Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2009

July 2009

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:48, 28 July 2009 [1].

---

Fight Club (film)

Nominator(s): —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is the most comprehensive source of information about David Fincher's 1999 film, based on Chuck Palahniuk's novel, to be found anywhere. The article details the making of the film, the filmmakers' themes, the marketing, the film's release in theaters and on DVD, and its cultural impact since. Please note that the film received extensive academic coverage, which is in development at Interpretations of Fight Club. I consider this sub-article a topic in its own right; extrapolation of the academic resources would overwhelm the rest of the main article.

I addressed disambiguation links and checked links to fix URLs or replace citations entirely. The only problematic URL is to the Academy Awards database since it is dynamic and expires in time. If anyone has a suggestion on how to better present the citation, since it's the most ideal for checking on the film's nomination for sound editing, let me know! Most references are from periodicals, and I used {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} templates for them. The more comprehensive references are in "Bibliography". References that may be challenged are two from MrShowbiz.com; they were published by ABC News Internet Ventures but the website is no longer in existence. (URLs were recovered from the Internet Archive.)

As a film, Fight Club is copyrighted in nature, so there were limited free images available. Per WP:NFC, The poster image qualifies as "cover art" in identifying the film in context of critical commentary. The free image of Helena Bonham Carter helps add illustration (since Pitt and Norton are already portrayed in the poster image). The bathtub image illustrates an example of the film's homoerotic overtones as part of the director's intent to distract audiences. The title sequence image illustrates a major thematic opening and the heavily technical achievement involved. The image of the DVD packaging is backed by commentary about the purpose of its design, which is relevant to its success as a highly acclaimed DVD.

Lastly, I introduced a "See also" section to introduce readers to similar films (impartially listed using an Allmovie reference). It helps improve navigation through topics that may otherwise not get attention. If reviewers are unsure or disagree, we can discuss the benefit of this section. I hope this introduction covers upfront any observations or questions that reviewers may have. I also hope that reviewers can provide constructive criticism to help shape this article to establish it as one of Wikipedia's best. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC) [Note: The first FAC took place before the article ever saw any true work done, and the second FAC was closed early since a visitor nominated the article before it was ready. So please consider this its first true candidacy! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC))

• Oppose for now on criterion 1a. The research appears solid, and the structure is great—but enough attention has not been paid to the quality of the prose. This could have used a thorough peer review for prose quality or independent copyedit before being listed here. I'd love to see this pass! Let's work on getting a copyedit and I'll list out more issues soon. In the mean time, these are just from the lead and first section:
  • "feels trapped with his ... position" In or within, surely?
  • "The narrator gets involved in a fight club with soap salesman Tyler Durden" doesn't seem entirely accurate. "The narrator forms a fight club with soap salesman Tyler Durden" perhaps.
  • "Several directors were sought" sounds as if they were looking to hire multiple directors.
  • "... as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict." "Feeling" as a noun here is quite awkward; normally people use the plural form, but another word altogether might be better.
  • Avoid the repetition in "The director carried homoerotic overtones over" by moving "over" next to "carried".
  • "for its visual style in cinema and presaging a new mood" Needs parallel structure.
  • "They have new fights outside the bar, which attracts" The fights attracts?
  • "The fighting moves to the bar's basement with the men forming a fight club." The noun +ing construction (men forming) and "with" connector don't work here. Why not "The fighting moves to the bar's basement where the men form a fight club"?

--Laser brain (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed these examples, and I will try to address any similarly weird language in the rest of the article body. Let me see what I can do on my own and get back to you. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support

After reading this article I'm truly impressed with how well it reads and the in-depth and relevant use of information. The only objection i would have is that the 'plot summary' section is weak in relation to the rest of the article and would question the necessity of the links to other films. Other than this, very well written and covered film. --Flappychappy 02:18, 16 July 2009 (GMT)

Comment I don't think the See also section helps much. Readers are left to wonder why the films mentioned are similar to Fight club. Is it the themes, the directing, etc. I would vote to remove that section. Remember (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a source, albeit not a good one. Does allmovies have regular editors and vetted content? I'd like for there to be some way to include a list like this. --Laser brain (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

First, to respond to Flappychappy, I've tried to improve the plot summary a little bit more, but I was trying to keep it fairly condensed and to avoid getting into the whole anti-consumerist message. It's the kind of film where a lot could be mentioned to continue improving a reader's understanding of the film, but at some point, it's too much. For the "See also" section, it is an admittedly new kind of addition, partially because a side goal of mine is to phase out Allmovie as an external link, and the stand-out benefit of that website were the "similar works" sections. I could not find how the website lists similar works, but my theory is that they cross-reference the details from the left column of a film's page (keywords, themes, tones, etc). Allmovie is also "powered by" AMG Data Solutions and published by Macrovision Corporation, which seems fairly credible. No end user involvement like IMDb might have. When I compared similar works to Fight Club, I could recognize how they relate. Since Allmovie doesn't explicitly explain why they're similar, it would be original research to deduce a conclusion. Laserbrain, a better use of the "See also" section may be stemmed in academic sources, like how I listed "Nazi Next Door films" at Apt Pupil (film)#See also using one. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OpposeComments: I agree with Laser brain, above; the prose needs a lot of attention before it is of featured standard. I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into the article, but it needs thorough copyediting. I have only looked in detail at the lead, and have picked up the following:

• "Norton plays a nameless protagonist who is an everyman and an unreliable narrator." This sentence is enigmatic; the reader can't understand it without using two wikilinks – and even then might still be puzzled. Is there not a more direct way of describing the protagonist's character?
• "Producers sought several directors to hire one to film Fight Club;" The words "to hire one" are redundant
• This sentence needs attention; it has four "ands" in it at present: ""The director and the cast compared the film to the 1955 film Rebel Without a Cause and the 1967 film The Graduate and said the theme was the conflict between a generation of young people and the value system of advertising."
• "...that applied heavy satire to avoid a potentially sinister nature." Present tense should be used. The word "avoid" is wrong here; I think "disguise" is what is meant. Thus: "...that applies heavy satire to disguise a potentially sinister nature."
• "Filmmakers intended for the film's violence in the fight clubs to serve as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict." I am really struggling with this sentence. In my dictionary "film-maker" is a hyphenated term, but maybe there is an Am-Eng variant. However, starting the sentence "Filmmakers..." is confusing; is this all filmmakers, or does it mean the makers of this film? This must be clarified. The word "for" after "intended" is redundant. And I simply can't make sense of "a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict." What does it mean?
• "perceived" losses? Perhaps "anticipated" would be better?
• "Fight Club failed to meet the studio's expectations at the box office, and the film received polarized reactions from film critics upon its debut." The words "the film" are unncessary. And is "debut" the word normally used to refer to a film's premiere?
• "It was perceived as ground-breaking..." State by whom it was thus perceived.

Note that these points all arise from the lead section; there may well be similar problems in the remainder of the prose. Hence the need for copyediting by a skilled prose editor. One final unrelated point: Helen Bonham Carter's surname is "Bonham Carter", and she should not be referred to as just "Carter". I hope you won't be discouraged by the work still needed. I will check back later for signs of progress with the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The everyman theme is explained in depth in the "Themes" section; it is too much extrapolation in the lead section to explain the term "everyman". Your second suggestion contradicts Laserbrain's suggestion -- without mentioning "to hire one", it sounds like the studio wanted multiple directors. I broke up the particularly long sentence. "Filmmakers" is used as a general grouping of people who produce the film, since it's not always clear who did what. If there is an alternate way to use active verbs, I'm open to suggestions. :) I think "perceived" was the word choice in the citation, but I replaced it with "anticipated". I also think "the film" is needed because the related noun is succeeded by two nouns ("expectations" and "box office"); clarifying re-focuses the noun usage. Let me know if you disagree. "Debut" is synonymous with "premiere". Thanks for pointing out the "Carter" surname; thankfully, only two instances to fix. I ask you to look at at least one other section since the lead section tends to be more of a challenge adequately summarizing the entire article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your various rephrasings in the lead have lagely dealt with the issues I raised, although I think "everyman" should be in quotes, to indicate that it is a figure of speech. I also have some problem with the clarity of the sentence "Fincher intended for the film's violence in the fight clubs to serve as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict" – I'm not clear what "feeling" means here. However, I am striking my oppose, and will try to get to the rest of the prose in the next few days. I have looked at the Plot section and have a few suggestions:-

• "disrupts his relief": slightly odd phrasing – and could there be a brief indication of how she does this?
• "...Tyler disappears from the narrator's life." Since he reappears, it might be best to end the sentence "Tyler disappears."
• "When a member of Project Mayhem dies, the narrator tries to shut down the project by following evidence of Tyler's national travels." It is clear how, by following evidence of Tyler's travels, the narrator can shut down the project.
• Suggest a slight rephrasing to avoid the "...Tyler. Tyler..." combination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs) 07:35, July 18, 2009

I made changes per your suggestions. Please let me know if the "Tyler" combination is ideally addressed now... I could not see a very easy solution to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've made a small change myself (see edit summary) Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: I note the great work which Graham has done on checking the prose, and since I trust his judgement I am happy to switch to full support. I must say I have enjoyed working on this article, and the ready, positive response to issues has been refreshing. There is one image query (not what's immediately below) that needs to be sorted out - see lower down. Brianboulton (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The image query has been answered. Thank you for your help. It was my first FA nomination, and the constructive criticism really helped improve the article. Next time, though, I'll likely do a peer review focused majorly on copy-editing! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

oppose massive copyright abuse FAC#3 Fasach Nua (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Two days ago, you added the {{NFimageoveruse}} template without providing an edit summary and inappropriately marking the edit as minor. I waited for a statement justifying its addition on the talk page or the FAC page; there was not one. When I contacted you asking for an explanation of why you considered it overuse, you blanked my message without any response whatsoever. Non-free images were carefully considered for this article per WP:NFC and are equipped with fair use rationales. I ask you to review their rationales and explain why each one cannot belong. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This comment might as well be ignored. I see only three fair-use images outside of the infobox, and they are more or less justified. I could do without the image of the cardboard-like packaging, but both the bathtub scene image and the opening credits image are perfectly within NFCC. Fasach Nua has a long history of opposing FACs that have any fair-use images in them and often doesn't follow up on his comments. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I removed the image of the DVD cover since another editor opposed because of it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Subject to a successful review of sources and images. Oppose - for now, there are too many problems with the prose.

• Here; Fincher intended for the film's violence in the fight clubs to serve as a metaphor for feeling based on the generation's conflict. - what does "feeling based on the generation's conflict" mean?
• The director implemented homoerotic overtones from Palahniuk's novel - "implemented" doesn't seem to be quite the right word.
• Here; Studio executives were not receptive to the film - how about "were not impressed by" or even "did not like"?
• Another impostor, Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter), disrupts his relief - doesn't sound idiomatic to me.
• There is a possible fused participle here, Their conversation about materialism leads to Tyler inviting the narrator to stay at his place
• Here They have new fights outside the bar - "new fights"?

"fight leisurely" still doesn't sound right.

• This lacks logical flow, When the narrator ignores a phone call from Marla, who has overdosed on pills, Tyler rescues her from her flat
• The narrator complains to Tyler about not being involved in the organization - it is not clear who is not involved.
• This lacks logical flow, When a member of Project Mayhem dies, the narrator tries to shut down the project by following evidence of Tyler's national travels.
• "Police....its"?
• This sounds odd; The illusion of Tyler collapses with an exit wound to the back of his head
• "Afterward" -> "Afterwards"
• the reader discouraged an adaptation of the material - "adapting it"?
• McCormick then forwarded the proof to producers Lawrence Bender and Art Linson, who also rejected adapting it, but producers Josh Donen and Ross Bell saw potential and expressed an interest in adapting Fight Club
• This lacks logical flow, The producers cut out sections to reduce the running time and to record the dialogue.
• Here; finding Fight Club similar to the 1967 film The Graduate, which Henry adapted. - it should be "had adapted".
• This sentence is clumsy, A new screenwriter, Jim Uhls, lobbied Donen and Bell to be hired to adapt the screenplay, and the producers chose Uhls over Henry.
• Here; Bell explored four candidates to hire as director - I don't think people can be "explored".
• since he had an unpleasant experience -> "because he had", there is another misused "since" later on.
• There is something missing here, Producer Art Linson, who boarded the project late, met with another candidate, Brad Pitt, for the same role.
• Since Linson was the senior producer of the two, the studio sought Pitt over Crowe. - "sought Pitt over Crowe"?
• Here, The studio signed Pitt with a $17.5 million salary. - "and offered him"?
• Pitt sought a new film after the failure of his 1998 film Meet Joe Black, - in this context "was looking for" would be better.
• As much as I like Matt Damon how would he "increase awareness of the film"?
• it also considered Sean Penn as a possibility - "as a possibility" is redundant.
• Fincher instead considered Edward Norton a candidate for the role based on the actor's performance in the 1996 film The People vs. Larry Flynt. - needs a comma.
• This sounds odd; Pitt shaped the cosmetics of his role.
• Here; Fincher and Uhls revised the script for six to seven months, by 1997 having a third draft that reordered the story and left out several major elements. - "and by 1997 had.."?
• Here; Palahniuk recalled how the writers contended if film audiences would believe the plot twist from the novel. - is "contended" the right verb?
• The section on napalm seems completely out of place and breaks the logical flow of the paragraph.
• the budget was adjusted to $50 million - "increased to"?
• Here; and in the course of filming - would "but" be better than "and"?
• There is some overlinking as with "having the wind knocked out of themselves."
• What on earth is "straight water"?

How about "neat" or "pure" or "unadulterated"?

