use of the word "tradition". — BQZip01 — talk 07:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding, backed up by 4, is a tradition that occurs regularly. This tradition did not begin occuring regularly until the third class after the first class got rings. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, you are wilfully ignoring other definitions of the word, specifically #3 "long-established", #4 a "continuing pattern" (which is still happening today, not continuous as in it never stopped). Did the tradition begin after that 2-year hiatus? Uh-oh, one class got cufflinks. So it started after them? Well one class got their rings later than another class...
    No, it started when the first class did it. You're reading way too far into this. — BQZip01 — talk 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The source says: "The tradition of class rings at American colleges and universities is believed to have originated at West Point when members of the class of 1835 designed their own rings, which were purchased at private expense and made to individual order. In 1836, no ring was adopted, but in the following year the custom was taken up again, and has been consistently observed ever since." The article now says: "West Point began the collegiate tradition of the class ring, beginning with the class of 1835." The source says West Point is believed to have originated at West Point, not that it did. The source then says the custom was taken up again at a later date. Why not reword this closer to how the source is describing the events? KnightLago (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is accepted in American history (and properly cited in this article) that USMA started the tradition of class rings, and it did so in 1835. See here, here,and here. I believe that you are being too literal in the interpretation of what a tradition is. The facts are: 1-USMA was the first college to have class rings, 2-The first class that did so was 1835. Hence, if you were to say "when did the tradition of class rings at USMA start?" the answer would have to be 1835, regardless if 1836 chose to not have rings. What if the classes of 1835 through 1850 had rings, but 1851 took one year off? Would the tradition be correctly stated to have started in 1852? No, the correct start date would be, and is 1835.  Ahodges7   talk 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. KnightLago (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The award is given each year since 1958 by the academy to an outstanding citizen whose service and accomplishments in the national interest exemplify the academy's motto, "Duty, Honor, Country". Change is to has. How about each year to annually.
Done — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A monument to Union officer John Sedgwick stands on the outskirts of the plain across the street from Trophy Point. What is the plain?
The name (if it even has one) is irrelevant. It is a description of the location. — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The plain is the expansive parade field where cadets perform parades reviews. In a previous version of the campus section, I had a paragraph describing the Plain, but I had to cut it out because the article was too long. I forgot it was gone and assumed the reader would be familiar. I've tweaked the sentence to make it less ambiguous.
  • Cadet legend states that if a cadet is in danger of failing a class, they are to don their full-dress parade uniform and visit his statue at midnight before the final exam. Sedgwick's bronze statue has spurs that freely rotate, and if the cadet spins them at the stroke of midnight, they will pass the exam and the course. Does the source support both of these sentences? Don't these really say the same thing.
Yes, no. — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BQZip01 is right. The reference supports both sentences, and they do not say the same thing. However, I can see how it might be worded more succinctly to avoid redundancy. I've re-arranged the wording, so midnight is only used once.  Ahodges7   talk 03:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Army mascot has traditionally been a mule,[172] but the academy's football team was historically called "The Black Knights of the Hudson". Why?
Please read the given sources if you are interested in that information. The specifics of every detail aren't essential to convey the broad picture. — BQZip01 — talk
The reason why a university has its mascot is an essential element. Thus this needs to be explained in the article. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A mascot is not an essential element and doesn't need further explanation. — BQZip01 — talk 07:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a university. In every other featured university that I know of the mascot is explained as it is an essential element of the school. It does not make sense to not explain why they are called this. It can be done in one or two sentences. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read
  1. Texas A&M
  2. Duke
  3. Michigan State
  4. University of Michigan
  5. Florida Atlantic University
  6. Texas Tech
  7. UC Riverside
Your standard of "every other featured university" is simply not true. Every single article you mentions has one sentence (or less) on their mascot (do a word search based on "mascot" for verification) except Texas Tech. — BQZip01 — talk 21:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My standard was every FA I knew of explained their mascot, from your examples:
  1. Texas A&M - Link to article explaining the term.
  2. Duke - Link to article explaining the term
  3. Michigan State - Link to article explaining term.
  4. University of Michigan - Not a good example. Pre-2006.
  5. Florida Atlantic University - In the article, I wrote it, I know.
  6. Texas Tech - In the article as you mentioned.
  7. UC Riverside - In the article and linked.
You make a point of saying the mascot of the Army is a mule, but the Academy is the black knight. Why not just explain the origin in a sentence. It is logical question to ask why a university has their mascot. KnightLago (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an explanation as to "why a mule" and where "black knights" came from.  Ahodges7   talk 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. KnightLago (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Army's chief sports rival is by far the Naval Academy due to its long-standing football rivalry and the inherent intra-service rivalry with the Navy in general. This does not flow well.
    fixed — BQZip01 — talk 23:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • West Point also is rivals with Air Force, but not as fiercely as with Navy due to Air Force's relatively young age and geographic distance from Army. Flow. Is there a source for not as fiercely?
    The Army-Navy rivalry is legendary and is one measurement of any rivalry in the U.S. Stuff all over the campuses of both schools is emblazoned with "Go Army/Navy, Beat Navy/Army". To state that the rivalry is "not as fierce" is simply a statement of fact based on the fact that the Army-Navy rivalry is pretty much the pinnacle of rivalries. On top of that, the source is given. I don't have access to that source, but I assume that it came from the given source. I'd check there. — BQZip01 — talk 20:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My question is whether the source actually says not as fierce or if someone just put their own interpretation in. KnightLago (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't have to use the same words as the article. This is appropriate word choice to summarize the source. — BQZip01 — talk 07:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't, but I want to know what a source says, not your individual interpretation of the rivalry. My interpretation may be that Air Force is the fiercest rival. But nobody cares what I think, they care what a source has to think. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please pick from the many choices as to which one you think best describes the relationship between the schools. I'll be happy to add it. — BQZip01 — talk 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know when this is resolved, I will then strike it. KnightLago (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "West Point also is rivals with Air Force, but not as fiercely as with Navy" is now removed. I had a source that spoke to the difference between the Navy and Air Force rivalries, but I cannot put my finger on it at this time.  Ahodges7   talk 15:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Army football began in 1890 when Navy challenged the cadets to the still relatively unknown game. Source for relatively unknown?
    fixed to "relatively new sport". — BQZip01 — talk 23:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cadets' attendance is mandatory at football games and the Corps stands for the duration of the game. Should there be a the before Cadets'?
No. An article is not required to begin the sentence. — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between the 1998 and 2004 seasons, Army's football program was a member of Conference USA, but its has since reverted to its former independent status. Just read this.
I read it. What is the problem? — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Between the 1998 and 2004 seasons, Army's football program was a member of Conference USA, but its has since reverted to its former independent status.
Missed that one. Now fixed. — BQZip01 — talk 07:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2008 football season marked Army's seventh consecutive loss to Navy. This just seems to be thrown onto the end of the paragraph. At this point you stopped talking about Navy a few sentences ago.
    Fixed. — BQZip01 — talk 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though football is the best known varsity sport at the academy, West Point has a long history of athletics in other NCAA sports. Source for best known.
The TV contracts and substantial emphasis makes this sentence a transition between the previous section and this. A source isn't needed as it is a summary of all of the previous section. — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. You are are drawing a conclusion. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is rehashing what has already been stated above and is a transition between the paragraphs. "Army's chief sports rival is by far the Naval Academy due to its long-standing football rivalry..." — BQZip01 — talk 07:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same as fiercest above, I may say basketball is the best known, but nobody cares what I think. They care about the sources. KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree, but for the sake of ending this, I've tweaked it. — BQZip01 — talk 22:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Long Gray Line should not be buried in the alumni section. I think it should be explained much further up in the article. I forgot about it until I got to the end.