• Here; The director sought various approaches to the lighting setups in the film's scenes - "in the film's scenes" is redundant.
• What's a "practical" location?
• Do prosthetics really depict? Yes, on refection they do. Graham.
• "On a microscope level" - should be "at a microscopic level".
• Here; The final scene of demolishing the credit card office buildings - should be "of the demolition of".
• I am not sure what "stepped all over means" in this context.

I still don't know if this is literal, but I can live with it. Graham

• Here, David Fincher supervised the composition of the DVD packaging, being one of the first directors to participate in a film's transition to home media - "and was one of the" would be better.
• More overlinking: "word of mouth", "cult film", and Palahniuk linked right at the end of the article.The film's success also heightened the profile of the novel's author Chuck Palahniuk to global renown. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the list of items to fix! It's rather shocking to find out what still can be fixed, even after all the times I've read through the article. :P Some notes: "Afterward" and "Afterwards" are both acceptable. "Practical location" means a preexisting location, not one built on a soundstage; it's common terminology in the film industry. Does it need to be defined? As for prostheses, I was not sure of the best verb to use here; "depicting" seemed closest but admittedly not spot-on. Suggestions in this context? I've fixed the other items to reduce redundancy and improve flow. If there are any other items to be found, please let me know! —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To follow up, for the "stepped" item, this is the sentence from the citation: "When we processed it, we stretched the contrast to make it kind of ugly, a little bit of underexposure, a little bit resilvering, and using new high-contrast print socks and stepping all over it so it has a dirty patina." It's technical jargon, so I'm not clear about how else to explain it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to add my support now, given the caveat above. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support: The article prose is amazing, as well as the sources, so I have to say I support this. One issue, though - in themes, it states "Edward Norton said," [...] followed by "Brad Pitt said,"[...] A bit redundant and can be reworded. Other than that, excellent work. The Flash ^{talk} 00:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! I actually reworded these quotes to start with "said" to make it more basic. :) Do you think "Pitt explained" would be a better way to word it? Appreciate the support, and if you see anything else amiss, feel free to share or fix yourself! —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds better. The Flash ^{talk} 00:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Further comments - The prose is looking good, so I have stricken my 1a opposition above. However, on examining the Themes section, I can't help wondering if we need to be a bit more thorough. There is not much serious academic discussion. There is almost nothing about the split personality theme, which is a major element of the film. You mention it here and there (like how the narrator is referred to as Jack in the script) but I would expect its own para in Themes. You could discuss the clues given in the film that the narrator and Tyler are the same person, what the split allowed the narrator to do, and so on. Are there no works that discuss this theme? The soap was also a theme. You mention that Tyler is a soap salesman, but there was a whole thing around how he was using human fat to make it, and later the lye figured into the hand-burning scene, explosives, etc. And that reminds me.. you don't discuss the hand-burning scene at all, which I think is a cathartic moment in the film that also figures into the split personality theme. I know you are working on a separate Interpretations article, but these aren't really interpretations, they are themes and plot elements. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I have only just watched the movie on DVD—to date, I have been concentrating on the prose, but there is much more to this film than the article describes. People are complex, and Norton's "everyman" character is no exception. I am left thinking that this contribution is rather superficial, lacks depth, and will leave readers dissatisfied. This article gets 1,000s of hits a day—we have to be 100% sure that it is worthy of promotion.Graham Colm ^Talk 22:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Themes" used to be longer, but I cut it down to be more concise. I was thinking that the "Interpretations" sub-article would be more important (intentional fallacy and all that). I don't disagree with the points you make, though, so perhaps look at the section as it existed before? Anything that you think could be recovered? —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I also added some new quotes at Talk:Fight Club (film)#Expanding themes. Are you both thinking of themes as intended by the filmmakers, or to go beyond that and include academic coverage? Interpretations are largely thematic; there are some resources that do not quite address themes, hence the "Interpretations" sub-article (see its "Further reading" section). —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The old version of the Themes section is an improvement, in my view. The difference between Themes and Interpretations is that the Themes section discusses the motifs and patterns in the film without going into critical discussion of what they mean. That is where we cross into Interpretation territory—that is, experts conjecturing on the meaning of the themes. Bear in mind summary style as well—whatever you cover in depth in the interpretations article should be at least mentioned here. Does anyone object to going back to the cited version of the Themes section as a starting point? --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I will retrieve the missing material from the old "Themes" section and restore it to the current one. It's been shuffled and copy-edited, so we'll have to be surgical about the restoration. I also elaborated on existing themes with examples like the Volkswagen Beetle. I can also create an "Interpretations" section and place the link to the sub-article there with the {{main}} template. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on themes. Unasked, I've had a look at several of the articles that were on Erik's comprehensive reading list for developing this article. There's a lot of information out there, as one might expect, but while I can see where Andy (née Laser brain) is coming from, I don't think there's a massive amount that could be added on the split personality theme that wouldn't come across as a potentially trivial list of "clues" for the audience. Most of the real meat is pretty much already included, though it might not be immediately obvious; Erik appears to have made an editorial judgement to spread the split personality material throughout the article rather than include it explicitly and exclusively in the themes section. That way, we can see how the idea informed the writing, filming and editing—real world context that to me is more relevant than telling the reader what the split meant for the plot and the character. YMMV. :-) On this and the other issues (such as the hand-burning scene) it may be that they haven't received a comparative amount of academic coverage because they're more apparent conceits that are instead more intently focused upon in non-academic sources, such as mainstream reviews. I think that if Erik can include a little more from the sources he originally discarded (and I see he's already begun this), the section should by the end be comprehensive enough to pass muster. (Though I do agree that it may also be beneficial to at least look at the interpretations sub-article to see if there's anything useful to summarise from it.) Steve ^T • C 13:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you make good points. I'm thinking that it wasn't a long way off, but I wanted to make sure our bases our covered. This is a film that, after first viewing, audiences tend to go, "What did I just see?" They will likely come here to read more about the film. I'd really like to make sure what we build here is the gold standard for complicated films, comparable to Mulholland Drive. Do you prefer the old or the new version of the Themes section? --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I was directed to the Mulholland Dr. article a couple of days ago; it really is excellent, though light on the production material that forms the bread and butter of a film article. Themes and interpretations are all very good, but they shouldn't come at the expense of the more traditional encyclopedic content, and for that article I might encourage an expansion of the latter while farming the former out to an analysis sub-article that someone could go even more to town on. The Fight Club article has production material in spades, and looking at just some of the available sources, I believe Erik made a legitimate decision that there was absolutely no way in which the main article could host the reams of analysis in addition to that and stay even close to article size limits. For that reason, he created the—admittedly incomplete—spin-off article. Its existence means the main article will host less analysis than that seen at Mulholland Dr. and Barton Fink (another good one); even using summary style it will inevitably not cover every intended and unintended theme. So how to tell what to include in the main article? Arguably, the split personality theme, the hand-burning scene, etc. haven't received more—or even equal—weight in academic sources than anything else, so what criteria should be used to determine those themes that are the most prominent? Still, as it stands now the Themes section is in better shape than it was pre-expansion, though I didn't really prefer either that or the old(er) version; had I come along to this FAC before the issue came up, I probably would have recommended to Erik that he put some of it back in, as he has now done, along with a little more from the sub-article. The wider issue—on how much is enough to include for films that have had hundreds of pages written about them—is perhaps a separate discussion outside the scope of this FAC, as I'm sure Erik won't want me to put other potential reviewers off by bloating the page with my inevitably-longwinded witterings on that subject. :-) All the best, Steve ^T • C 09:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I fully expect a film by someone like Fincher to have far more production information than one by Lynch, who is notoriously tight-lipped about his production methods. To this day, he won't reveal the true nature of the baby in Eraserhead, something I'm waist-deep in right now. As for the Themes section... well, it's really a judgment call, isn't it? It's going to be different for each film. For complex films that confuse audiences, we have a responsibility to explain things like the split personality to them. We also have to consider how much weight the various themes had in the relevant literature. I think what's there now is looking great. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support now. I think the Themes section is vastly improved, and it presents reasonable weight to explaining intended themes and introducing academic analysis. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Comment – On my monitor, the alt text for the poster image is cutting off in the middle. Anyone else see this on their computers? Giants2008 (17–14) 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• If this is Firefox, don't worry about it. For example, if you visit the article with Firefox, right-click on the image, and select "Properties", you'll get an "Element Properties" window that lists "Alternate text:" with the text apparently truncated (it scrolls, actually, though there's no scrollbar). There's nothing wrong with that, except perhaps with Firefox's implementation. The intended use of alt text is assistive technology such as JAWS and Orca and the main limit there is the listener's patience.

• (ec) The use that your browser makes of alt text depends entirely on your operating system, your browser, and their settings. The HTML in the page served is exactly what is expected (an <img> tag with the alt= parameter containing the alt text provided for that image). By default, windows users with IE8 or Firefox don't see the alt text; they see the contents of the <title> tag when hovering over the image (set to the filename, for inexplicable reasons). If you could tell us what os, browser and addons you are using to display the alt text, it would help in trying to resolve the problem. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• What about IE7? I'm using it with Vista and am not so knowledgeable about the add-ons. It's not a big deal for me; I just wanted to know if anybody here had a similar issue. It probably has to do with settings that I don't understand. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with brevity if it can be done without losing information; also, some of the details in that alt text were not about visual appearance and thus didn't belong there, so I managed to trim it down a bit.

Eubulides (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Found this in Plot: "He uncovers Tyler's plans to destroy buildings housing credit card records so civilization's debt is reset." Through about half the article, that's the only real problem area I've seen in the prose. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• You can thank Laser brain (a.k.a. Andy Walsh), Brianboulton, and GrahamColm for all their copy-editing work and suggestions! :) I rewrote the sentence. Does it read any better now? I'm only concerned that it sounds like "He uncovers... by destroying buildings"; is this a big deal or not? Also, I'm not sure what happened with the alternative text. I messaged someone who might be able to answer your question. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's clear enough that the plans are Durden's and not the narrator's. The only thing I'm waiting on before offering support is an image review. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Further comments - and probably my last. I have reinstated my support, but hope that the extraordinary amount of work that has been put in since its nomination is not taken as a precedent for other candidates. I have just re-read Richard Dyer's British Film Institute monograph on Se7en, looking for parallels in structure and style, and given that this article is for an encyclopedia and not a book, I feel that a superb job has been done here. The Themes section is a great improvement. I have tweaked the prose here a little, and, despite the expression "negativist prospect" (which I can live with), I think it is up to standard. With regard to the alt texts, they look OK in my browser, but some are a little too long—there is no need to describe colours I think. I hope this article is promoted—it deserves to be. Have the images been reviewed yet? Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 - File:Fight Club DVD cover.jpg - The text easily conveys what this image depicts, so I don't see the need for this non-free image. Otherwise, all images are adequately described, have verifiable licenses, and, if necessary, meet WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. I removed the image, and I also added more descriptive text so readers don't merely visualize a plain cover that looks like cardboard wrapper. If there is anything else to address in the article, please let me know. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All image issues addressed. Awadewit (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. I have some very minor queries remaining:
  • Are you happy with leaving the release date out of the lead? It's a valid editorial choice—seeing as the full date is given in the infobox—but I just thought I'd check.
  • "She designed an extra's ear to have cartilage missing, citing Mike Tyson's bite as inspiration."—seeing as Holyfield–Tyson II was twelve years ago, some of our readers might not have the necessary familiarity with this to understand what "Mike Tyson's bite" is referring to without leaving this article. That's fine, that's what the link is there for, but if there's a way of wording it that avoids even this—without bloating the section—that could be pursued. Perhaps, "She designed an extra's ear to have cartilage missing, citing as inspiration the boxing match in which Mike Tyson bit off part of Evander Holyfield's ear." The only difficulty I can see with that is working out the best position for a piped link.
  • "... the studio later paid for the sequence following Fincher's expert direction of the film"—this is cited to the DVD commentary, so I'm not sure that Fincher and the cast are the most unbiased sources for the "Fincher's expert direction" statement; it's an opinion, so I'm thinking attribution might be required ("Fincher claimed/said"). Alternatively, the wording could be toned down, or perhaps putting quotes around "expert" (or whatever word they use in the commentary) would suffice.
  • I'm perfectly willing to believe I'm misremembering something I've seen a bunch of times, but "an early scene in which the camera flashes past city streets to survey Project Mayhem's destructive equipment" wasn't really that early in the film. Would it lose anything to remove the word? So I misremembered. :-) Steve ^T • C
  • "Midway through the film, Tyler Durden points out the cue mark, nicknamed "cigarette burn" in the film, to film audiences."—this might need input from someone less familiar with the subject, but are we happy that this makes it clear that Durden is breaking the fourth wall? Something along the lines of: "Midway through the film, Tyler Durden breaks the fourth wall to point out the cue mark—nicknamed "cigarette burn" in the film—to the audience." Per summary. Steve ^T • C
• Otherwise, good to see that most of the major concerns have been either fixed or successfully rebutted. All the best, Steve ^T • C 08:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the full release date is necessary for the lead section; release year seems enough. Full release date seems best when the date is truly relevant to the film, such as studios trying to get out of the film before year's end to qualify for awards. I've amended the bite fight sentence and put the link in "the boxing match". And just to clarify, the "early" scene takes place before the flashback to the rest of the film. This is the full quote, "We have front row seats for this theater of mass destruction. The demolitions committee of Project Mayhem wrapped the foundation columns of a dozen buildings with blasting gelatin. In two minutes primary charges will blow base charges and a few square blocks will be reduced to smoldering rubble. I know this, because Tyler knows this." The "cigarette burn" scene issue seems amended. Lastly, you have a good point about citing the commentary. I think I tried to mean "expert" as in "technically proficient". In any case, I referenced Cinefex instead, which had this sentence: "Though the director had always intended to open the film in this fashion, budgetary concerns had kept the title sequence from being awarded until January 1999." So I revised the wording to be more in line with that. Thanks for the observations! —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

All struck. Steve ^T • C 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I've watched this article for a long time, impressed enough with the way in which Erik has developed it that I've consciously emulated his approach at some of the film articles I've contributed to. This article could easily have been a collection of trivia and fancruft, but Erik has instead crafted one that focuses on relevant real-world production material and critical analysis—genuinely encyclopedic content that elevates the material to the standard he's always wanted for it. Nice work. (Full disclosure for closing delegate: Erik is an editor with whom I've worked a lot elsewhere.) Steve ^T • C 15:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:48, 28 July 2009 [2].