I think it is fine where it is and is addressed in the lead. — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not addressed in the current lead. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be, now it isn't. The placement isn't important since importance isn't predicated on placement. — BQZip01 — talk 07:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. The Academy is known for this. It probably deserves to be referred to in the lead as another nickname. Placement is extremely important. Why bury this detail in the alumni section. Hell, why is this mentioned in the alumni section anyway? KnightLago (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "buried" in the alumni section, it was placed there because that is where it belongs. Those part of "The Long Grey Line" are all graduates, so the alumni section is apropos. Tweaked now to mention it in the lead — BQZip01 — talk 22:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Doubleday stuff, in relation to baseball, according to his article is a myth debunked by "almost all sports historians." So you had better find some sources.
    removed — BQZip01 — talk 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is another mention of Doubleday and baseball in the Other sports section. KnightLago (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BEBOLD? I've got it, but if it is a simple fix, you are welcome to change it yourself. That would improve the article without a discussion for each change. Your call though. — BQZip01 — talk 22:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This should have been taken care of before FAC. At this stage you should have everything ready and set for review. I shouldn't have to fact check simple points like this. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, it should have been, but now it wasn't. Now it is fixed. Why not cross it out instead of berating us. It is a common myth and if it is common it is going to have several reliable sources that were wrong. — BQZip01 — talk 07:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not berrating you. You are suggesting that I go and change everything wrong with the article, and linking BOLD, when I am reviewing the article for FAC. I am not the one who brought this article here, you did. KnightLago (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not suggesting that you go and change everything, I suggested you delete this. Perhaps other simple typos would also be easier to fix than to write an sentence or two about the error. — BQZip01 — talk 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An unofficial motto of the academy history department is "Much of the history we teach was made by people we taught." This is just attached to the end. It would be more useful in the intro the the alumni section.
    Agreed. Its now the opening line of the "Alumni" section.  Ahodges7   talk 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • West Point Association of Graduates (WPAOG or AOG) are the abbreviations needed?
    They aren't needed, but they are known by the abbreviation almost as much as their full name. I'm in the Air Force, and I've only heard them referred to as the AOG. Adding a common abbreviation adds clarity. — BQZip01 — talk 19:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few things. I think you are using too many images. They seem to be everywhere and break the flow of the article. Has there been no controversy? During the civil war, integration, the 60's, protests, admission of women controversy. How about academic freedom of serving military officers who are professors? What about hazing. I am almost positive I read something about severe hazing in the past, I think it happened to one of the famous graduates. I want to say knee bends over glass shards. How did the government get the land the academy is on? I mentioned it above, but I really think the Long Grey Line needs to be moved up and better explained. Just a few thoughts. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one has suggested removing images yet. Which do you feel are extraneous?  Ahodges7   talk 19:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cadet life section seems cluttered as does the traditions section. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BQZip has modified images, to include removing some. Do still feel the article is cluttered?  Ahodges7   talk 15:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, much better. 20:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, you need to add the hazing stuff at the least. The other stuff needs to be looked at too. The Time article below is very informative. After a minute search I found this, this, this, and this. Time mentions a few notable incidents you do not mention at all. And I was right, MacArthur was the famous graduate. I have changed my comment to oppose for the time being. I question whether everything that should be in the article is included. KnightLago (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is "much more" that can be included, especially on the history of the academy to include past problems with hazing, but the issue is simply there is no room to cover everything that you've mentioned. MacArthur was known to have been the subject of intense hazing for several reasons, the least of which involved his high class rank, his famous general officer father, and his mother living at USMA while he was a cadet. The issue of hazing at the academy could be an article by itself, however, the article is already 90K. My next project is to massively expand the History of United States Military Academy, which is admittedly weak at the moment (but its not up for FAC), to include all of the topics that you discussed above, but there simply is not enough space to cover it here in the main article. I feel that the article serves the purpose of giving a summary of the academy's extensive history, without becoming too long in that category. The article does discuss the civil war, integration of African-Americans, women, social unrest in the 1960s, ect.  Ahodges7   talk 19:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your point about the size of the article, hazing still should be mentioned. MacArthur testified before Congress about it. A brief search yields numerous results including cartoons, quotes from notable people, and a book on the subject. In regard to the other issues, my problem is that the history fails to go into any real detail. Sure you mention the subject in a sentence, but there is no substance. You discuss the civil war, but what happened on campus at the time? Was there tension between the students? You mention the first black graduate, but nothing about whether his admittance was openly welcomed or controversial. The same with women, I know VMI had a lot of controversy, did the academy? And you mention the 1960s, but nothing but there was some upheaval. I think you are glossing over a lot of controversial subjects with the excuse that there is not enough room in the article. I think we should favor comprehensivness over size worries. KnightLago (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, again, there simply isn't time to go into the details that you ask here. What would you have me leave out? The article cannot exceed 100K, right? All of the above are excellent topics to be expanded upon in the History of United States Military Academy, but we just can't go into that level of depth here. None of the other University FA articles have that level of depth in their history sections. Why do you demand it here? I would understand if you were reviewing an article about the history of USMA, but not the overall USMA article. I agree about needing to mention hazing. I'll work it in to the "post civil war era" as that is acknowledged to be when hazing first began at the academy.  Ahodges7   talk 20:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion — If you're concerned about space, how about splitting off a "Controversies at the United States Military Academy" subpage and putting the appropriate refer wikilinks in the article? Development of that article would satisfy Knight's concerns (and admittedly my own, though I haven't stated them before), while avoiding the size problem that you've stated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am categorically opposed to the inclusion of any criticism section as this is a canonical violation of NPOV and will withdraw my support if such a section is included. I would echo other editors' responses that this article is being held to an unreasonably high standard with regard to exhaustively documenting various controversies when few if any other university FACs have more than passing mention of their bluer history. Excuse me for indulging in WP:WAX, but the lacrosse scandal has no mention in Duke's history, Michigan has but two sentences devoted to the whole of its noted campus protests, Dartmouth and Georgetown only making the most nebulous references to the intense controversy surround their becoming co-ed in the 1960s and 1970s, and so on. This isn't a perfect article, but to the extent that it is as comprehensive as other UNI FAs and that it is (in my view) superior to several other FAs for not gorging itself on admissions hype and not indulging in the quiet boosterism of documenting its feats while obscuring or ignoring other salient descriptive information, stop holding this article to a different standard. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JKBrooks85, thanks for the suggestion, as I have considered that as well. I agree that hazing is a part of USMA's past, and should be addressed (per my previous post, I will address it in the "post civil war" section), but I disagree that it needs to be covered in the depth that you or KnightLago appear to expect to see. USMA is being held to a higher standard than all other FA university articles for its history section. The history section of this article is already significantly larger, and more in-depth, than those of any other FA-level college/university, see: Dartmouth College (which is much older than USMA), Duke University, Florida Atlantic University, Georgetown University (another older school with lots of potential controversy that is not addressed), Michigan State University, Ohio Wesleyan University, University of California, Riverside, University of Michigan, or Texas A&M University. None of these articles have a separate "Controversies" segment, so why, for the purpose of meeting the FA-standard, should USMA's article? I realize that as a federal institution, the academy is under a public scrutiny microscope that other universities are not, but it seems unfair to expect a differing standard for this article. Again, addressing USMA's past with hazing is going into the article soon, but I don't feel the need to add a separate "controversies" sub-article for the purpose of meeting the FA-standard. The History of United States Military Academy will cover all major controversies in the school's past eventually, but that article is not up for FAC.  Ahodges7   talk 12:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think hazing deserves a brief mention as it is something closely related to the culture of the Academy itself. The other issues Lago brings up are wholly irrelevant to an article of such a broad range. No other featured university articles delve into those things. None detail the reception of the first black students, most don't even mention them at all. One of those articles on a college in the deep south, Texas A&M, says only: "the college was officially integrated as A&M welcomed its first African American student" (emphasis added). Re the 1960s: I would even suggest cropping that sentence from the article ("West Point was not immune to upheaval") as it seems misleading. Unless I'm missing something, there wasn't any upheaval at West Point itself (that would be quite counterintuitive anyhow, among the voluntary body of cadets). Rather, it is about Vietnam-era public perception of USMA as an extension of the US military. You wouldn't talk about how the citizenry was critical of the military in the article on the 1st Cavalry Division for the same reason: it is irrelevant and outside its scope. Strikehold (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've rolled out a new paragraph that describes the origin, pinnacle, and decline of the practice of hazing at the academy and have provided multiple citations. Please tweak and adjust per MoS as needed. This should hopefully address the need appropriately and succinctly discuss the history of hazing at USMA.  Ahodges7   talk 16:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested a criticism section and do NOT think one should be added to the article. I also have not singled out this article for any special attention. If you doubt this please go back and check other FACs for universities. I am satisifed with the addition of the hazing section and some of the other tweaks done to be more clear about some of the issues I mentioned above. If you are looking to cut this article down a bit the traditions section could be made into a single paragraph with a link to the main article. In regard to images, it looks like the offending images have been removed. However, they should not be readded if this passes its FAC. This comment regarding images by Madcoverboy, one of this article's nominators, is troubling. That is all I have for now. I have struck and commented. Once the above issues are taken care of I will change my oppose. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't insinuate a fire because you think you see something that looks like smoke. It could just be condensation. What Mad said was "The article will likely be fine without them for FAC, you can get whatever permissions whenever that happens and put them right back in." There is no malice here, but removal of said images is easier right now than trying to fix something in a short space of time. Once we have time to devote to searching for the permissions for an image, we can go back, make the appropriate corrections, and then place the images back in, so, yes, the images can come back in eventually if they are correctly used and annotated as to their source/permissions. — BQZip01 — talk 08:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't read the comment like you do. Nobody is going to object if the images are added back with proper licenses. To say otherwise does not make sense. He says "While I'm not advocating you do this, if and when USMA makes FA, I don't believe there would be any opposition among day-to-day contributors if those images re-appeared at a later date." He is saying while you shouldn't does this (but you could) none of the regular editors to the article are going to mind the readdition of the images without proper licenses once the heat from FAC has died down. KnightLago (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF: Just assume that what I said is what he's advocating. I'll back you up on this, ok? — BQZip01 — talk 23:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I know you will keep an eye on it. KnightLago (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aw shucks, don't parse my ramblings too closely much less let my off-the-cuff comment torpedo this nom. I was merely observing that once the heat of the FAC dies down, images with similar licensing problems always have a way of finding their way back into the article. I can point to examples in many of the older UNI FAs which fail to meet the stringent standards set here: the images find their way in, the diff fades into history, and the image becomes part of the unalterable tapestry of an FA. I was merely observing that there is little day-to-day viligence among the article's regular editors to enforce these policies and I expect USMA to be no different in the future. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really suggest you drop this, but we can get into it if you want. Improperly licensed images are simply not allowed in articles, especially featured articles. Please point to the examples so I can go remove the images. Improperly licensed images are enough reason to fail a FAR or FAC. KnightLago (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping as a tangential topic, but just letting other interested editors know that I responded on your talk page with examples. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Meets all the criteria. It is exhaustive, well-sourced, images support the text well. I have a few minor suggestions and comments below, but none serious enough to adversely effect any FA criteria. Strikehold (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Strikehold (talk · contribs)
  • Comments:
  • "Goethals would gain notoriety as the chief engineer of the Panama Canal..."
  • Is "notoriety" the correct term here? It generally has a negative connotation, and that doesn't seem to be the case here...
Hmm, after careful research, it seems that it is generally used with a negative connotation, but it can also be used to indicate fame or celebrity, but that's primarily in Britain. Given the fact that we fought a war to be rid of the King/Queen's English (I'M KIDDING!), I'm gonna say we probably need to change it. Comin' up! — BQZip01 — talk 18:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked. — BQZip01 — talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to edit this myself, but I was confused a bit by the second sentence: "With war raging in Europe, Congress increased the authorized strength to 1,332 cadets in 1916.[33] The outbreak of World War I caused a sharp increase in the demand for army officers, and the academy accelerated the graduation for all three of the upper classes, so that by the war's end in 1918, only the freshman cadets remained (those who had entered in the summer of 1918)."
  • The opening clauses of the two sentences seem redundant. Was it World War I that caused a demand for officers or was it America's entry into WWI? If it was WWI, I would change "war raged in Europe" to explicitly state WWI and cut the second reference to it. If it was America's entry, I'd make that clear. I also suggest breaking up the second sentence as it seems a little long and hard to follow.
Kinda hard to pick and choose on that one. The first sentence explains why they ramped up the volume of cadets. The second explains the accelerated throughput of the cadets. I think it's fine, but I'll see what I can do to tweak it a bit. — BQZip01 — talk 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked. — BQZip01 — talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "West Point was not immune to the social upheaval of American society during the Vietnam War."
  • Like I mentioned above, this statement is hard to understand out of context. I don't think (and didn't see in the cited refs) this is referring to any unrest among the cadet body, but is instead referring to the perception of West Point. I would recommend either expanding it slightly (maybe just adding a clause to the sentence) to put in context or excising it.
I concur this is a reference to political/social strife, and not to any violent upheval in the student body. While the cadets were largely immune from some of the protests and such, the implementation of outside policy/ideas did have effects. I'll see what I can do to tweak this too.
Tweaked. — BQZip01 — talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the first woman sentence seems out of place there. I know the author put it in chronological order, but it doesn't, to me, seem to have a natural flow. The last sentence about difficulty in keeping up with the demand for officers, I think, is probably the most critical and should be moved up. I would recommend breaking the last few sentences related to Vietnam into its own paragraph.
Wilco. — BQZip01 — talk 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked. — BQZip01 — talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after Congress authorized the admission of women to all of the federal service academies in 1975"
  • This didn't apply to USMA though, right? You may want to consider cutting it. To me, (assuming my presumption is correct) it doesn't seem that relevant to the subject.
No, it most certainly did. Hodges correct me if I'm wrong. — BQZip01 — talk 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, sorry. I had a second look at the text, and now see I mistakenly thought the first female faculty member in 1968 was the first female cadet. Sorry, disregard.
  • I would suggest adding a paragraph break after the internet part and before the Gulf War part, as the second half of the paragraph all fits together.
Point taken. Tweaks comin' up! — BQZip01 — talk 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked. — BQZip01 — talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though the military reservation is quite large, the academic area of the campus..."
  • Would it be possible here to simply say "campus itself" instead of "academic area of the campus" for brevity's sake? I wouldn't think the whole reservation would be considered the campus. Might just be me...
It's just you. I'M KIDDING, I'M KIDDING! Perhaps an explanation is in order. The whole reservation is USMA turf. The area the cadets live in is a small part of that and the academic area is also a small section. BUT that kind of makes sense. How much space do you need for 4000 students to study in a classroom? Throw in a few extra research buildings and the academic areas need not be any larger than a medium-sized high school (realize I'm from Texas and that's medium to me...you guys from Montana might disagree...). Now, throw in offices for faculty, offices for administration, living quarters for everyone, space to train 4000 cadets on, oh let's say, riflry, etc. The massive expansive of the campus is large and we're talking only about a small, albeit important, section of it. To rephrase it in the manner you are suggesting would be misleading/inaccurate. — BQZip01 — talk 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I follow you, and I think we are basically saying the same thing. I was just saying that to me "academic area" and "campus" seem to be synonymous. That is, I was suggesting a re-phrasing along the lines of: "Though the military reservation is quite large, the campus itself..." Just in an effort to make the sentence more concise. Then again, it might add confusion as to what the difference is exactly. I was just throwing it out there for consideration. Either way, in the grand scheme of the article it's not that important of a detail.