---

Adrian Cole (RAAF officer)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominating this article on another Australian Flying Corps veteran and senior officer in the RAAF - in the mold of Richard Williams, Henry Cobby, Frank McNamara, and so on. Currently GA-Class, as well as A-Class on the Military History, Aviation, and Australia wikiprojects. Since passing those milestones, have added some further detail here and there and sorted out a niggling question on his victory claims in World War I (even added alt text to the pictures after finding out about that requirement!) so believe ready for FA-Class... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments This is in good shape and certainly very close to FA quality.

• He seems to have transferred to the RAAF and then become one of its original officers when it was formed. How did he transfer to it if it didn't yet exist?
• "Though he later recorded that it involved "twenty months' hard work, without pay ... with loads of scurrilous and other criticism", provision of the RAAF's radio facilities and technicians was considered a boon for contestants." I can't quite figure out what this sentence is trying to say.

• Reworded these two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• "In the event, he had to make do..." This reads as quite colloquial to me, but I wouldn't mind hearing other opinions.

• For me it does the job, but more than happy to listen to suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Are we sure that Who's Who in Australia is a RS? Most Who's Whos are considered not to be, I believe.

• First I've heard of Who's Who being a questionable source, and I've used it in most of my recent A/FA-Class noms. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, Ealdgyth seems to think it's okay, so I'll trust her judgment. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• References look okay otherwise.
• Images not reviewed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review, Steve, and the copyedits - while I tweaked a couple, I think they've certainly improved the prose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - My concerns have been addressed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I believe that this article meets the criteria of a Featured Article. I have the following comments:
  • there are no disambig links and no reference errors using the tools (good work)
  • there is some overlink (e.g. World War I) that possibly needs to be fixed
  • dashes seem consistent with WP:DASH - I fixed any hyphens I could find that needed to be endashes;
  • there is possibly an issue in relation to Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words as some numbers greater than 10 are spelt when maybe they should use numbers instead.

Anyway, hope this helps. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Tks for that mate. I do generally re-link items that are in the intro the first time they recur in the main body, as well as in the infobox, but hopefully nothing's linked more often than that (if so, let me know or feel free to de-link). Also re. numbers, I tend to consistently go with the MOS clause "may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred"; in military articles there are so many unit numbers on top of the date figures that I prefer words where strictly within MOS guidelines. Again, if I haven't applied that consistently then feel free to rub my nose in it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article which meets the FA criteria Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - a well written, well presented and comprehensive article. My only niggle is that there is inconsistency in the succession boxes, with one containing ranks and the other not. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Tks guys - yeah Bryce, another succession box aficionado added that one without including the ranks of these guys that I'd never heard of - occurred to me I might just know where to find the missing info and so it's proved - both temporary AVMs... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Figured that was the case. Thanks, Ian. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:48, 28 July 2009 [3].

---

Herrerasaurus

Nominator(s): Firsfron of Ronchester 21:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There was talk about nominating this article for Featured Article two years ago, but it never happened, despite lack of opposition. It still meets the criteria, though, and is equal to several of the Featured bird candidates that I have recently seen. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments (moral or otherwise as dino editor) as I go - I do recall a couple of queries the prose and flow have improved, and there is some more context (I added a sentence). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

at least five recent surveys of theropod evolution - "surveys" sounds a bit informal to my ears, would not "analysis" or "review" be better?

Changed to "reviews" per your request, sir. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

and the other archosaurs and synapsids lost diversity. - not thrilled about the wording, something more user-friendly along the lines of decline in variety and number or something similar. Nothing acutely jumps to mind.

I'd think of filling out the second para of Paleoecology by (maybe) some adjectives describing some of the different critters might help make it less listy.

One of the other things I feel would be good to highlight is why Herrerasaurus is important, that is, the poverty of early dinosaur remains, so somehow slotting in something on this, which then helps clarify why the diverse opinions on its placement and how we got to where we are now. This helps with the context of the article.

J worked on the listiness, and I adjusted the "diversity" wording. I've struck out the comments we got to, Cas, but feel free to revert if you feel those issues haven't been properly dealt with. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cas. We appreciate your edits, review, and time. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Trademark moral support as a contributor; not quite sure why this one didn't move on before. I will also be around to work on editor concerns. J. Spencer (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks J. I know it's not a hadrosaur, but if you see something suspicious, feel free to point it out here or attack it directly. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• The image captions should not include the article name, so for example should be Skull cast in Milan. All need fixing
• Artist's restoration of – surely Artist’s impression
• lightly-built – no hyphen after –ly per MOS
• flexible joint in the lower jaw, which allowed it to slide its lower jaw back and forth – clunky, why not flexible joint in the lower jaw, which allowed it to slide back and forth?
• forelimbs, which were less than half the length of its hind limbs. – “forelimbs” one word, “hind limbs” two?
• like Casliber, I don’t think you are helping your reader as much as you could – I had to follow a lot of links to keep up with this article, and the use of less technical language or glosses where possible would make it less likely that you would lose your audience. Two examples: were for ocular and nasal in the frenulum section could be eye and nostril, and Carnosaur could be glossed as Carnosaur, a large predatory dinosaur.

I thought this was generally well-researched and quite well-written article, but before supporting, I’d like to see the prose made a little more accessible where it is feasible to do so without undue verbiage. jimfbleak (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Jim. I will work on all your comments this evening. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had a pass on some of the terminology, but am not convinced that everything I did helped. J. Spencer (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support My concerns have been addressed, and you are right about speculative colours in the alt text jimfbleak (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. If you see further areas which need improvement, please feel free to mention them here or adjust them yourself. As for the alt text, I don't know the first thing about using alt text, and was just going with a "gut feeling", so I could be dead wrong. At any rate, thanks for reviewing the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• Could the following sentence be made a little clearer? "However, an extensive study of Herrerasaurus by Sereno indicates that only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies in Bakker's original list are actually supported while additional synapomorphies were discovered.[3]" It might help to make it an active, rather than passive, construction, explicitly naming the verbs' subjects.
• There is a little bit of redundancy between the last paragraph of the Herrerasaurus#Paleoecology section, and the beginning of the Herrerasaurus#Paleobiology section; in both sections, we point out, in rather similar words, that ornithischians such as Pisanosaurus were less numerous than rhynchosaurs and other groups. JN466 19:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that the article uses many technical terms that make it a little hard work – "upland riparian forest" is one example (surely we can say that in English?), "sphenopsids (horsetails)" is another (surely it is enough to say "horsetails"?). Some double-barrelled descriptions of reptile families include redundancies that increase the preponderance of specialist terms beyond what is necessary. Examples:
  • kannemeyeriids would be just as precise as "kannemeyeriid dicynodonts";
  • chiniquodontids would do instead of "chiniquodontid cynodonts";
  • traversodontids says the same thing as "traversodontid cynodonts";
  • similarly, "Hyperodapedon (formerly Scaphonyx)" involves a redundancy – Scaphonyx is merely an obsolete name of the same animal, which redirects to Hyperodapedon, so "Hyperodapedon" is enough.
• Is there any objection to using the shorter versions? JN466 20:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen. Per your observations, I've gone through and reworked the portions you highlighted. Thanks also for your edits to the article. We appreciate the review. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made some additional small copyedits; pls review. I am still not clear what we mean by "only one cranial and seven postcranial synapomorphies in Bakker's original list are actually supported". Does it mean that dinosaurs as a monophyletic group really only share one cranial and seven postcranial features out of Bakker's list, and all the other ones Bakker was wrong about? Or does it mean that Bakker's list was right, but Herrerasaurus only exhibits one cranial and seven postcranial features from Bakker's list? I can only see the abstract of Sereno's paper, but from that it's clear that Sereno classified Herrerasaurus as a theropod and thus already a clear dinosaur (located after the saurischian/ornithischian split, and after the theropoda/sauropodomorpha split in the evolutionary tree). Can we make this passage clearer? JN466 12:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this further, I think this relates to the previous statement that "theropods, sauropodomorphs, and ornithischians diverged even earlier than herrerasaurids, before the middle Carnian, and that "all three lineages independently evolved several dinosaurian features, such as a more advanced ankle joint or an open acetabulum"." In other words, some of the features in Bakker's list are now believed to be the result of convergent evolution, rather than due to descent from a common ancestor, and it was the study of Herrerasaurus that first suggested that. Is that correct? JN466 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your edits, and the present thorough review, JN. What the Science paper actually says is: "Of the approximately 50 postcranial synapomorphies listed earlier in support of Dinosauria, only seven are supported by the new material of Herrerasaurus." In other words, yes, according to Sereno and Novas, Bakker's original 59 synapomorphies (9 cranial and 50 postcranial) could be pared down to 1 and 7, respectively (although at least three additional synapomorphies were discovered). The authors believed the other similarities, such as sacral similarities between saurischians and ornithischians, were examples of convergent evolution. I'm certainly open to rephrasing this so it's understandable to the average reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewording the passage. The new wording explicitly states that Bakker proposed a list of 9 + about 50 features likely due to common descent. Could you double-check that this is actually so, and that the list referred to is not the result of several authors' work building on Bakker's original paper over the intervening years? Because then we would have to word it differently. Also, if the list of 9 + 50 features was present in Bakker's original paper, then I would suggest the reference to that paper should go to the end of the sentence, after the mention of the list, to make that clear. I've also reworded the lead sentence of the paragraph, to provide better linkage to the preceding paragraph, which already raises some of these issues. JN466 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restructuring. I will check the reference tomorrow, when my subscription to Nature should be fixed (I can't view the paper, despite being logged in). Firsfron of Ronchester 05:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It does appear that later authors built upon this list; Bakker and Galton's 1974 paper list a dozen or so, not the 50 that Sereno and Novas (mostly) reject. I've reworded and added a few additional refs. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought so. Have tweaked the text slightly.

Thanks for following up. And – Support. JN466 14:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments, observations, and a few edits as well. I really appreciate the depth of your review, JN. I saw you on some other dinosaur talk pages, and appreciate all the attention you've paid to us. Thanks again. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure. I'll do it again. :) --JN466 09:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Problem has been addressed. Images need alt text as per WP:FACR #3. I added alt text to the lead image; can someone please add it for the remaining images? Please see WP:ALT for advice. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added alt text, per your suggestion. This is the first time I've heard of or used alt text, so if I've blundered, let me know. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think all we FAC writers are in the same boat. With the benefit of my day-old expertise(?) on this subject, my own feeling is that the artist's impressions at least could do with a bit more detail. For example, in the first one you could say it's facing left, that its back is horizontal, and it is pale green and black. Please don't take this as gospel, someone who actually knows what they are doing may have a different view, and I certainly wouldn't make this a deal-breaker. jimfbleak (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Jim. I incorporated part of one. I'm sort of leery about including colors in the alt text; in the example given on the alt text page, the coin really is gold. Here, the color is entirely speculative. It would probably work quite well for a bird, where the colors are definitely known... but a fossil animal? I'd hate to give the impression that some sort of color has been preserved in/with the fossils... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, briefer alt text is probably better; at least that's what I've been told by a visually-impaired reader. Imagine having to wait for a longwinded person to explain an image to you.... Anyway, I adjusted the alt text a bit. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Eubulides. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Query please forgive my ignorance, but "The balancing tail, partially stiffened by overlapping vertebral processes" lost me towards the end of the sentence. Is there another way to express that? ϢereSpielChequers 07:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked this to The tail, partially stiffened by overlapping vertebral projections, balances the body and is also an adaptation for speed. No doubt Firsfron will change this if it has made the water even muddier Jimfbleak. Talk to me 10:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jim. I've tweaked it further so that it's all past tense, to match the rest of the paragraph. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, also the paleoclimate mentions forests and rains but not whether it was tropical, temperate etc. ϢereSpielChequers 06:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll check the source tomorrow (when I have access to several papers used in the article), but generally the Triassic was warmer than it is today. The North and South Pole were temperate. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned the moist, warm, though seasonal, climate, with references. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Gah! They were all fixed. In my effort to clarify "upland" (above), I linked to a disambiguation page. Now fixed. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns:

• File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg: what are the sources used for this drawing?
• File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg: "after skeletal by C. Abraczinskas and P. Sereno", who are Abraczinskas and Sereno, or is the skeletal in a publication of theirs?

Otherwise, Images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All images were approved at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review, File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg here and File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg here. File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg is based on the work of paleontologist Paul C. Sereno (whose recovery of the skull of Herrerasaurus is discussed in this article) [4][5][6]. I don't know of any sources File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg is based on, but it was also approved. We routinely remove images in which the illustration differs appreciably from known skeletal elements, implied skeletal elements (via bracketing), known non-skeletal elements, implied non-skeletal elements, known range of motion, or images which depict a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. WP:DINO is keenly aware of potential problems depicting dinosaurs, and set up an Image Review in 2006 to address the problem. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please insert the sources for BW in the Description or Source (centralize the sources for the depiction). As for DB, inserting the link for the Dino project's review of this image and pointing out the possible discrepancies in the Description could do, I guess (perhaps that can be done for all images vetted by the project?). Jappalang (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any (current) discrepancy with the DB image. The wrist pronation ("bunny hands") that was discussed during the image review has since been modified, along with a potential dewclaw problem. I'll certainly add the sources for BW. Thanks for the image review. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources added for BW. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments on sources

• Ref [4]: ISBN required
• Ref [22]: should this show publisher?
• Ref [27]: does not seem to be fully formatted.

Otherwise sources look good Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ref 4 has ISBN now added. Ref 22 already shows the publisher: Gustav Fischer Verlag. I've removed ref 27; although it appeared correctly formatted (it was an episode from a dinosaur documentary called The Nature of the Beast, and thus looked "different" from the paper references), it was from 1990, and didn't add a huge amount of value to the article, since the material was already sourced anyway. Thanks again for the review. Please feel free to make additional comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Some comments:
  • Herrerasaurusskeleton.jpg and its caption doesn't say which dino is which
  • "allowing it to slide back and forth to deliver a grasping bite" maybe would be too speculative, but could there be a sentence on what it could have used it for, or what those reptiles use that kind of jaw for
  • "Herrerasaurus was bipedal" bit sharp break from previous sentence; I can't think of how to improve it though

Narayanese (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've altered the caption (but now will the alt caption need adjusting as well?) per your observation. The flexible joint was used for better grasping of its prey. We can mention this feature evolved independently in lizards, but would drawing more of a parallel be OR-ish? I'll see if I can dig up any studies that might compare the Herrerasaurus jaw with those of the anguinomorphans. I've reworded the bipedal sentence to soften it a bit, and split that part off into its own paragraph. Feel free to revert if I've gone too far, or rework if I've not gone far enough. Thanks again for your observations, Narayanese. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference. Specifically, I noted current ref 21 (Novas...) and 29 (Bonaparte...) but there may be others.
• What makes http://www.palaeos.com/ a reliable source? (I'm on the fence about it, it looks pretty decent but I can't find an "about us" page to see who's behind us.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Ealdgyth. I've added Spanish parameters to four of the references. Palaeos is quite good; it's not peer-reviewed, but it's good technical material that has been a recommended site at Wikipedia:DINO#Good_non-primary_sites_.28technical.29 for almost four years. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is behind the site? Are they experts in their field? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The authors of Palaeos are Augustus Toby White and M.A. Kazlev, according to their Authors page. According to the page, Mr. White wrote the vertebrate parts, has a Ph.D in biology from Johns Hopkins University, and did some lectures on evolution at Florida Gulf Coast University. Also according to the page, the Palaeos site "is used as supplementary course material at colleges and universities including Cambridge University (UK), the University of Helsinki (Fin.), the University of Washington (USA), Heidelberg University (Ger.), and the Universidad de Granada (Spain), as well as numerous smaller colleges, universities and high schools throughout the world." Firsfron of Ronchester 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: Palaeos is recommended in Benton's Vertebrate Palaeontology[7]. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Some comments:

• File:Herrerasaurus BW.jpg as a left-aligned image breaks the level three heading right below it on even rather small screen resolutions, violating WP:MOSIMAGES; move it!
• Similar issue with File:Herrerasaurus DB.jpg; it's butting into the references section below it, shearing off a good chunk of space that could be used for the columns. Add a {{-}} or similar.
• The tone throughout is generally good, but then there are these rather peculiar phrases, such as "This dinosaur is an enigmatic creature, showing traits that are found in different groups of dinosaurs", where its abruptly shifts and sounds much less formal.
• The article kind of... ends. I dunno, it just seems odd to just stop after imparting to us its diet. I dunno anything about dinosaur article guidelines, and it's not like it has or could support an "in popular culture" end, but there's got to be a better way to tie things up? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the observations, David. I've added a {{-}} for DB, and could do the same for BW, but it will cause that section to have a rather large white space on high resolutions. I don't notice it at my normal resolution. The illustration won't work in other sections, as it's used to give the reader a better impression of what Herrerasaurus may have looked like, an impression text simply cannot give. The h2 sections were roughly modeled after Featured Article Compsognathus (Description, Discovery and species, Paleoecology, Paleobiology, Classification, and Popular culture) but in a different order and without a goofy Herrerasaurus "pop culture" section which would be quite anemic. I guess we could tie in your observation to Cas' and have some sort of "Conclusion" section? "To wrap up, Herrerasaurus is important because it's the earliest well-known blah-blah..."? Let me know if this would be acceptable. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello??? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The space breaks larger than it needs to be because of the infobox; it still looks sloppy at anything about 1152px wide screens, but I'm not going to force it. Eh, a conclusion isn't really necessary, just forget it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm thrilled this article has suddenly got so much attention. I will attempt to address all the new observations ASAP, but must retire for now. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I've read Herrarasaurus, and Staurikosaurus, had vestigial outer toes, is that so? If it is, I couldn't find any mention of it in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The article currently reads, "Its fourth and fifth digits were small stubs without claws.[3][9]" I could add the word "vestigial" to it, creating "Its fourth and fifth digits were small vestigial stubs without claws." Firsfron of Ronchester 02:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

But isn't that a description of the fingers? I was referring to the feet. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not aware of the toes being vestigial. The Dinosauria (2004) on page 39 shows the pes (foot) with five digits, and although digits I and V (the outer toes) are small and didn't bear weight, at least digit I bore a claw. This is a little different from Guaibasaurus, where digit V appears to have shrunk to a single useless bone. I will add the above to the article, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added The foot had five toes, but only the middle three (digits II, III, and IV) bore weight. The outer toes (I and V) were small; the first toe had a small claw. per your observations, Funk. What's next? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I meant, Herrera and other early theropods were apparently unusual due to having five toes on each foot, with the outer one being clawless. Other than that, I don't have anything to add, so I support the nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Funk, and the observation. If you see anything else which sticks out (or doesn't) please feel free to adjust it yourself or bring it up here. Thanks again. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:48, 28 July 2009 [8].

---

Charles Carroll the Settler

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this article's in good shape - just finished adding some more sources and clarifications. One note - the peer reviewer of the article suggested a legacy section, which I chose not to do simply because the legacy can be summed up in a sentence or two. If reviewers here disagree with that assessment, one could certainly be added in. Thanks in advance for taking a look. Geraldk (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I switched the Citation template to cite encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing that out, hadn't known not to mix them. Appreciate the review. Geraldk (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. How many founding fathers of Maryland are you aiming for? I have a number of Maryland ancestors which would be cool to see done well... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As many as I have time for. It helps being in relatively close proximity to the University of Maryland libraries for sources. Anyone in particular I should add to my list? Geraldk (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the faulty dashes in the page ranges in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Request placed. Thanks for the suggestion. Geraldk (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

He just ran it. Thanks again for the suggestion. Geraldk (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good from a prose point of view. I can't speak as to comprehensiveness, but it seems like a useful resource. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Geraldk (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• Early life and emigration:

• "whose family had lost much of their land" watch for redundancy and passive voice. Would be better without "had".
• Link Aghagurty?
• "Some of the family property near Aghagurty had been obtained by a friend" change "had been" to "was".
• "fostered out to" - better as "fostered to"?
• "and both civil and canon law" - "both" is unnecessary here. "May of 1685" another redundant word.
• Wikilink call members to the bar?

"who was at the time" is unnecessary

• James II is a disambig, as is James I and John Coode.
• "Maryland had been founded in the 1630s" had been->was again.
• Wikilink Protestant?
• You might like to wikilink Parliament to a more specific article.

• Career and rise to wealth in Maryland:

• "If he hoped to find a greater level of religious tolerance in Maryland than he had experienced in England, he was to be sorely disappointed" sounds a bit odd.
• No need to repeat wikilinks, such as James II and Glorious Revolution.
• "15 year old" hyphenate?

Overall: there were quite a few typos I fixed but may have missed some - please check through. Also, why was he called "the Settler"? When did that come about? Majorly talk 22:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review. I think I've addressed all of the comments. Aghagurty is a red link, unfortunately, and I think it will remain so for a while. I desperately tried to find an alternate name that had a wikipedia article, but to no avail. The gaelic variant did a number of the search engine - it was kind of entertaining. I have added a little bit to the lead concerning the use of 'the Settler' after his name. The only explanation I found was in Hoffman, who claims it was used to differentiate him from his descendents of the same name. However, Hoffman does not mention whether Carroll himself used it in his own lifetime or when it began to be used. I did not specifically mention his son and grandson's name, because I think it would make that first sentence of the lead unwieldy. Let me know what you think on that. Will also do another thorough copy-edit in the next hour or two. Geraldk (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment
  • "English Catholics. was As a result" Could you double check whether this is just a typo left over from a cut and paste, or perhaps something else is wrong here?
  • "to an associate of his,an associate of Charles Calvert," here too. TwilligToves (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ack! Yeah, those were both from cutting and pasting between Word and Wiki. Thanks for catching them. Here I try to fix a confusing paragraph and it ends up even more confusing... Geraldk (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. The prose isn't bad on a sentence level, but the article suffers from a lack of clarity and organization in many places. It almost feels like things were chopped up and moved around at times without consideration for the surrounding text. "He and "his" are bandied about in confusing ways when multiple men are being discussed. This requires more than a surface copyedit—it needs substantial revision, probably by someone unfamiliar with the text. I became confused reading the text at times; for example:
  • The entire first paragraph in "Career and rise to wealth in Maryland" is a muddled mess. You say Carroll was to be disappointed with the tolerance for Catholics, then move into tensions, then the economy, then more tensions.. but you never actually get around to following up on the opening of the paragraph.
  • "During the rebellion, Carroll was recovering from the "hard seasoning" often experienced by immigrants to the new world whose bodies were acclimatizing to local conditions." This is kind of hanging out there with no obvious purpose. It doesn't seem related to anything else you've been discussing. Are you implying that he was unable to act against the rebellion because of his physical condition? This requires clarity.
  • "The money he accumulated through this and other means was used among other things to begin making loans, and after 1713 he became the largest mortgage lender in the colony, in addition to personal loans he made." Oof. This behemoth conveys many things, some of them more than once.
  • "His case may have been undermined as well when he came to the defense of his nephew, who had raised a toast to the Catholic James Stuart." The placement of this sentence is such that we have no idea who "he" is; the last "he" named was Hart, and he had taken a "case" to the legislature. Surely you don't mean Hart?
  • "His eldest son Henry had died a year before" Again, the last person you name is Hart. Hart's son died? But the following text confuses the issue even more.

--Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• comment - Ref 11 is broken. ceranthor 22:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through again, and had a friend go through, to try to modify it for clarity. Take a look and let me know what you think. I paid special attention to those portions where multiple actors made it difficult to keep the he's straight. Thanks for your review and comments. Geraldk (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, I think it's ready now. Good work on this! --Laser brain (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Geraldk (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I hope you don't mind, but instead of posting a list here, I took a swing at some prose tweaks myself. The intermediate edit summaries give rationales for each of those, by the way; feel free to disagree with any change I've made. I like the way this article is written, though I'm positive others would find it verbose. I'd normally be one of them, but the wordiness occassionally works to the article's advantage. It's probably still worth giving it a pass to eliminate some of the more flimsily-justifiable redundancies, but overall this is very nice work. All the best, Steve ^T • C 22:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the read-through, and for the support. I'll do a pass specifically looking for redundancy. 71.99.117.141 (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on image concerns:

• File:Charles Carroll the Settler.jpg is an American painting. Justus Englehardt Kühn was naturalised as an American before painting this.[9] Accordingly, the painting comes under US law, which is primarily based on publication rather than life of author. Creation is not publishment. As far as I can tell, this painting was not published (i.e. no copies were sold or given to the public or for display), remaining in private collections until it ended up in the Maryland Historical Society. It was then published on p. 60 of Princes of Ireland, Planters of Maryland (1999), supplied by the courtesy of said society. Under the interpretations of Hirtle at Cornell,[10] works published "From 1 March 1989 through 2002" and "Created before 1978 and first published in this period" are copyrighted for "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry [70 years after the death of author] or 31 December 2047". Unless proof of publishment is given, this work is still copyrighted under US law.

  Can anyone check if this painting appeared in The bicentenary celebration of the birth of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1937 (Libraries holding this book)? If yes, on which page and is there a copyright notice in the front pages of the book? Jappalang (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Benedict Calvert.jpg: a European painting with unclear authorship and date.[11] Although put as a series of "Six Lords Baltimore", the paintings (others are 17th–18th century) are collected from different sources.[12][13] This might be public domain but we need to ascertain by what evidence and with what sort of license we can attribute this. Brought up at commons:Commons talk:PD files#File:Benedict Calvert.jpg to clarify its status.

  There is a concensus that it is very likely this painting has lapsed into public domain. Jappalang (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Other images are verifiably in the public domain. A note for all editors: please check on the background and information provided for the images before using them in the articles (the ones here were very lacking). Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the issue isn't that I didn't check but that you've gotten into public domain law that I was apparently unaware of. I will follow the discussion of the Benedict Calvert picture, and will look into the Charles Carroll picture. Please clarify for me on the Charles Carroll image - I've been under the impression for a couple years that any photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art was covered by the copyright of the original work, as it describes in the tag:

This image is in the public domain because under United States copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law. The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection).