  • In notable alumni: I would remove the Heisman winners (as it is already mentioned in the Army football section). I would move the Coach K sentence down to alumni. My thought is: the Heisman winners did it as part of the Army football team, whereas Mike Krzdflrdkbx7ski became famous after USMA (i.e. as alumni rather than cadets). Just my thoughts.
It seems fine to me on the Heisman guys, and Mike seems fine and in-place where he is. This section is more about those who are famous who have not already been mentioned. Otherwise duplicating everything would be counter-productive. — BQZip01 — talk 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't recommending duplication; quite the opposite (as per recommending scaling back to one mention of Heisman winners). I was suggesting cutting and pasting the Krzyzewski mention from "other sports" down to "alumni", but I can see it either way. Especially since he coached a stint at USMA, and it does flow well from the Bobby Knight part. Disregard.
That's all I've got... Excellent job to all the contributors. Strikehold (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! — BQZip01 — talk 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I'm sorry, I think I wasn't clear enough in my comment. I meant to state that if there's enough interest in doing so, there might be enough information available for a sub-page about controversies. Not just hazing, of course — things like the 1960s protests, integrating the school, the cheating scandal a while back, and so on. That's a different article and a different subject, though, and I think this article is good enough to be featured. It's a complete, even-handed coverage of the subject, with comprehensive citations and images. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: Please see the WP:FAC instructions and remove all of the hide templates that have been added. It is unclear if this article has source and image clearance, and this FAC will likely need a restart; removing the templates may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ealdgyth did take care of the sources in that mess of comments. Image issues are ongoing; there seems to be some ... "disagreements" in that area. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Dabomb! (anyone have time to remove all those templates ... I started, but there are too many and it's time consuming.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh...ok. Why on earth would it need a restart? The only things hidden are those items that have been struck (by the uploader) and their discussion. — BQZip01 — talk 01:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Furthermore, I see nothing about hide boxes to condense issues that have already been addressed and more clearly highlight the remaining issues. Again, please realize the concerns were struck by the person that wrote them, not the person who addressed them. Keeping it minimized merely highlights any remaining problems. — BQZip01 — talk 01:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I gave it a shot...looks even worse now. BQzip, the caps slow load time and we also have to worry about template limits. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is only one "unresolved image", File:Franklin Hagenbeck.jpg, and the objection to it is incorrect. That photo is tagged correctly and PD. All other "unresolved" images have been removed: File:West Point Fortifications.jpg, File:Bob Knight & Coach K at USMA.jpg, and File:USMA-BlackKnights-Logo.svg are all removed from the article, but the lengthy debate about them has gone "un-struck". They need to be placed in the "resolved". As such, there are no "unresolved" images remaining. Additionally, despite the lengthy number of comments, the support oppose is 5 Supports vs. 1 Oppose, if the other Oppose, on account of image usage, is considered resolved. The 1 Oppose, from KnightLago, who left a lengthy list of concerns, has had all concerns addressed, including his main sticking point - an inclusion of the subject of hazing in the history section. KnightLago has yet to return and strike his unresolved concerns. Long story short, there is almost unanimous support for this article, despite the lengthy dialog.  Ahodges7   talk 02:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Hodges said...
I don't think we're in danger on this page, but whatever you think to do about the hidden comments, feel free to make them more clear however you deem necessary. I'm not fighting a battle over this minuscule point.
As for the images, they've all been addressed. Of the remaining that have not been struck, 3 have been removed from the article completely and the last is clearly a PD image. The user that wrote them down has chosen not to return to strike them. Sourcing should be fine and I see no outstanding problems in that area. — BQZip01 — talk 02:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone pinged KnightLago to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I did that as you were typing :) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now three times...sort of (He was also following along on Saturday when we were addressing things). — BQZip01 — talk 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I have not gotten back here sooner, but what is the rush? I left extensive comments on Saturday, today is Monday. I spent most of the day Saturday reviewing the article, commenting, and then replying to nominator comments. Since then I have gotten three different instructions to hurry back. When did this process turn into such a rush? When did haste rise above quality. I have not reviewed an article in a bit, and hope things here haven't changed and the situation with this article for some reason is unique. KnightLago (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I am going through the article (slowly) and fixing the technical issues (MOS and little prose things). If you see something that you think is wrong, please post here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Problems and suggestions
1. The references are not in the same style. Look at the dates. Year first, year lasts, tomato, to-mah-to, potato, pa-tah-to, potatoe.... The dates are not the only problem but the biggest one.
2. I was looking for a sentence or two on hazing. No mention. Lack of mention may spark curiosity.
3. Any source or information on the foreigners? What countries?
4. Does pregnancy result in disciplinary action?
5. What do the graduates do? How many have a career and how many leave after or before their commitment.
6. Someone said that John McCain did not have a major as the Naval Academy didn't have majors. Was this true of West Point? When did it change?
7. What is a "small annual salary" that cadets receive?
8. Graduate degrees? Under academics, are there different departments?
9. Any infamous graduates?
10. Any controversies? How about Forrest Whittaker or similar name, a black cadet in the 1880's that was expelled and later cleared by Bill Clinton over 100 years later.
11. Is there a photo of the main building, whatever that is?
Good luck. Ipromise (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ipromise, not to be an ass, but I suggest you give the article a closer read, as most of your questions are answered there. I'm not a contributor to this article, but I read it, and hazing has its own paragraph, and the word is mentioned six times (do a word search...). It also answers your question on degrees: general engineering degrees were granted until 1985 when cadets starting choosing their own majors. Regarding your question 10: Henry Flipper is mentioned in the article as the first black USMA graduate, and if you read his article you will have your questions answered (which aren't really relevant to West Point itself). Main building? It's a college campus/military post, it has scores of buildings... Strikehold (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ipromise
  1. All addressed. Most of these seem to have been added recently and I think they were simply order issues: fixed, though
  2. Whole paragraph already there. Don't know what to tell you otherwise.
  3. Already addressed in "admission". The specific countriies vary from year to year and mentioning each by name would be space-prohibitive
  4. I personally don't know, but I would assume their cadet life would be suspended/ended to protect the child. This kind of minutia isn't necessary in such a broad overview.
  5. They become officers in the Army. Career stats can be found in the Army article. They cannot leave before their committment.
  6. 1985. See "Modern Era"
  7. Small. Varies from year-to-year and from class to class. When I was in ROTC it varied from $100 to $700/semester, but we had more extraneous expense than USMA cadets.
  8. No Graduate degrees. Yes there are different departments, but that list is pretty extensive and is beyond the scope of this (or any other University) article.
  9. I think there were plenty of Confederate Generals (some listed).
  10. Sorry, but you'll have to provide a better reference than that ("somthing like ..." doesn't really help). I couldn't find anything online in a quick search. "I heard somewhere..." information isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.
  11. There isn't a main building...as there aren't for most/many Universities.
If there is anything else you have, please feel free to add your concerns. — BQZip01 — talk 20:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think that this meets the FA criteria. --rogerd (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further image review as follows (based on Awadewit's unresolved issues):
The "free" images, which concerned Awadewit, have been replaced by others that have verifiable information to back up their "free" status; hence, the first four should be considered resolved. The reduced ring image would have resolved Awadewit's immediate concern about the size (resolution). If it is reverted to the large size, then the issue would remain unresolved. Jappalang (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I wouldn't presume to state which issues were and were not resolved from his opinion. I never moved them, but others did.
  2. It is a bit misleading to imply that certain images cannot be verifiably ascertained to be PD. They are and, just because you cannot use the web to find out, doesn't make them non-PD.
  3. It is also misleading to say they are "unresolved". The fact of the matter is that most of these images have been replaced and aren't even a factor in this discussion. It would be like saying there's a problem with the Texas A&M page so this one shouldn't be promoted. In fact, the images aren't even there, so any objection based on these issues should be discounted.
  4. As for the ring sizing issue, I wouldn't presume to know what Awadewit thinks or doesn't think. That is your opinion, not his. — BQZip01 — talk 06:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [91].

Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit

Fourth attempt at FA for this article. I've corrected most (if not all) of the comments from the previous FAC's and have found no further information on impact in Mexico and on the status of the missing passengers from the ship. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit 18:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Cyclonebiskit 21:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content support - The article is fine, but I am going to be a bit nitpicky here.
  1. Delink the tons of NHC links in the references except for its first use.
  2. Split the last paragraph in Meteorological History to two paragraphs.
  3. Is there any info or interesting details about the remnant low? (Optional)

Its a fine article, think you'd give up after 3 attempts :P - Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 00:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. There was nothing special that happened while it was a remnant low. Cyclonebiskit 00:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Cyclonebiskit 02:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Looks pretty good, although I can't evaluate the content.

  • "was a strong tropical storm that killed at least 15 people off the coast of Mexico when a ferry, caught in the storm's rough surf, capsized." Isn't that a bit too much detail for the first sentence?
  • "By October 18 Kiko" Comma after "18".
  • "developed along the wave around 275 mi (440 km)" Spell out units on their first appearance, and consider unlinking them, as I am pretty sure most people know what miles and kilometers are.
  • "Rainfall totals of 4 in (100 mm) " Same comment here.
  • "Only two people survived; 15 bodies were recovered, and nine passengers were never found" Comparable quantities should be written out the same; either all words or all figures. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the last four comments but I'm not sure what's wrong with the first sentence, it seems fine to me. Cyclonebiskit 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence is meant to establish context and notabilty. "killed at least 15 people off the coast of Mexico when a ferry, caught in the storm's rough surf, capsized", IMO is too much information. Perhaps just mention that it struck the coast of Mexico and nothing more. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to include the fatalities somewhere in the lead as that is the most notable event due to the storm. If I take the loss of life out of the lead, then it loses some of it's importance to readers who just check the lead before reading the whole article. Cyclonebiskit 18:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not a big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • Tropical Storm Kiko was a strong tropical storm that killed at least 15 people off the coast of Mexico when a ferry, caught in the storm's rough surf, capsized. - This is rather clunky. I would suggest changing it to, "Tropical Storm Kiko was a strong tropical storm that capsized a boat, killing at least 15 people".
done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 15th and final tropical cyclone and the 11th named storm of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season, Kiko developed out of a tropical wave that formed off the coast of Africa on September 26 and traversed the Atlantic. - Too many "and"s here.
done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tropical wave exited the western coast of Africa on September 26. A second area of low pressure developed along the southern portion of the wave as it traveled west. - You never mentioned the first low pressure area.
done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The northern low quickly developed, spawning Tropical Depression Fourteen on September 28. - Why "Fourteen" here, but "15" later?
done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It continued through the Atlantic, entering the Pacific Ocean on October 8. - Should specify that it crossed land to get there.
done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On October 13, those winds weakened slightly, allowing the low to become better organized.. - Weird punctuation.
done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On October 16, strong easterly wind shear exposed the center of the depression. - Exposed from what?
done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, a curving convective band developed around the system, and satellites detected winds of 40 mph (65 km/h). - "Curving convective band" needs a link.
done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storm was forecast to re-intensify slightly over the next five days while drifting to the east-northeast. - Unnecessary and trivial bit of info.
done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The center remained poorly defined, and winds of tropical-storm force blew only in Kiko's southwest quadrant. - "Tropical-storm force" → "tropical storm-force".
done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shortly thereafter, shear picked up and began to separate the low from the deep convection. - "Picked up" is rather informal language.
done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the meteorological history seems to drag on forever. I think you're trying to squeeze too much information from the discussions, as there is significant redundancy in the text. For example, you mention the wind shear several times in each paragraph.
done If more needs to be removed, just let me know Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rainfall totals of 4 inches (100 millimetres) to 7 in (180 mm) were possible over southwestern Mexico with isolated totals reaching 10 in (250 mm). - Does it really matter what could have happened?
It gives perspective on why people would have to be evacuated from low-lying areas. Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Kiko traveled parallel to the coast, heavy rain affected the region for two days - Any rainfall totals, or flooding?
Not that I know of. I've searched in numerous places and found nothing. Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would really like to see more information on the ship. Here is a useful source.
done Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think it's a nice article, a GA for sure. I just don't think enough research has gone into this. The prose needs work, as well. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Cyclonebiskit 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on my understanding of the "comprehensiveness" requirement. I'm certain there must have been flooding and mudslides, as with nearly all other storms in Mexico, but there simply isn't any more information. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Google scholar search, which might reveal something. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments
    • Sorry to give you yet another conflicting opinion on the first sentence, but I disagree with Julian's recommendation. I think it's important to establish a context of where this storm was: "Tropical Storm Kiko was a strong tropical storm that capsized a boat off the western coast of Mexico, killing at least 15 people." +western since there are two coastlines, and at first, I figured it was along the eastern one.
Done. Cyclonebiskit 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Naming paragraph doesn't fit well in its current section. BuddingJournalist 16:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. How does it not fit? Cyclonebiskit 16:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a bit jarring to suddenly switch from describing its impact to its name. BuddingJournalist 17:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How should I go about fixing this then? Cyclonebiskit 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure; don't know where it might fit well other than as its own section. What do the Wikiproject guidelines say? BuddingJournalist 17:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The naming section is fairly new to the project so there haven't been solid guidelines on it. I separated the section for now to see how it works. Cyclonebiskit 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support—a new wannabe Hink, eh? :) A few things:
    • need a second paragraph per WP:LEAD, even if it's relatively short... all it needs are one or two more sentences, some regrouping and a split from what you already have.
Personally, I think a second paragraph in the lead would be too much. There isn't enough information to make a second one without being too detailed. Cyclonebiskit 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's very little that needs to be added to make a second paragraph; as it is, the effects are not mentioned at all--it reads more like a meteorological list than a summation. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only known effects were the ship sinking. I've found no information about any impact on land. Cyclonebiskit 21:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You repeat this "forecast to hit Mexican coastline" bit twice in the lead, sound repetitive...
Done. Cyclonebiskit 21:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No link to tropical storm in lead?
Done. Cyclonebiskit 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Despite the fatalities associated with the capsized ship, the name Kiko was not retired and is included on the list of names for the 2013 Pacific hurricane season." --an explanation that with deaths a name is retired or summat' would help make this sentence more accessible to non-cyclonephiles.
Done. Cyclonebiskit 18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support a well written article which is up to the standards of the WPTC Jason Rees (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [92].

Hurricane Nate (2005)[edit]

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone

The backlog at FAC seems to have been cut down quite a bit, and I have no outstanding nominations, so here's a new article for consideration. I had fun writing this article, and I've received help with the prose from Durova (talk · contribs) and Enigmaman (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Support, all issues resolved. Cyclonebiskit 03:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • Hurricane Nate was an Atlantic hurricane that threatened Bermuda but remained at sea during early September 2005. Nate was the fourteenth named storm and seventh hurricane of the 2005 season. Hurricane Nate formed to the southwest of Bermuda on September 5 and initially moved very slowly to the northeast. Nate, Nate, Nate.... Also, you could combine the second and third sentences.
  • A tropical wave emerged from the west coast of Africa on August 30 and tracked westward across the Atlantic Ocean, maintaining a vigorous area of convection along the wave axis. Link convection
  • By September 1 most of the deep convection had been stripped away by southwesterly wind shear. Link wind shear
  • As a result of the low wind shear, convection redeveloped and organized along the wave axis When did the convection diminish? I saw nothing prior to this that hinted lessened convection.
  • Convective banding formed around a broad surface low. Link convective banding
  • It is estimated that the system developed into a tropical depression at 1800 UTC on September 5. is -> was
  • At the time it was located approximately 350 miles (560 km) to the south-southwest of Bermuda. Either the sentence isn't complete, or it's missing something
  • Upon being designated, Tropical Depression 15 developed deep convection close to, and to the east of, the center of circulation. 15 -> Fifteen
  • At the same time, banding features became better organized. Delink banding features here
  • Late on September 6 a developing banding eye feature became evident. comma after 6
  • Tropical Storm Nate strengthened further and became a hurricane at 1200 UTC September 7, as it began to turn away from Bermuda. 1200 UTC September 7 -> 1200 UTC on September 7
  • By 5 pm EDT on September 9, all of the already limited convective activity was confined to the eastern semicircle, leaving the low-level center exposed. Why use EDT here and UTC for everything else?
  • At 11 pm EDT on September 7, the National Hurricane Center assessed a 34% chance that Nate would pass within 75 miles (121 km) of the island. Same as above
  • Due to the lack of any major effects from Hurricane Nate, the name was not retired by the World Meteorological Organization and will be on the list of names for the 2011 season. Can you use a better source for this than the current naming list page at the NHC? The report on the retired names used in conjunction with the current reference would be better.

Several minor errors, nothing major so these should be easy to fix. Cyclonebiskit 01:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Image review: the three images check out fine, being from government agencies or public-domain derivative works of them. Jappalang (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

  • By September 1 most of the deep convection had been stripped away by southwesterly wind shear. - comma after September 21
  • At the time it was located approximately 350 miles (560 km) to the south-southwest of Bermuda. - comma after time
  • Late on September 6 a developing banding eye feature became evident. - comma after September 6
    • Actually, I believe the above three are better without excessive commas. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really because read those sentence aloud, a pause is needed where I pointed out above.--TRUCO 16:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's grammatically correct either way, and I like to keep the prose flowing quickly, rather than chopped up by superfluous punctuation. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's really a users preference but it can be either or I guess.--TRUCO 17:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some models indicated that Nate could have been either be absorbed by or merged with the larger Hurricane Maria, but the NHC forecast that Nate would survive as a separate system, which it did. - the acronym is not listed before this statement, as in "National Hurricane Center (NHC)"
  • The storm was reduced to a swirl of low-level clouds just hours later.[12] Nate became extratropical the next day before becoming absorbed by a larger system by 0000 UTC on September 13, to the north-northeast of the Azores. - IMO there is no need for the comma
    • IMO, the sentence would get too long and confusing without the comma. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could be either or, so its not a biggie.--TRUCO 16:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tropical storm watch was issued for Bermuda early on September 7 and later that day a tropical storm warning and a hurricane watch superseded it. - comma before and and before a
  • Two ships reported tropical storm-force winds in association with the storm: the Maersk New Orleans, to the north of the center, and a ship with the call sign WCZ858 to the east-southeast. - to the center of what?
  • When Tropical Storm Nate developed on September 5, it was the earliest ever in the season that the fourteenth named tropical storm developed, beating the previous record held by storm 14 of the 1936 season. - I don't know, but for a featured article words like beating should be "surpassing"
  • I rarely review at FAC, but Hurricane articles catch my eye for some reason :)--TRUCO 01:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
  • Spell out NOAA in the references (whaps Julian)
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a well-done article. Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [93].