Is this no longer true? Geraldk (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The PD-Art tag applies to photographs and scans of public domain artwork. The position is that photos and scans (as reproductions) of paintings, which are in public domain, are effectively in public domain as well. Therefore, photographers or scanners cannot claim to have copyright over such reproductions. PD-Art does not apply to the paintings themselves. In effect, if a painting is not in public domain, photos and scans of it cannot be covered by PD-Art. Jappalang (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't an artwork enter the public domain 70 years after the death of its author? This painting is from the early 18th century, Kuhn was dead long before that 70 year limit. Geraldk (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not for US works. US works are based primarily on publishing date. Most other countries follow a 50- or 70-year pma (after death of author). When a US work is first published after 2002 (or created after 1977), then it follows a 70 year pma. Ref: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. Jappalang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But this was painted in the early 1700s. With paintings, aren't they 'published' when they are painted? So the copyright would have expired long, long ago. The fact that it was re-printed in a book should have no bearing on its copyright, since that reprinting is a copy of a two-dimensional work. Geraldk (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

From 101. Definitions of the US Copyright Laws (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html),

• Creation: "A work is 'created' when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work."
• Publication: "'Publication' is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication."

A painting that exists on its own is not published until "copies" of it are made available to the public. Creation is not publication. Note that the reprinting in books constitute "making copies available to the public"; hence publishing. Jappalang (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that it defines copy as "“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like it's using the word copy not to refer to a xerox copy of it but to the original object. Geraldk (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The object itself is a copy of the work, but publications requires "copies of a work" (plural). Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Public domain: "Furthermore, the publication must have had the consent of the author/creator or copyright holder of the work." The artist has been dead for hundreds of years. There is no possibility that the author of the book got his approval before publication. Therefore, doesn't that mean that the publication of the image in Prince of Ireland, Planters of Maryland does not constitute publication under U.S. copyright law, and therefore that the work is considered unpublished and is in the public domain because its author died long before 1939? Geraldk (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyrights of an author can be transferred, either through law or estates. In this case, the Maryland Historical Society has the copyrights (Kühn surrendered his to the Carroll family, who transferred it to the Society on donation), which is why the painting was published in Princes of Ireland, Planters of Maryland by the society's courtesy and permission. It would be more helpful to check if the painting was published in The bicentenary celebration of the birth of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1937. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am working on that, and have been communicating with the Maryland Historical Society to get permission as an alternative. I'm out of town, and have had limited access to computers, so it's going slowly. I am simply trying to understand your interpretation of the copyright law, which I believe to be a misinterpretation. It seems fundamentally ridiculous to me that a 300 year old painting could be under a current copyright, and worry that if your opposition on this nomination, and I assume opposition to other articles on similar grounds, is based on an overzealous interpretation of the law, it could be detrimental to my work and the work of other editors. Geraldk (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this makes a difference, but Jappalang's statement that "Justus Englehardt Kühn was naturalised as an American before painting this" is problematic from a historical perspective, which therefore makes me wonder about his follow-up statement that "Accordingly, the painting comes under US law." He may be entirely correct in his conclusion, but it is perhaps worth pointing out that the painter was a British subject and never a US citizen, that there was no US for decades after his death, and that there was no such thing as being "naturalised as an American" at the time. These points may be irrelevant to the copyright status of the painting, but I mention them in case this information is helpful. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 00:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Geraldk, please take a look at Circular 15a (underlined portions for emphasis):

Works in existence but not published or copyrighted on January 1, 1978: Works that had been created before the current law came into effect but had neither been published nor registered for copyright before January 1, 1978 automatically are given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for new works: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. However, all works in this category are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection. The law specifies that in no case will copyright in a work of this sort expire before December 31, 2002, and if the work is published before that date the term will extend another 45 years, through the end of 2047.

There is no misinterpretation. On Janurary 1, 1978, all works not published or copyrighted but created before then are given 25 years of copyright protection. Hence the 70-year pma ruling called forth by the 1976 law (which was supposed to take effect on January 1, 1978) is superseded for these works.

Kevin, I think you are correct in that there is no America at that time (hence "naturalised as an American" would be wrong), but as the painting is first published in the US, the US copyright laws apply here. Jappalang (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Do painted copies of a painting count as publication? Geraldk (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, because wikipedia image policy is about as comprehensible as quantum physics, in what way should I ask the MHS to release the painting? Geraldk (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Painted copies, as in reproductions like those sold on artnet? If those copies are legally authorised and are given to be exhibited or sold to anyone, then yes, the painting has been published in the year the first copy (excluding the original) was distributed. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, an affirmation that the painting has lapsed or they release it into the public domain and that anyone can freely make copies or derivative works of it for any purpose. Alternatively, as the copyright holders, they can license the work under Creative Commons by 3.0 or sharealike (meaning anyone can do the same as with the previous, but they have to attribute the copyright holder). Their intent to do so must be clear. Ref: commons:Commons:OTRS. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This image is certainly public domain. The rule for unpublished works is life of the author plus 70 years or 120 years after creation for anonymous works.[14] Rmhermen (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, as stated above, the pma rules apply post-2003. When the law came into effect on 1 January 1978, all unpublished works that have not been published at that time are copyrighted for 25 years and if published during 1978 and 2002 gains further copyright protection. It is on 1 January 2003 that we can use the 120 years for unpublished works guideline to gauge if works still unpublished from that date on are in public domain. Also take note that the Cornell site follows the law, "1978 to 1 March 1989/From 1 March 1989 through 2002" ... "Created before 1978 and first published with notice in the specified period/Created before 1978 and first published in this period" ... "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047". Jappalang (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jappalang - are you really saying that 300 year old paintings are copyrighted in the US? I'm afraid I just can't take that at face value. As far as I can tell, any possible claim of copyright for the painting expired before 1855, and the paintings from before 1789 were never subject to US copyright law, because the US did not exist when they were created. From the circular 15a you previously quoted - "Works already in the public domain cannot be protected under the 1976 law or under the amendments of 1992 and 1998. The Act provides no procedure for restoring protection for works in which copyright has been lost for any reason." Smallbones (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Works already in the public domain" applies to works published before 1923 and those published from 1923 to 1978 that did not follow copyright requirements; they have passed into the public domain before 1978 and are unaffected. Circular 15a applies to unpublished work before 1978: "all works in this category (Works that had been created before the current law came into effect but had neither been published nor registered for copyright before January 1, 1978 automatically are given federal copyright protection.) are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection." There is no lapse. US copyright law before 1978 considers first publishing not death of author. As such, on 1 January 1978, unpublished works are not considered to have lapsed into public domain yet just because their author died 70 years ago—they are given at least 25 years of protection. Jappalang (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fiddle-faddle. You've already said that the consensus at Commons was that it is in the public domain. To repeat the Cornell website info:

"Type of Work Copyright Term What was in the public domain in the U.S. as of 1 January 2009

Unpublished works Life of the author + 70 years Works from authors who died before 1939"

I don't know what point you are trying to make here with your completely novel theory, but please take it to a forum on copyright questions. It is inappropriate here. Smallbones (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did I say the concensus at Commons for this painting of Charles Carroll is in the public domain? You are mistaking laws as retroactive. 1978 laws would not apply to a time in 1945; otherwise there would be cries of complaint that a 1945 copyright registered work (whose author died in 1874) would be in public domain, which is not true. Again, Cornell's interpretation already abides by this law, otherwise there would not be their "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry [70 years after the death of author] or 31 December 2047" for works published between 1978 and 2002, which you have conveniently overlooked. Jappalang (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll start a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions where you can argue your completely novel theory that 300 year old paintings can be protected by US copyright laws. Let's please leave this FAC review out of it for the time being. If you can get agreement there (!) then you can always come back and ask for the FA on this (and on every other FA with 300 year old paintings in it) to be reviewed based on your theory. Smallbones (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the images are the holdup for this FAC to be closed. I've read the discussion at WP:Media copyright questions, which seems to be a rehash of the arguments already here. Would this image qualify for fair use (assuming it is not PD)? If so, the easiest way to resolve this problem may be to add a fair-use rationale. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:Media copyright questions seems to be over and settled. By my count only 2 editors supported the concept of a copyright on a 300 year old painting and 7 were against. A similar question was also settled at commons:Commons talk:PD files#File:Benedict Calvert.jpg. Let's move on. Smallbones (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus isn't determined by number of !votes, however, especially when this concerns a legal matter. Karanacs (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use is an acceptable solution, as a rationale of "identification of a long-deceased subject who is the focus of critical commentary and has no visual representation except for this portrait" (or such) would be valid. Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead with fair use if you'd like, but I've asked User:Rlevse to make a note at commons that the issue has been discussed and File:Charles Carroll the Settler.jpg found to be in the public domain, as he did for File:Benedict Calvert.jpg - it's really the same issue, 300 year old copyrights are just not possible in practice. I think it's time to move on and accept that this will never be an issue for any 300 year old artwork. Smallbones (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC) It's now confirmed at Commons that this is public domain. Can we please move on? Smallbones (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• COI and thus moral Support - I am CoI'd from really participating even though this is a borederline but an interesting CoI of mine. Regardless, I would say that I would support it and make some minor suggestions, but I could not do so directly in clean conscience. I did want to say that I feel that the above image concerns are a false interpretation of law, especially with the law being based on death of the artist unlike UK law. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Well written prose, properly footnoted, good background material and well structured. And I hope nobody minds if I say that I like the pictures. Smallbones (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking issues et al.. But the prose looks generally OK.

• Why are "France" and "England" linked? See MOSLINK.
• the only Catholic signatory to, not signer of, I think.
• "he had moved to London"—unless London, Ontario is suddenly within the realms of possibility, "London" should not generally be linked.
• "George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore"—It's linked just above (although piped there, and I wonder why not the full term first, and no link second time). Tony (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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 02:58, 25 July 2009 [15].

---

The Bartered Bride

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Bartered Bride is one of the sunniest operas, composed by one of the saddest of men. Please listen to the soundfile; you may want to hear more. The article has been a labour of love, which I hope does the work justice. Brianboulton (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: I participated in the peer review of this article, which was already very fine. If anything, it has become even finer. The quality of writing and research is extremely high, and the writer's enthusiasm for his subject makes this an enjoyable read. It fully deserves to be promoted to FA status. Jonyungk (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this article in a recent peer review and I think it passes the FA criteria. It is very well researched, balanced in content and neutrality, it contains suitable images, the prose is excellent. These aspects make the article fantastic to read. I believe it can be promoted for a FA. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Wow. I wish I could write prose like that. Eubulides (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Indeed, sometimes I don't even run through Brian's articles because he is such a brilliant writer, and when he receives constructive criticism, he takes it and does more. ceranthor 00:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. This article is delightful to read and rich in well-documented detail. It offers the general reader an excellent introduction to this opera and pulls together its musical and cultural importance in a few tightly written paragraphs. Deserves to be promoted to FA so it may be more widely read. A fine achievement. Markhh (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Brian, the usual accolades apply. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Media review: I have kept an eye on the media for this article since Brian started working on it (even once calling deletion for the sound file and proven wrong on it), and they are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong support Peer reviewing this article was rather a disheartening experience, as it was so very good (better than I could do with months of work) - an engaging, beautifully-written, thoroughly-researched read. Definitely an FA. Ricardiana (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Strong support An exemplary article, meticulously referenced and beautifully written with just the right balance between detail and flow. The Reception and performance history section should serve as a model for all opera articles! Importantly, the article is 'scholarly' (in the best sense of the word) but interesting and accessible to the general reader. As usual with Brian's articles, the use of illustrations (both audio and visual) is both apt and attractive. Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I am somewhat overwhelmed by the generosity of the above comments, and would just like to mention that the article owes a lot to the rigour of its peer review, to which several of the above commentators made forceful contributions and to whom much credit is due. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Looks well-sourced, well-structured, and the media review a-ok's the media. I'm not an opera guy, but it seems like a FA to me. The ONLY thing I would ask, and you've probably already looked for this, is whether or not there's a cast photo of the original cast to go alongside the "Roles" table. Not very important though, great work! Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen such a photograph, or any reference to its existence, so I can't oblige here, I'm afraid. Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. (perhaps the only issue that will arise in this FAC!) Dabomb87 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and done. (I had fixed this dab in the text, but forgot that the name was also linked in the sources.) Damn! Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Tough I am not saying anything new, this article is a masterpiece. OboeCrack (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support: Concerns resolved. Very good article, which did its job in raising my interest in the topic. However I feel that the Lead is a little "dry" as it stands, and could use some tweaking to make the article over-all more attractive and readable for users.**Primarily I think there needs to be a new second sentence which emphasises the notability of the subject. Perhaps something along the lines of: "The opera is considered to have made a major contribution towards the development of Czech music."
  • "It was composed during the period 1863–66, and first performed in a two-act format with spoken dialogue at the Provisional Theatre, Prague, on 30 May 1866."

The date seems a bit of an afterthought as it stands. Might be better as.. It was composed during the period 1863–66, and first performed at the Provisional Theatre, Prague, on 30 May 1866 in a two-act format with spoken dialogue."

• • "Set in a country village and with realistic characters, it tells the story of true love prevailing, after a late surprise revelation, over the combined efforts of ambitious parents and a scheming marriage broker."

The clause "after a late surprise revelation", adds little, and makes the sentence jerky, and slightly too long to assimilate easily. Why not remove?

• • "The opera, Smetana's second, was written as part of the composer's quest to create a genre of Czech national opera, which up to that time was represented only by minor, rarely performed works. "

Again this sentence seems dry, since it is long and makes its principal point near the end. I would suggest reordering into two sentences. Something like: "Czech national opera until this time had been represented only by a number of minor, rarely performed works. This opera, Smetana's second, was part of his quest to create a truly Czech operatic genre." Xandar 11:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your first, second and fourth points are excellent, and I have incorporated them. On the third point, I'm not so sure. The "surprise revelation" is the key moment in the opera; not mentioning it in this one-line summary might detract quite a bit. Would the sentence be less "jerky" if the latter part was amended to: "...it tells the story of how, after a late surprise revelation, true love prevails over the combined efforts of ambitious parents and a scheming marriage broker."? Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, It works a lot better like that. Since my concerns were relatively minor, and have now been dealt with, I am happy to join in supporting the article for FA. Xandar 03:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased. Thanks for your support and for these suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support this is a wonderful article and I could not find anything to improve on a close reading. It fully meets all the FAC criteria, well done Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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 02:58, 25 July 2009 [16].