William Bostock[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Yep, nominating this for FA because I think it meets the criteria. Now that the obvious part's out of the way, for those who prefer something beyond the usual nomination spiel, read on... From its inception in 1921 until the end of World War II, the history of the RAAF was often the story of two great rivalries at its highest echelons, between Richard Williams and Stanley Goble from 1921 to 1939, and between George Jones and William Bostock from 1942 to 1945. Three of these chaps – Williams, Goble and Jones – are already the subjects of FA-class articles; I’d like now to get the last of the four to the same level with this FAC for William Bostock, which is currently GA, and A-Class on the MILHIST project where it was also peer reviewed. Any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I supported this article during it's A-Class Review and found no concerns regarding the criteria then, nor do I now with the FA criteria. This is a very well written, sourced and comprehensive article that merits the Featured star. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: all images check out fine; their copyrights have expired and are in the public domain by Australian law. Jappalang (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an outstanding article which meets all the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • MoS attention needes, sample edits left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, I don't doubt that the changes you're asking for are according to Hoyle (I mean MoS) but it's interesting that none of these were picked up in any of my previous FACs (e.g. those mentioned above) that used identical style conventions - anyway, should be done and we know for next time...! ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Web sources need last access dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noted (and not ignored) but I think the only refs appearing on the web that don't have retrieval dates are books or papers, which just happen to have been made available on the web, i.e. not 'web sources' per se. I'll re-familiarise myself with the precise conventions of the policy unless someone wants to clarify it for me, since those access dates add to the clutter a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yep, looking over WP:References, I see that "For web-only sources you should also include a "Retrieved on" date in case the webpage changes in future". None of the works in the References section are web-only, so is there something I've missed elsewhere, maybe something that's changed in the month since my last FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not required by guideline, but on the other hand, it doesn't hurt to throw them in. Your choice, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (You do need the last access dates as noted by Dabomb above) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify here... you need them for web-only sources. It's nice to have them for books hosted on the web, mainly so you can track them down if they move the pages, but they aren't required per se. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Sandy, Ealdgyth. In that case I'd prefer to leave as is for consistency with other articles in this series. However, I realise now I may have contributed to any confusion by using the Cite Web template for a couple of those under References. I'll change them to something more appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Only one issue: the names of the Helson and Horner publications should not be both italicized and enclosed in quote marks. Altogether very nicely done; glad to come across it here after missing it at MilHist A-class. Maralia (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for that, Maralia. Re. the Helson and Horner pubs, I certainly agree with you. As with songs and album names, or short stories and novels, I think you either use quote marks (for short works) or italics (for longer ones) but not both. However these works seem to classify as 'papers' and the Cite Paper template assigns both italics and quotes to the titles automatically. Perhaps we should get ourselves over to the relevant template's talk page and question the rationale for that (I confess some pragmatism - or laziness - on this point up till now)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, raised the question here - not the first time it's been asked on the template talk page either...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support But I have some remarks to prove that I read it. :)

  • Tks Hawkeye - and I have some responses to prove that I don't stop reading after I see the 'S' word, welcome as it is... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whilst there he was admonished by the college's commandant," How about naming (or at least linking to) him? He does have a page. (Okay, it's a stub.)
  • My source doesn't name the guy so I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Air Commodore Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt. Mostly this is just my personal preference for naming names. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possibly expecting that his (Bostock's) new role" Why not just say "possibly expecting that Bostock's new role"?
  • Well, it just reads better to me as is and I think it's an accepted form of words... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Together with a naval barrage, this resulted in a "scene of indescribable ruin" on the battlefield, and allowed seventeen waves of troops to disembark their landing craft without loss." You make it sound like everyone thought that this was a good idea.
  • I also considered "but allowed seventeen waves of troops..." to qualify it a bit and am happy to substitute that if you think it's an improvement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As on Cebu and Tarakan, the land forces took shameless advantage of the fact that they knew that the Japanese doctrine was not to defend the beaches. Wing Commander Dale was pretty upset, considering that he had to repair the damage done, and complained to Jones. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bostock had control of the USAAF Fifth and Thirteenth Air Forces, as well as 1TAF, during Operation Oboe One" Quite a story behind that.
  • No doubt, but is this the place to get into that? I mean if you have suggestions for a line (and a citation) or two, happy to consider... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. macArthur cut out LHQ by arguing that one commander (Morshead) should be in charge. Blamey then turned the tables on him by applying this principle to the air force. The result was that Bostock became overall air commander. Such a large American force under an Australian officer is notable — and the article is quite right to draw attention to this point. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During parliamentary debates in 1951 and again in 1957, Bostock spoke for "an integrated defence force with a single minister", advocating amalgamation of the four separate Departments of Defence, Air, Navy and Army into one Department of Defence, headed by the Minister for Defence. He further proposed that..." You make it sound like it was all Bostock's idea. The 1957 debate was in response to the Morshead report. And the 1973 re-organisation was possible because the Liberal party had lost office.
  • You say the 1957 debate was in response to the Morshead report, but Bostock first talked about it in 1951. Also, whether he originated the idea or not, I think that saying he "spoke for" or "advocated" it is still accurate. However, if you think "proposed" is giving him too much credit I'd be happy to look at an alternative there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "supported", although Bostock advocated it strongly in 1951. What is interesting is that the experience of combined operations in Borneo convinced all three services — even the RAAF — that a more unified ADF was a good idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is fine as it is. No changes required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [94].

The Chaser APEC pranks[edit]