---

Choral symphony

Nominator(s): Jonyungk (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a considerable amount of work and two peer reviews, I believe it is either currently at or fast approaching FA quality. At this stage, it would only be beneficial for the article to receive FAC feedback and eventual promoition to featured article status. Jonyungk (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I added alt text for the first image, to help get you started. Eubulides (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you very much for alerting me to this. Jonyungk (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Another welcome nomination by a writer who is likely to raise WP's profile in this field. I've had a go at the lead—please see what you think.
  • I like what you've done with the lead so far. It reads much more smoothly than before. Jonyungk (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• A couple of things apart from the purely micro-technical (including quite a few redundancies and repeat links):
  • "Because the intention was for the choral symphony to remain symphonic (rather than narrative or dramatic), the words were treated symphonically to pursue non-narrative ends, with frequent repetition of important words and phrases, and the transposing, reordering and omission of linguistic passages." The causality (swinging on "Because") works for me, but may I question the opposition created of "symphonic" vs "narrative/dramatic"? I'd have thought it was a fusion, rather than one or the other. Doesn't opera do the same? ("frequent repetition of important words and phrases and transposing, reordering and omission of passages to pursue non-narrative ends"). I do notice a slight tendency in your writing to create binary concepts where it might be safer not to; if I may be so bold, I think this emanates from the sources, and while sources are at the heart of WP's text, we do have the lattitude to pick and choose and interpret a little.
    • You have a very good point. Opera does do the same though the driving force behind an opera remains the overall plot, whereas with the choral symphony the compositional rules governing the symphony take (or should take) precedence. But I have thought through what you are saying about the fusion of symphonic and narrative/dramatic elements and you're essentially right—it is more of a fusion rather than one over the other. I'm open as to how to reword this passage. What about: "The intention was for the choral symphony to remain symphonic, even with its fusion of narrative or dramatic elements that stemmed from the inclusion of words. To this end, the words were treated symphonically to pursue non-narrative ends, with frequent repetition of important words and phrases, and the transposing, reordering and omission of linguistic passages"? Jonyungk (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's ok. Just one point: a choral symphony can be under the influence of an external narrative even in parts where there is no singing; is that correct? Tony (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is correct. Berlioz mentions this and it is covered to some extent under "Programmatic intent" with the two Schnittke symphonies. I've now mentioned this aspect in the lead section and in "General features" but am open to suggestions on how or whether this should be rephrased.Jonyungk (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "The text came to determine not only tone, but the basic symphonic outline, while the orchestra maintained an equal share with chorus and soloists in conveying the musical ideas." Will readers know what "tone" means here? Is it to do with the linguistic relationship between writer and listeners? And here, I don't quite get the connection that hangs on "while"—these are two quite different statements, aren't they, and deserve separate sentences. Risky to transmit the idea of "equal share" ... really equal? Perhaps "the orchestra conveyed the musical ideas to a similar extent as chorus and soloists"? I'm unsure, but what is there now is unsafe, I feel. This similarity in contribution is compared with what precursor?
    • I've changed the wording per your suggestion. Jonyungk (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Do watch the "noun plus -ing" constructions, which are usually replaceable by neater grammar ("the first example of a major composer using the human voice"). See these nerdy exercises, on which I'm pleased to receive feedback. The latest edition of the Chicago MOS rightly says that "with" as a connector, can be clumsy, too. Tony (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: Declaration - I have done substantial copyediting on this article, and have watched its progress from a very uncertain, incomplete draft at its first peer review, to what I think is now a mature and high-quality article. No doubt (as with almost every FA I've seen) it could benefit from a final pass over the prose - I have just got rid of a few "with" connectors - but I see no reason at this stage to withhold support. This is a lucid exposition of an important musical concept, thoroughly deserving of its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the declaration and for all the time you put into this article, which was really going "above and beyond the call." Jonyungk (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed this article, and while it was good then, I believe it is even better now. It is a well-written, thoroughly researched article that meets the FA criteria. Ricardiana (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and for all your help on this article. Jonyungk (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on basis of criteria 3:

• File:Krzysztof Penderecki.jpg: {{PD-Poland}} requires the first publication date and the absence of a copyright notice then, so where was this first published?
  • This image has been removed. Jonyungk (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• File:8th.jpg: similarly, for {{PD-US}} first publishing is required—creation is not publication. When or where was this image first published?
  • I would guess probably sometime close to the premiere as it is obviously a publicity photo. What would be the easiest way of finding out? Jonyungk (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A search at or contact with the Otto E. Albrecht Music Library could yield results. Jappalang (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I have sent an inquiry to the library and should receive a reply within the next business day. Jonyungk (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Image removed. Jonyungk (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• File:1944 Soviet investigators at Babi Yar.jpg: what makes this a public domain image? Who stated it came from the Soviet Archives? The Holocaust Museum certainly does not say so.[17] In fact, it warns that images on its site can be copyrighted.[18] Was it taken by a Soviet? Could it not be a journalist? "In October 1943, as German forces were beginning to retreat from Russian territory, Soviet officials brought a group of foreign reporters to Babi Yar, the ravine outside Kiev in which the Nazis had killed thousands of Jews." per Lipstadt, Deborah, 1993, Beyond Belif, p. 245, Simon & Schuster. Other journalists have visited the site at various times in '43–44.[19][20] Furthermore, this image most likely would not qualify for {{PD-Russia-2008}} or {{PD-Ukraine}}. The photo was taken in 1944, first publishing is unknown, as well as the identity of the photographer.
  • Replaced by Image:Poster08.jpg Jonyungk (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Any Soviet work that comes under {{PD-Russia-2008}} must have their authors dead before 1941–1942; works under {{PD-Ukraine}} would have publishing before 1 June 1946 and their authors dead before that time too. This poster, published in 1949,[21][22] fails on both (and it is questionable as declared under Ukraine as well). Jappalang (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Replaced with File:JStalin Secretary general CCCP 1942.jpg. Jonyungk (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Not too confident with that one. The War Department acquired photos from several foreign sources. This might comply with PD-Ukraine but we need to know the publishing date and author. Furthermore, it is most likely PD-Russia-2008 (which likely acquired most of the Soviet materials after the break up), which asks for death of author... so I recommend:

          File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-19400-0029, Berlin, Marx-Engels-Platz, Demonstration.jpg,

          File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-18684-0002, Dresden, Tod Stalin, Parade KVP.jpg,

          File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R80329, Josef Stalin.jpg,

          or File:Stalin 1945.jpg.

        • Take your pick. Jappalang (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Photo replaced with File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-18684-0002, Dresden, Tod Stalin, Parade KVP.jpg. Jonyungk (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Okay, that leaves us with just the 8th.jpg for opposition material. Hopefully, we get some good news soon. Jappalang (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• File:Gustav-Mahler-Kohut.jpg: please move this to Wikipedia. 1900 German publication of a 1892 creation means it is possible the creator did not die more than 70 years ago. In fact, this photo was taken by "Berliner Photographie" in 1896.[23] Information from this photo, likely in the same set, points to commons:Creator:E. Bieber and expiration of German copyrights. Jappalang (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• File:OldCity07.JPG: not part of the opposition; the image seems okay, except for the date... EXIF states January 2007, uploader says July 07... Perhaps a clarification with the author is needed? Not a big deal, though (could be wrong setting on the camera, or bad memory...).

All other images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks as always for all the work you put in. You really do a lot and it is appreciated. Jonyungk (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Greetings. Here are few issues (which however might be wrong):

• History, paragraph 3: what do you mean with "cosmic nature of the symphony". I think it's a metaphor. The word "cosmic" should be replaced. Maybe "epic"??
• Musical treatment of text, paragraph 1: "The composer write," shouldn't there be "writes"?
• Supplanting text wordlessly, paragraph 4: There is a "programmic", which I think you ment to be "programmatic".

Except for this three minor issues, the article doesn't seem to have any problems. The research is broad and the prose is fluent. It explains the topic very well and I think it meets the criteria.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing out these things, which have all been addressed, and for your comments and support. They are all appreciated. Jonyungk (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment "a capella" I always thought it had two "p"'s. Nice work otherwise (this has been promoted; I was just doing some minor polishing before the FA star is tacked on). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It does have two "p"s. Thanks for pointing this out. Jonyungk (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:41, 21 July 2009 [24].

---

Linezolid

Nominator(s): Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Linezolid is a very expensive drug of last resort used to treat serious "superbug" infections—the subject matter of WP:PHARM articles may not be very exciting, but this one sure seemed exciting to me :) I first stumbled across this article a year ago, found it to be in pretty good shape for a stub, and decided to make a project out of it. Since only two other articles on drugs are featured—Bupropion and Sertraline—I didn't have much of a template to look at, and chose to follow WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS as closely as possible instead. For a drug with less than a decade of marketing experience, there is (thankfully) plenty of literature on linezolid, and I've tried to use the best and highest-quality sources available (thanks to II, Tim Vickers, and the kind folks at the Resource Exchange for helping out in this area).

The article passed WP:GA two months ago without a hitch, and I chose to forgo Peer review and ask for an independent copyedit instead (thank you, Outriggr!). I now believe the article meets all of the Featured article criteria. Here's hoping you'll agree with me. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. An excellent effort at giving an interesting compound the most thorough treatment. I believe it is currently up to FA standards. I would, however, thoroughly welcome any attempt to make the introduction (and possibly some other sections) slightly more readable for the layperson. This may require short explanations and expansion on technical terms (e.g. Gram positive). JFW | T@lk 20:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a brief explanation of what "Gram-positive" means in the "Spectrum of activity" section; "Resistance" may need some de-jargoning later. I'm wary of explaining more in the introduction because it is quite long already. Do you have any suggestions on which areas of the lead need to be more lay-friendly? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jfdwolff; it's an excellent and thorough summary, the sourcing is exemplary, and it's practically monograph-worthy. The only flaw I see is the one Jfdwolff identified: it's written in fairly technical language, and seems to assume the reader has a basic familiarity with medical and pharmacologic terminology. I think this is a minor issue and one we can readily fix, and otherwise it seems to exemplify some of Wikipedia's best work, as FA's ought to do. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I'm trying some generous application of WP:MTAA. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've explained some of the more esoteric concepts, such as post-antibiotic effect and what it means for a drug to have 100% oral bioavailability. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with JFW and MastCell that the prose could be a tad more lay-readable, even now, but wow! this article is first class all the way. Eubulides (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is fantastic—beautifully written and relatively accessible considering the complexity of the topic. I made a couple changes but didn't really find anything to complain about. For some reason, the ALT text in the infobox images is not working. The alt text just displays the file name. A code problem with the infobox perhaps? --Laser brain (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A little help, Eubulides? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm asking mostly out of curiosity since I wouldn't know where to look to find the answer: would it be reasonably correct when discussing the similarity with rivaroxaban to say that the pharmacophore in rivaroxaban is the morpholinone-phenyl group whereas the morpholine group is accessory in linezolid? Circeus (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Not likely; PMID 16161994 should have the answer. Rivaroxaban is probably devoid of antimicrobial activity because of the bulky chlorothiophene group "attached" to the acetamide. Even minor deviations from the 5-acetamidomethyl group (for instance, adding a single extra carbon atom) pretty much destroy antibiotic potential; reference 4 (Brickner, 1996) explains this in detail. Unfortunately, trying to explain this in the article would veer into WP:OR territory. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll look into it when I next get on campus. I'm not clear whether mentioning the similarity without discussing the source of differences is all that useful, though. Circeus (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Image review with two one concerns:

• File:Linezolid.svg: I do not think "2D structure of antibiotic drug linezolid" is accurate... what kind of structure (surely the drug's 2D physical appearance does not look like that, heh)? Sorry, I am not good with chemical terminologies (might mess the description up); otherwise I would have just done this myself.
  • Actually, that's accurate. See chemical structure and skeletal formula. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Umm, not quite. If I understand nothing of chemistry, "2D structure" would mean to me that the drawing is a physical representation of the subject (i.e. what it looks like to the naked eye). Your links above, however, allowed me to do this, which clarifies the description for anyone. Jappalang (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I have a terrible, terrible habit of presuming things of the reader. Yours is actually the wording I use in all the structural formulae I upload. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• File:CDC-10046-MRSA2.JPG: why is this used when the larger sized version (File:CDC-10046-MRSA.jpg) is available. This image is applicable for speedy deletion in commons under commons:Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates.
  • Hmm, that change was made by Materialscientist (talk · contribs) with an edit summary of "loading too slowly". I personally find it unadvisable to switch images for downsampled or lower-resolution equivalents because of file size concerns, but I'm on a good computer and a very fast broadband connection, so page loading times are rarely an issue for me; perhaps users with a dial-up connection, for instance, are having trouble loading the page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That is because the image was used in its full size, instead of as a thumbnail (which renders in the smaller size). I have been bold and used {{Multiple image}} with the larger image, tagging the smaller with Duplicate.

Just two concerns that should be very easily resolved. Images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fossil-coming-back-from-the-dead support for this excellent article. I have a few very minor suggestions for you to accept, ignore, or tell me how my recommendations violate the WP:MOSOMGWTFBBQ policy adopted in my absence.

• From the lead, the sentence "Although many antibiotics have similar mechanisms of action, that of linezolid appears to be unique." strikes me as slightly awkward, since we aren't told anything about how it differs until near the end of the article.
  • I thought it was important to mention mechanism of action in the lead, and it had to be in the second paragraph as that's when I introduce the oxazolidinones. The article body, however, follows WP:MEDMOS section ordering, with pharmacokinetics/dynamics all the way towards the bottom (not least because more technical content is usually left to the end of the article). Do you think it should be dropped from the lead? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm mostly nitpicking the prose, not the overall article structure. If you don't follow the mechanisms link and/or don't understand that there are multiple ways to inhibit protein synthesis, it reads like the unique feature is the protein synthesis inhibition. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I see what you mean. I'll see what I can do about this. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• In some areas you use "as of 2009", in another "as of June 2009".
  • Hmm, slip-up. I've changed all to "As of 2009" for consistency. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• In the chemistry section, the acetamide is listed as a desirable structural characteristic, but it's colored blue in the image?
  • Ah, yes. The 5-acetamidomethyl group is the best substituent, and it is essential for good activity (as noted in the caption), but several bioisosteric groups retain activity (with much higher MICs, though). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, maybe the caption wording needs adjusting? The text as written clearly groups "essential core" vs the acetamide, fluorine, and morpholine. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
      • This is a touchy one... I'll tweak the wording. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• It looks like the quinupristin/dalfopristin article is the only 'comparable' antibiotic that lacks structural images... hint, hint :) Speaking of which, is there anything interesting to the fact that the molecule is so much smaller than most of the others in the 'comparable' list?
  • I've been meaning to add an image to that article for quite some time now, but I'd like it to be a nice PyMol picture of both streptogramins interacting in their conformation... and I can't find the article where I first saw that! I think it was J Biol Chem, but some laziness on my part has contributed as well. Most protein synthesis inhibitors are quite small molecules (the macrolides are a notable exception, of course), but linezolid probably has a very "concise" structure because it's fully synthetic, and you have to remember the discovery of oxazolidinones as antibiotics was serendipitous; like the quinolones, they're not even "antibiotics" in the Waksman sense of the word (but that's another story, for another article I have in the works... :).
    • Looking forward to it! Now what's that you were saying about concise structures? I was just reading about this guy... Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Ah, the glitz and glamour of organic synthesis... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Maybe add a picture of the linezolid/ribosome structure? (As a side note, that ribosome cartoon is very pretty, but why no E site?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Adding a picture of the linezolid–ribosome complex was one of my first considerations, but the linezolid molecule looks so tiny; I could add a sort of picture-in-picture close-up or I could just add an image of the binding site, but neither option seemed ideal so I just let it go. As for the translation picture, you'll have to take it up with the very talented Mariana Ruiz. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I like the picture/inset idea, but it's not crucial. I'd take a whack at it myself, but... part of the reason I'm killing time on Wikipedia again is that my good home computer is broken, I'm using my netbook, and therefore I can't get any real work done! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll play with PyMol/QuteMol a bit when I get a chance and see what I can do. You can always do article work on a netbook, you know :) Isn't that what they're made for? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you so much for supporting, but I'm most glad to see you come out of retirement—you've been missed! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - This is spooky, I read this article for real-life reasons without noticing it was an FA candidate! I found all the answers to the questions that were on my mind, such as spectrum, mode of action, resistance and cost. I didn't know much about the problems with extended use, and in this regard, the article was particularly enlightening. It is beautifully written in a style that helps the reader—well this one—to remember the salient points without having to re-read sections. I fully support its promotion to FA and will recommend it to my students and colleagues, well done. Graham Colm ^Talk 07:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support with COI I did the GA review. In my view it is now fully worthy of FA status Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks pretty comprehensive to me. Meodipt (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Since I've read the article, I might as well. I fixed a rather obvious typo along the line, so it might be a good idea to ask a third if they wouldn't mind giving it a reading, but I nonetheless do think it ranks amongst our best stuff. Circeus (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ouch, thanks for catching that one. A spell checker is all but useless in an article with so many technical terms, so I guess I'll go over it manually once again. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Along with a few minor questions on linking: (1) Does "Gram-positive bacteria" in the lead need two adjacent links? If I needed to look up 'bacteria', I'm pretty sure I'd need to look up 'Gram-positive' as well. Why not make it a single link to Gram-positive bacteria? (2) There's another link to Gram-positive bacteria in " Spectrum of activity". Although I think a duplicate link is useful when it's well-separated from the first, don't you think in this case it's too close? Possibly Indication (medicine), Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus and resistant as well. (3) Does the article benefit from links to Skin, Headache and U.S. Dollar? You are sensibly using a lot of wikilinks to help explain technical terms, and links to commonly-understood terms rather dilute the value of the useful ones. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, most of your suggestions are in line with WP:LINK, so I've gone ahead and implemented them. Thanks :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• This article is excellent. Definitely FA worthy. Well done -- Samir 22:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from Axl:-

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Although many antibiotics have similar mechanisms of action, that of linezolid appears to be unique." Other oxazolidinone antibiotics are in development. Presumably they also have the same mechanism of action?

Yes, I've tweaked this (also at Opabinia's request), is it any better now? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

From "Therapeutic uses", paragraph 2: "In the United States, the FDA-approved indications for linezolid use are: vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus infection, with or without bacterial invasion of the bloodstream." The latter part of this sentence seems to me to be redundant. I previously removed it, but Fvasconcellos restored it.

Chemical structures of linezolid (top) and rivaroxaban (bottom). The shared oxazolidinone core is shown in blue.

I wonder if this picture (left) would be helpful in the "Chemistry" section?

It was my original idea, but I'm wary of making the article too structure-heavy—chemical structures aren't exactly reader-friendly. I would like to include it, though; I'll try to find a way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

From "Pharmacokinetics", paragraph 2: "Peak serum concentrations (Cmax) are reached one to two hours after administration of the drug, and are around 13 mg/L after a single dose and 16–19 mg/L after repeated administration; trough concentrations (Cmin) are 4–8 mg/L." Presumably this is following the default dose: 600 mg twice a day? Our guideline suggests that drug doses should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Therefore I question the value of including serum concentrations.

This was a lead-in to explaining concentrations in CSF and bronchial fluid, which play an important role in the efficacy of linezolid for CNS infections and pneumonia. Do you think it's meaningless if dosage information is not included? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Without knowing the dose, there's no value in the serum concentration. If these serum concentrations are supposed to lead to a discussion of CSF/bronchial concentrations, there should be CSF/bronchial concentrations included. Overall, I think that the article would be better without these values. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I see your point. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Fvasconcellos, overall, I think you have done a great job with this article! However, while I was reading it, I noticed that semicolons are used a fair amount. With that being said, I am not an expert on the topic, but are all of those semicolons necessary and/or being used properly? Regardless, again, great job. ---kilbad (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I do tend to use a lot of semicolons when writing. Do you feel any are used incorrectly? Are there any particular sentences you feel could be reworded for improved flow? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The only sentence that I personally would like to see re-worded a bit (and this is a very minor issue!) is "It does so by preventing the formation of the initiation complex, composed of the 30S and 50S subunits of the ribosome, tRNA, and mRNA; the oxazolidinones are the only drugs that inhibit this particular step of the process." Perhaps it would read a little better if broken up, and expanded into two sentences? ---kilbad (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note to reviewers: I am in the middle of a very, very serious family matter (suffices to say a relative of mine with a history of psychiatric disorders has gone missing) and I will be editing sporadically over the next few days. Nevertheless, rest assured that I will address any further issues that are raised—don't go closing my FAC! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:41, 21 July 2009 [25].

---

Ruffed lemur

Nominator(s): Visionholder (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the requirements for a FA. –Visionholder (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I can not understand how is it possible to have 20 to 75 references (in this article) per one single-page source. Does it mean those sources are entirely rewritten here (meaning no offense) ? Materialscientist (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  The sources are very dense, stating most of the known facts about the species. To write the article, I accumulated quotations from each of these books pertaining to a particular topic, then wrote about that topic, citing the books that supported what I wrote. There may be a few quotes from these sources, but for the most part, I tried to just use books as sources. The method I used for writing this article was identical to what I used to write Ring-tailed Lemur, although there are far fewer sources discussing Ruffed lemurs vs. Ring-tailed Lemurs (the most well-known and studied species). –Visionholder (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  The density of references is excessive. As a general rule, the lead should rarely contain refs - its sentences should be expanded in the body and that is where the refs go. Regarding the body, I understand that giving several refs is good if the reader can't access some of them, but not to overdo. Just an example, in subsection "Anatomy and physiology" we see refs 5,6,12 and then after a short sentence again 5,6,12. I would just delete those refs at that first occurrence, and check the rest of the article for over-referencing (e.g. repeating ref. 12 at the end of "Threats in the wild"). Materialscientist (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarrification. This should be fixed now. Please review at your earliest convenience. –Visionholder (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. This includes the two images in the infobox. Eubulides (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. –Visionholder (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comments - Yay! VH is back. I've been waiting for this article to pop up.
• Monkeyland Primate Sanctuary - When you mention this, it's the only organization not linked, perhaps you could provide its location or something just to tell about it?
  • Temporarily provided the location, but seriously thinking about creating a Wiki page for it within the coming week.
• No mammalian fossil record exists in Madagascar until recent times.' - in should either be for, or this sentence should be rewritten.
  • Fixed.
• ...that had once spread throughout Laurasia and Africa during the Eocene epoch.[7] - been spread
  • Fixed.
• down to anatomy: As with all lemurs, the ruffed lemur has special adaptations for grooming, including a toilet-claw on its second toe and a toothcomb. - cite?
  • Fixed.
• Down to breeding: During the season when females practice infant stashing, males effectively lighten the reproductive burden of up to several mothers by guarding, huddling, grooming, travelling, playing and feeding with the young - playing with and feeding the young
  • Fixed.
• Socially, they begin regularly exchanging contact calls with their mother at 3 weeks,[5] and select mother as their play partner 75–80% of the time during the first 3 months.[13] - rm "regularly"
  • Fixed.
• I see contractions... might want to just separate them, for professionalism's sake. Ignore this nitpick if you choose. :)
  • Could you please elaborate? Maybe I'm missing it.
    • Nevermind... I read it as "contradictions", not "contractions". Anyway, it has been fixed. Two instances were found and the contractions were removed. –Visionholder (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So support from a quick, but detailed, read-over. Excellent work. ceranthor 13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit! I greatly appreciate it. –Visionholder (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed. –Visionholder (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'll read in more detail later, but I don't like the taxonomic classification section, which basically consists of a bullet list. I would prefer this to be text, perhaps supported by a cladogram. As it stands, it looks amateurish (yes, I know we are all amateurs) and give little opportunity to assess the prose. Also, can we have some etymology for the genus and species' scientific names? See Willie Wagtail as an FA example Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the classification section, I will see what I can do this evening. As it stands now, it is no different than what I did for the FA Ring-tailed Lemur. Also, most of the articles I have seen tend to use bullet lists for genus and species pages, while I usually see cladograms for higher classifications, such as class, order, family, etc. This can be done, but it would be nice if we could set a standard. In terms of text, I'm sure I can expand upon it. However, much of the detail about its classification is already under the Changes in taxonomy section. Maybe they should be merged? (Personally, I oppose this.)

As for an etymology section, I have searched every online and offline source I have access to, and I cannot find the root of "Varecia". Although I do know the etymology of rubra (red) and variegata (variegated - streaked, spotted, or otherwise marked with a variety of color; very colorful), I was reserving that information for the species pages... for when I get around to re-writing them. Your thoughts? –Visionholder (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough on Varecia - I can't find a root either. Cladograms not a big deal. I suppose coming from the bird project I have different expectations/assumptions about taxonomy sections, but I still think some text in the relevant section would be good. I'll comment on the article as a whole when I get time for a proper read. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• I've tweaked the lead a bit, mainly to avoid repetition, please check it's OK. Also have a look to see if all the "known to" are necessary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Changes in taxonomy" more tweaks please check for unneeded padding words, esp "however". I'm happy with the content of this article, the prose just needs a careful check for repetition, padding, grammatical infelicities and the like. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Tweaks looked good and were much appreciated. Use of "known to" eliminated. Usage of "however" greatly reduced. I may need help eliminating them completely. Lastly, the Taxonomic classification has been expanded. Please read over and condense or expand as needed. –Visionholder (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Well written and very comprehensive. Didn't find any spelling or grammar errors or MOS issues, although I admit I am not the best at finding those. Rlendog (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Further comments Sorry to keep nibbling away at this, I only started this review because I've just taken Ruff through FAC, and we need more collared animals at FA (:
  • I encourage you to do a thorough review. You are doing your job, and you should be commended for it. As for collared animals, are you aiming for a featured topic? If so, once I complete the Lemur re-write that I'm working on (which may take a month or more), I will do you a favor and try to finish polishing up the Collared Brown Lemur article that I recently re-wrote. –Visionholder (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• final ce. Please check and revert anything you don't like

• Copyedit looked very good. Only found one minor typo and fixed.

• I can't stop! spelled out numbers less than ten and removed repetition

• Thumbs-up on the edit. Good fix!

• 16–43 ha needs imperial conversion.

• Fixed.

• Ruft occurs twice. Is this a real word or a typo for "ruff"? If the former, can we have a wikilink, wicktionary link, or gloss - I've never heard of this word, and more to the point, it's not in my excellent Chambers Dictionary?

• It appears to have been a typo on my behalf. Fixed.

• Cough, Grumble, Squeak, and Squeal - should these be capitalised in the text? Fine if you think they should, just checking that it's a conscious decision.

• You're right. All other named vocalizations in the section are not capitalised if mentioned in the text (unless they start a sentence). Fixed.

• (B1ab(iii,v)) What means this?

• This is the criteria (code) used by the IUCN to classify the species as Critically Endangered. Those individually who are very familiar with the Red List would find this information useful... but for the general public, it should probably be omitted. (The code would take a small paragraph to explain. And in a way, it is explained in the article.) I will wait for your feedback before I delete it. –Visionholder (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• My feeling is that this, and the previous similar should be omitted as they are effectively meaningless for most readers, but that's your call.