Nominator(s):  The Windler talk 

I am self-nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is a good enough status now to reach a featured state. I have worked on it and I believe it meets the criteria.  The Windler talk  11:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Hi Windler, nice read, that's a great story that deserves a wider audience. But is "Surry Hills Police Station" really "Surrey Hills Police Station" or is Surry a normal alternate spelling there? WereSpielChequers 14:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surry Hills, New South Wales is correct. But Surrey is also the usual name for the English county. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks O simian one. WereSpielChequers 12:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query "Reucassel dressed as Australian native animals" surely either "Reucassel and other members of the cast dressed as Australian native animals" or "Reucassel dressed as an Australian native animal" and if the latter why not name the animal? WereSpielChequers 14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recassel wore one animal costume, then took it off and wore another one.  The Windler talk  20:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Per the MOS, curly quotes aren't used.
  • You have direct quotations lacking source citations. I noticed the last sentence of "the Chaser" section, but there may be others.
    • I believe I have now done this, even if it repeats the source.  The Windler talk  09:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a number of sections that probably need citations, I noted the "current affairs", the "show ratings", "APEC security checks" sections
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
    • I've hopefully fixed most italics, using the work parameter and adding them.  The Windler talk  06:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your references are lacking publishers and/or last acccess dates.
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
  • Current ref 32 (The YouTube video) is this a copyright violation? And what makes it reliable?
    • It is actually a news report that was also on Youtube, so the original source was from TV. Removed link and sourced to original TV program.  The Windler talk  06:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 48 (the interview) has a retrieved on date but no web link.
    • That's because originally the file was on the internet but was removed, so linked back to original radio program, forgot to remove/thought it may have still needed the access date bit.  The Windler talk  06:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, for reviewing this, I will hopefully address your concerns in the immediate future.  The Windler talk  06:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1b and 1c.
    • My comprehensiveness concerns from its last nomination have not been addressed. There is no information in the article about the preparation for these stunts. I realize you have not found the information but the article can't possibly be comprehensive without it.
      • The problem is, there are no third-party sources to research. And without having original research done (which is against Wikipedia policy) there is going to be little to put. And secondily, there is nothing more than there is already said. It was a motorcade, three hired cars, with camera crew, and someone dressed as Osama bin Laden inside. It was a joke, (see it here). I'll try and get a bit more and add it soon.  The Windler talk  06:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Ealdgyth's point above, there are unsourced chunks all over. Most of the descriptions of the stunts are sparsely sourced, if at all. One could possibly make a case for primary sources, but we're not really even told if all of these stunts aired on the show.
--Laser brain (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your review, I'm getting on the sources soon. What "stunts" are you referring to??  The Windler talk  06:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant pranks, not stunts. --Laser brain (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my oppose above because the two issues have been addressed. I have not had time to review the prose. --Laser brain (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has multiple issues with image layout, see WP:ACCESS about placement of images within sections. Normally I fix this myself, but in this case, it's a lot of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Interesting and comprehensive, but the writing is not good enough to meet criterion 1a, as things stand.
  • Support. Changed from oppose, because my concerns have all been addressed. The article does a fine job of documenting an important series of events in Australian political and cultural life, with wider relevance concerning free speech, the role of the media (commercial and public) in political comment, and more besides.
I would advise against too much tinkering now. The article should be allowed to stabilise, unless some plain error is discovered. For example, I can't see how Although stunts that involved public locations, figures, and organisations were always a feature of the series is preferable to Although stunts involving public locations, figures, and organisations were always a feature of the series. Participial structures are handy for breaking up a uniform, almost paratactic succession of clauses with similar structure. It took some work to remove the surfeit of thats! :)
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 05:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose, 1a and 2a. As highlighted by Noetica, the prose isn't there yet, but I am fairly confident that if a good copy-editor can be found, then these problems will be solved. Of more concern to me right now is the insufficient lead. While you state what they were and why they were notable, there is no description of what happened. The lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article and it doesn't do that right now. Some random prose examples: Great job by Noetica. My concerns have been addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Licciardello - the latter in costume as Osama bin Laden - drove" MOS breach, the hyphens should be spaced en dashes.
  • "both the name of the series and ridiculous text" Avoid peacock/subjective terms such as "ridiculous"
  • "they had gotten further than expected" "gotten" is very weak. Maybe "proceeded"?
  • "Furthermore to the major APEC security breach mentioned above" Wrong transition word. "In addition to..." The self-reference to the article is a bit unprofessional and unnecessary.
  • "The meetings culminated in Leaders Week" I think "culminated" is used in the wrong sense here. Did the meetings directly influence the fact that "Leaders Week" was held?
  • "The stunt was mostly well-received by the general public, despite strong condemnations from some public officials."-->Despite strong condemnations from some public officials, the stunt was mostly well-received by the general public.
  • "In addition, 87% of some 28,451 respondents" What does "some" mean here?
  • "In addition, talkback radio callers around the country were supportive of the Chaser by a significant four to one margin." Again, watch out for terms such as "significant". Let the facts tell the story.
  • "Notably, figures showed that the stunt was referred to in more than a third of radio calls on the topic of APEC." What makes this so important that "Notably" needs to be tacked on?
  • "There was plenty of criticism from the political front aimed at the program and its members following the incident." Unnecessarily wordy. Try: "The political front strongly criticised of the program and its members following the incident."
  • "furious at the stunt, because it could have resulted" this comma not necessary.
  • "In response to this"
  • "Downer also commented that" Generally, there are too many of these additive terms, particularly "in addition to". Audit throughout for these generally unneeded words.
  • "Whilst extremely popular" "Whilst" is archaic. Try the more familiar and simpler "While" Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your review --> May I ask, I asked a copyeditor to do a copyedit of the article and he shaved the lead down, just yesterday, the old lead is here. Could you perhaps check that lead. I'll get onto your random suggestions, and hope to get another copyeditor (for prose) soon.  The Windler talk  05:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have hopefully fixed up the lead (may need a slight copyedit), to the length as suggested by WP:LEAD. And I hope you don't mind I strike your random suggestions out. Thankyou  The Windler talk  08:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reviewers should be the ones striking out their comments, they decide whether an issue has been resolved. No harm done though. I will look at the article later. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, then. Lesson learnt. Thanks anyway. Feel free to uncross any of them.  The Windler talk  23:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regard to a few reviews: I have asked User:Noetica to give the copyedit and Noetica hopes to have that copyedit finished in three days from 07:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC). But User:YellowMonkey has given the article a copyedit, which will hopefully satisfy criteria 1a). But of course more than one copyedit is better than one. So some feedback on te quality of prose would be appreciated.  The Windler talk  08:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I must thank User:Noetica for her his extraordinary effort for copyediting the article to hopefully meet the prose criteria. So hopefully those opposers to that criteria might withdraw or raise other opposition. Thanks again Noetica.  The Windler talk  04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's his effort, SW! I regret that my name (in fact a Greek neuter plural) can mislead people. That was never my intention. I suppose yours is equally indeterminate, yes?
Anyway, thanks for the thanks. I support now (see above).
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 05:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I let that slip. I tried hard in my earlier comments to avoid the use of he or she because I was unsure and I don't like presuming things, but anyway, sorry. It wasn't as much as your name, but your signature seems very elegant and neat. In my case, I haven't had that happen to me that I can remember, I have a note of my real name on my user page, so... Thanks alot.  The Windler talk  06:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [95].

Carsten Borchgrevink[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

After a long PR and several facelifts, I think it's ready. Borchgrevink is an unsung hero of polar exploration. Nobody liked him much; he was pushy, lacked charm, got people's backs up. Yet he was a true pioneer, with a string of Antarctic firsts. In his clumsy way he opened doors that more celebrated figures like Scott and Amundsen later passed through, to win eternal fame and glory for themselves, though hardly anyone has heard of Bochgrevink. So, here's the chance to find out about him and draw your own conclusions. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all images check out fine, in the public domain, verifiable with provided information. Jappalang (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I read the article and found no serious problems. However I noticed some roughness in prose at some places, so minor copy-edit may be necessary. Ruslik (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support. I have fixed odd glitches in the prose, will keep looking. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both Mill and Rubin are missing from your references. Jenk is in the references, but not the article. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jenks is in the article, ref [17]. I had used a different citation format, now corrected. Don't know how Mill and Rubin got missed off the sources list, but they're there now. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/state1/sfhorror/sf23.html
      • USGenNet is a host. The source is an e-book hosted by USGenNet. The correct details of the book are noe shown - see "Fellows, Rev. Samuel (Introduction)..." etc Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My problem is with usgennet, are they affiliated with usgenweb? I'm more concerned with whether the scanning/hosting/etc was well done and that there are no errors. With Google, you can see the scans, so it helps reassure you that it's been done well. When it's transcribed, you begin to worry more about reliablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know if usgennet are connected with usgenweb; they don't refer to each other on their homepages. USGenNet seems a big organisation – its ebook index page lists large numbers of books, it is obviously a considerable concern. I can't judge whether they are competent or not; if I was using them for critical or controversial details, this might be an issue. But the information from their ebook is straightforward readily available elsewhere – here, for instance. This is a San Diego State University site dealing with volcanic eruptions. Or, there is a good article in my 1930 Encyclopaedia Britannica which gives the same information. I'll be guided; if you think I should switch, or double reference, I'll be pleased to do so. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Probably double ref with the San Diego site? Just to be safe when you hit the main page. I'll go ahead and mark this resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The McConville ref is a journal article, correct? You need to format it with {{cite journal}} then, not {{cite web}}.
  • I'd integrate all the no author refs into the alphabetical order with the rest, alphabetize by the title.
    • I usually keep them separate, but I've done as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you feel strongly about keeping them separate, go back to your normal style, I just prefer total alphabetical myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{cite news}} for the two New York Times refs, and make sure you put the New York Times in the work field, not publisher, so that the newspaper title is italicised.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments I peer reviewed this and just reread it and find it meets the FA criteria. I found a few rough spots, as follows:
    • Lead - is the second comma needed in this: Borchgrevink's colleagues were critical of his leadership, and his own accounts of the expedition, were regarded as journalistic and unreliable.
      • Comma deleted
    • Seeking support - mising words? wrong word order? in "associated with naval the Arctic" in this: ... the RGS project was envisaged as not merely a scientific endeavour, but as an attempt to relive the glories associated with naval the Arctic and Antarctic exploration of half a century earlier.[16]
      • Sentence reworded - there were other awkwardnesses, which I think I have fixed now.
    • Retirement - would this sentence better split into two (full stop after born)? In September 1896 he had married an English bride, Constance Prior Standen, with whom he settled in Slemdal, near Oslo, where two sons and two daughters were born, and where Borchgrevink devoted himself to sporting and literary activities, producing a book entitled The Game of Norway.[10][39]
      • Sentence split.

Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions & support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. I struck my comments to make it clear that all my concerns have been addressed now. Thanks for yet another interesting read on Antarctic exploration. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Generally, I think the article is very nice; it has an excellent flow to it. Anyway, even at PR didn't need many changes, it's practically perfect, in every way. Ceran→//forge 12:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I peer-reviewed the article earlier and thought it was FA-worthy, and I haven't changed my mind. I re-read the article just now, changing four commas but finding nothing else to fix or suggest. I particularly like the recent addition of the Great Southern Barrier drawing, which I find more evocative of historic conditions than an ice snapshot taken from a contemporary vessel. Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:23, 3 February 2009 [96].

Ursula Franklin[edit]

Nominator(s): Bwark (talk)

Re-submitting to FAC on behalf of User:Bwark after my premature archival of previous FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it recently received GA status and after some further editing, I feel it meets the FA criteria for completeness, quality of writing, etc. Bwark
  • Tenative Support I'm about to head out for class, so I do not have time for a thorough read through, but my glance and skim through suggests everything is in order. No dab links were reported, but you do have one external link that looks as though it may need attention. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The actual link to the McGill Daily (citation #10) is OK, but the information it contains on Ursula Franklin is nearly midway down the page. I don't know how to construct the link so that it points directly to the information on Franklin. Bwark (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: I happen to be the GA reviewer of the article (Talk:Ursula Franklin/GA1). During the review, I read the article many times and found it worthy of a FA rating. I didn't find any errors that time. It hasn't changed a lot. Very comprehensive and a great piece of work. KensplanetTC 14:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with a few minor suggestions:
  • The last three sentences of the opening paragraph all start with “She”. In contrast, Pacifism and conscience uses her last name exclusively (six times). Consider mixing these up a little.
I have tried to vary the language as suggested. Bwark (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Career, third paragraph, the second sentence starts with "Its", which could refer to the report just mentioned rather than the (intended?) publisher of the report.
I have cleared up the ambiguity. Bwark (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in Career, the last paragraph has this phrase: "She is actively involved in numerous activities such as". This could be shortened.
I have shortened the wordy phrasing. Bwark (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kablammo (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Oppose on criterion 3 File:001instantthisbillboard.jpg - This image has some strange and somewhat contradictory licensing information on it. I'm going to ask a Commons admin about it. All other images check out. Awadewit (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Elcobbola#File:001instantthisbillboard.jpg. A much clearer explanation than I would give. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I was safe using an image from the Commons. Not to worry. I'll eliminate this image and replace it soon with one that has no copyright problems. Bwark (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated this image and have added a new subheading so that readers will know that the subsection discusses Franklin's ideas about communications technologies. Bwark (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have nominated the image for deletion. Like Wikipedia, Commons has user-generated content, so it is full of errors. :) Awadewit (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:23, 3 February 2009 [97].

William D. Boyce[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk •

Boyce was an American businessman, publisher, adventurer, and founder the Boy Scouts of America and Lone Scouts of America. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extramile and Illinois Review document known facts that are not controversial, they document the same fact, that Boyce is honored by the ExtraMile program. Extramile has an about page too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra mile is being used for this series of sentences "He then worked as a teacher, lumberjack, secretary, and salesman in the Midwest and Canada before settling in Chicago, where he quickly became known as a persuasive and shrewd salesman and learned business quickly.[1] He was a restless extrovert, roving from city to city, anxious to learn about new places. His books on business, travel, and expeditions often used the phrase "We pushed on."", which concerns me a bit as extramile doesn't cite it's sources, and the "extrovert, roving from city to city, anxious to learn about new places..." sounds like opinion to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rm'd "He was a restless extrovert, roving from city to city, anxious to learn about new places." — Rlevse • Talk • 02:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Penn State is reliable. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear if it's published by Penn State or if it's published by a professor at Penn State. The rules are somewhat different depending on which is the case. (I poked around but couldn't find a home page for the project...) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it cites is also backed up by Petterchak, so I'll add that there. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extramile and Illinois Review document known facts that are not controversial, they document the same fact, that Boyce is honored by the ExtraMile program. Extramile has an about page too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me that it's all double cited for this one, so why the need for this source that says right on the page "blog"? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oookay Rm'd it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That web page has a picture of the plaque in question. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one, I'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus this shows the campus is named after him but doesn't mention the plaque. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this ref is fine, even add in the one about the campus is even better.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice prose, like the topical layout, interesting, good free images, nice job. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The NYT obit gives his DOB as 1860. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else I've seen does, so it's probably the one that's wrong. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just started a thread at WT:LEAD that refers to (but is by no means "picking on") this article. I want the main source of notability moved to the first or second sentence. I see this problem so often, however, that I also want that made an explicit part of the relevant style guideline. See thread here. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally support User:Ling.Nut's sentiments on this matter. Per WP:LEAD, we are doing the reader a diservice if he or she can read two full paragraphs before coming to the one thing that makes this man most notable: founding the BSA. Accordingly, I have made the change in the article. Unschool 07:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:LEAD: The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable? (boldface added by User:Unschool. Unschool 07:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks for fixing that. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image concerns as follows:
  • File:William D Boyce.png — I have corrected the source and found no date of publication there. The photo might have been created before 1923, but to qualify for that PD-1923, it had to be published before 1923. Since Lone Scout has this photo for its cover, could anyone check the book for relevant information about this image?
  • File:BoyceGrave1.jpg — this involves commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States, which the United States lacks. As this statue was erected in 1941, it is not likely to be in the public domain. As such, the photograph is a non-authorized release of this work (permission from the artist is required), thus becoming a copyviolation (which I have marked as such).
I believe the portrait can likely be resolved easily. If not, it, as a non-public domain image, can likely qualify for fair-use due to the subject's passing. If the shot of the statue is desired to be used under fair-use, there need to be suitable commentary in the article and a strong rationale for the image's inclusion. Jappalang (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted the statue/grave one myself. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Elcobbola found the png image in a 1914 Book by Boyce, so it's definitely PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all images check out fine now. Jappalang (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I ended up tracking down two other (superior, I think) variants of this image (File:William Boyce3.png and File:William Boyce4.png) as well as one of a younger Boyce and one of an older Boyce. Эlcobbola talk 17:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is meant by welfare at the end of the first para? Is there a link?
changed to well-being, with link — Rlevse • Talk • 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • David and Margaret s/b The Boyces.
fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some uncommon careers are left unlinked: Coal miner, cartoonist and lumberjack. I would link them but others would not.
fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't there a more proper description than "cross saddle like a man" possibly with a link. Also is it cross saddle, crosssaddle or cross-saddle?
cross saddle is proper. Nothing to link to found, cut out "like a man" — Rlevse • Talk • 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you think the average international reader knows where Ottawa, Illinois is link it.
linked. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are so many newspapers unlinked?
Because they don't have articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments through business enterprises.
I don't understand. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was just a note to myself about how far into the article I read.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger ([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more comments
  • Link first occurance of cartoonist.
Fixed — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • White Supremacy comes from out of nowhere.
Because he seems to have kept it hidden for a long time — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are The Forgotten Scouts gay scouts?
Gay former Scouts, clarified. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support I am unable to offer full support due to the fact that the article is not entirely chronological. Each section is chronological, but the article is a bit confusing as the chronology restarts with new sections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I do an article pure chronologically, someone complains that it should be by topic; when I do it by topic, someone complains it should be chronological. I structured this the same way I've structured my other recent FAs. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but structurally, having the death come at the end at Legacy doesn't really fit well. You could rearrange some of the timing to have it more biography, then job, then legacy. However, this kind of thing is opinion based and not really objectionable (similar as TonyTheTiger's view). You could have the pictures alternate, but also the same. It reads well. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory (2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved June 11, 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/February_2009&oldid=274002582"