• Classification criteria removed. It's available in the references anyway.

• 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) delusions of accuracy here, methinks. Unless you assure me that the measurement is exact to within 30 yds, I'd prefer 1 km (0.6 mi) or 1 km (1,000 yds)

• Sigfig added to convert template. Fixed.

• I agree with Materialscientist's comment on overreferencing. I would have no or few refs in the lead, and I wouldn't repeat refs within a paragraph unless either there is another ref in between, or there is a particularly contentious item that needs its own ref to void challenges

• I will definitely clean up the lead, but I have historically over-cited the text because I have received feedback that all claims need to be cited immediately, not further down in the text (after additional claims have been made from the same ref source). I agree with you that refs shouldn't be repeated unless another ref is in between. Anyway, I'm going to work on this now. I will report back when completed and ready for a spot-check. –

• References have been thinned out. Please review. If further clean-up is needed or references need to be restored, either make the changes or post specific details here. –Visionholder (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I expect this to be the last set of comments before I support, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added responses to two of the items above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixes complete. Please review at your earliest convenience. –Visionholder (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Media review with one concern:

• File:Madagascar Varecia range.png: based on File:Madagascar Locator.png, there seems to be a lack of data on what the source is based on? While it can be accepted that the coastlines are based on File:000 Madegaskari harta.PNG, which is derived from a public domain CIA map, where does the information for the rivers come from? The author of File:Madagascar rivers.svg certainly did not state his source for the river network. WP:V and WP:IUP ask of us to ensure the contents of our finest article be verifiable.

• I had always based my derivative maps off these other maps in good faith. I can't speak for the image creator's sources, but the rivers in File:Madagascar rivers.svg seem to match up with the rivers labeled on the map in "Lemurs of Madagascar and the Comoros, The IUCN Red Book Data", 1990 (pg. 24, figure 4). What's the best course of action here? I could recreate File:Madagascar rivers.svg based on my source. Ultimately, that range map will be replaced by an image I'll create derived from File:Madagascar_range_map_template.svg... which is currently derived from one or more of the files in question. I never realized things had to be this carefully documented. Should we just delete the range map? –Visionholder (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• It is okay. If the rivers do match the book, insert the book as the source in File:Madagascar rivers.svg. The point is to allow users of the file to check with the source to verify the information is correct. Also, insert File:000 Madegaskari harta.PNG into File:Madagascar Locator.png as the base map. Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have done both requests. Upon close inspection, the rivers from the book closely matched those on File:Madagascar rivers.svg, but there were a few small differences, all of which were noted when I included the source. Personally, I consider these differences acceptible given the detailed accuracy (names, locations, and shapes) of the matching rivers and given the caption of the figure in the book: "Map of some of Madagascar's major rivers, including those mentioned in the text." I hope this is acceptible. Given how poor explorered and understood that remote island is, this may be the best we can get at this time. –Visionholder (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• the audio files state they are from Joseph M. Macedonia; should we add his credentials there? Furthermore, is there any information on where these sounds recorded?

• I have uploaded dozens of audio files from Joseph Macedonia and fellow researcher Chris Mercer. Again, I never realized I had to go into such detail. How exactly do I document his credentials on each file? Is there a standard for doing so? As for the location of the recording, it is most likely that they were all recorded at the Duke Lemur Center, but that would be easy to confirm via email. Unfortunately, it would take hours to update on each audio file. –Visionholder (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• The credentials is just a suggestion. One could do a Joseph M. Macedonia, or "Joseph M. Macedonia, Department of Biological Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, N.C., USA[26]" in each file. Stating where the sounds were recorded is for clarity. Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I will look into this. I would prefer to point at something other than a web front to a journal article on a pay site. Unfortunately, I don't think Joseph M. Macedonia is on a tenure track, meaning that he moves around a lot. (He's no longer at Duke, and has moved several times since then, if I remember correctly.) If I can think of a good way to reference his credentials, I will do so. I will also look into documenting existing and newly uploaded sound files with their recording locations. Please be patient. –Visionholder (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not to worry, this is nothing opposable; I just think it will help the article and the project if the sources of these sound files are given in more detail. Take your time (after the conclusion of the FAC even). Jappalang (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Licensing of audio files check out fine. Other than concern over the map above, Images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I never went through this with the FAC for Ring-tailed Lemur. This is all new to me. –Visionholder (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:41, 21 July 2009 [27].

---

Edgar Towner

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the criteria. The life and times of an Australian Victoria Cross recipient, this article has been passed as a Good Article and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history A-Class. I am very grateful to EyeSerene, who has just completed an excellent copyedit of the article. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images all need alt text as per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3. Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • When in the world did this requirement come in? I have done it, but as it is the first time I have had to do so I'm not sure if I have done it correctly. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You did fine, thanks, and I struck the comment. The alt= support was implemented back in October, and WP:ALT was recently modified to recommend alt text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Eubulides (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, okay, I had never heard of it until now. Thanks for your input, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Generally good.

• "He named the property "Valparaiso"..." Do we know why? Does it mean something in some foreign language? Not essential to the article by any stretch of the imagination, but it piqued my curiosity.
  • I assumed it meant something along the lines of "paradise", but I haven't been able to either confirm this or identify which language it is in. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It's Spanish for "Paradise Valley" according to this EyeSerene^talk 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Geez, I re-check my sources and use Google Translate but it gives me nothing, then you turn up with this! Lol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Heh, took me all of 30 seconds to google "meaning of Valparaiso" :D I'm not sure it belongs in the article though (per WP:SYNTH) EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I'd have to agree. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
            • If there's no source that mentions it in conjunction with Towner, I agree too. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Allocated to the transport section of the 25th Battalion..." I don't know my military terminology very well, but "to allocate" seems an odd verb choice here; very impersonal. "Assigned"?
• Is the persistent use of "during" in place of "in" (as in "During January...") Australian English? To me, it seems hideously awkward, but I could be wearing North American blinders. I'd already changed most of them by the time this occurred to me, but I'd be happy to change them back if I'm being imperialistic.
  • Hmm, I've been pulled up on this a few times lately. I suppose it is not the best grammatically, but I tire of the consistent repetition of "in". :) However, I should steer away from this; thanks for your corrections. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• "...and was allotted to the 7th Brigade's Machine Gun Company." Another verb choice that seems strange to be, like "allocated".
• Is there more detail available about his Mentions in Despatches? The dates are nice, but I'd think that the reasons are more likely to be of interest to the general reader.
  • The quoted material just before the first mention is why he was Mentioned in Despatches the first time, but I have not been able to conclusively find a recommendation or reason why he was Mentioned the second time. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, we're all limited by our sources.
• "...after he was unable to raise sufficient funds for livestock." To buy livestock? Feed it? Something else?
  • To purchase livestock. Clarified. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• "He spent the next three years working as a jackaroo, until he entered into a partnership on Kaloola station..." There's nothing wrong with this sentence, but I wanted to single it out for being so delightfully Australian.
  • Lol. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• References all look good.
• I hate to do this, but File:Edgar Towner full length J03070.JPG and File:E T Towner P02939.035.JPG are both listed as having been taken c. 1918, but are tagged as having been created in Australia for public domain purposes. However, from what I can tell Towner wasn't in Australia at any point during 1918. I'm sure these will work out to be in the public domain one way or another, but we might need to do some more digging. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Even though they were not actually taken in Australia, the Australian public domain tag still applies as the photographs were taken by, or on the behest of, Australian Government employees (military personnel included) and are held/owned by the Australian Government. Thank you very much for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • • I've done some digging and you appear to be correct (the copyright tag on Commons should probably be changed to reflect this, as it currently claims that the work was created in Australia). The photographs appear to be in the public domain in both Australia and the U.S. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Made a few tweaks to address some of the prose issues above. EyeSerene^talk 11:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Eye! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Support My concerns have been addressed, and I believe that this article is of featured quality. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Support High standard of structure, detail, referencing, illustration and, not least, prose - I found the Victoria Cross subsection particularly well written. Took the liberty of tweaking a word or two; the only other suggestion I have is that "set[ing] a conspicuous example" might be rendered more simply as setting "a conspicuous example". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and tweaking, Ian. I don't mind either way as both work well, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Image review: images are verifiably in public domain. Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Overall I believe that this article meets the criteria. I have the following comments, however:
  • I would suggest tweaking this sentence: "to win the medal during the fighting around Mont St. Quentin and Péronne". Firstly I think it is better to say someone 'received' a Victoria Cross, rather than 'winning'. But that is a personal preference so is not necessarily a requirement. Possibly change it to "the third of six Australians to receive the VC for actions during the fighting around Mont St. Quentin and Peronne". Just a suggestion.
    • I absolutely agree with you; I despise the use of "win/won" in cases where a person has been decorated for their valour/leadership. The word came through during the copy-edit, and I could not come up with a suitable replacement at the time. However, I have now intergrated your wording. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • some numbers greater than 10 are spelt when they should possibly be converted to numbers per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words
    • I think that in the few cases in the article it is okay. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • two external links show in the tool as needing to be checked, however, I have checked them and they both seem to work okay;
    • Yeah, I don't know why but the tool always seems to have a problem with links to the National Archives of Australia, even though they work fine. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, hope this helps. Good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: why are only the book sources listed as references? Should not all sources be listed here? Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (To answer Brian's question, only listing books in the sources is a acceptable way to do your citations as long as each footnote contains the complete information.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and answer to the above. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:41, 21 July 2009 [28].

---

Battle of Bosworth Field

Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

SCENE I. FAC.

Again many apologies to ole Willie... may the soft dirt cushion his turbulence in his grave...

Jappalang

Now comes the test of Bosworth's quality

Made glorious by all who laid pen upon it.

In days past, it was not shaped for critical thought,

Nor made to court the public's eye;

Deformed, unfinished, abandoned before its time

Into this project, scarce half completed,

Now this article aspires to comply

With all four featured criteria.

If you do replace a wrongful image;

You shall feel a sense of justice, the travesty gone,

If you do improve a dreadful sentence;

Your friends shall sing the litanies of sweet prose,

If you do help to fill in the blanks;

Your great deed increases the world's sum of knowledge,

If you do chop off redundant words;

Your trusty sword serves the project well.

Then, for Wikipedia and free information's sake,

Stretch your fingers, draw your red pens.

Tap keys and scroll pages, boldy and cheerfully;

Jimbo and Saint Isidore! Bosworth and FA!

Aye, for those who would dispense with such iambic banter, come sit thee down and feel welcome to say your piece. Take a read of the glorious Harry-Dick battle, where Dick got royally shafted due to the circumstances that spun his fate. If you are in the know, your help to identify the location and creator of this glass window is greatly appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Dweller

I'll add my review here. This is a placeholder to remind me to come and review it when I've had some sleep. Great choice of subject matter. --Dweller (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC) OK, here goes. This is a monstrously good article, and will take some time to review properly. The overall impressions are all positive - good use of illustration, good depth of referencing, tone looks appropriate. All of which is excellent. And now on to detail...

• There's too much detail in the Lead. Length in number of paragraphs is right, but each one is too crammed. Cut it down.
  • It's difficult to do this without becoming superficial (given the length of the article), but I've trimmed it a little. EyeSerene^talk 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comprehensiveness: if you're going to cover Shakespeare's treatment of the battle, which is a good idea, then you really need to cover its treatment by other notable artists, including film-makers not shooting Shakespeare (I'm sure the battle has featured in historical epics)
  • There lies the issue of reliable sources and weightage. Of films, the Battle of Bosworth Field was criticially talked about for Olivier's and McKellan's films (and even so, focus is not solely paid to the battle). The commentary in the article reflects the criticisms and are of the appropriate weightage given without undue weight. It is theatric (plays) version that has received the most reviews among academic and respected sources. Jappalang (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Some of the image captions are overlong. Some fairly random decision-making in terms of linking/not linking in the captions.
  • I presume the overlong captions are the ones for the battle maps? I have trimmed them a bit, and removed the link to Ambion Hill. Links in other image captions are not found in main article text. Jappalang (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

More anon as the Bard would have said. Maybe. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Images all have alt text. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3. I added alt text for the lead image as an example; could you please add alt text for the remaining images? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. I have read this article many times—following an invitation from the nominator, I made a series of minor edits during May–June of this year, mainly to help polish the prose. I accept the valid criticism of the length of the lead, but I can't see this being an obstacle to promotion. I think the article should stick with Shakespeare's dramatisation, since this is the most widely known and perhaps the only one that has misled history teachers. I agree that reliable sources could be a problem for modern dramatisations and add that there could be a danger of straying off topic; this is a history article after all. In my view, this contribution satisfies all the FA criteria and establishes a high standard. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support:Comments, leaning to support: Jappalang is one of our most resouceful editors, generous with advice and meticulous in his reviews. He is also one of our worst poets. However, fortunately for him that is not the issue here. This is a meticulously researched article with a gripping narrative, which I am reading with pleasure. I am picking up various minor points as I go through; before listing any details, can I add my voice to the concern expressed about the amount of detail in the lead? Also, there is rather a lot of clutter at the top of the article – image, infobox stuff, map. I wonder whether a slight repositioning, say of the map, might enhance the article's appearance.

Here are some detailed comments on the lead and Background section.

• Lead:
  • Nitpick: "...the battle was won by Lancastrian Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who by his victory..." Are battles won by individuals? Would it be more accurate to say "the battle was won by the Lancastrian forces of Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who by this victory..."
  • Grammar: "...while they decided which side would be most advantageous for them to support." Needs an "it" after "which side", and "for them" is unnecessary
  • "Richard's force outnumbered Henry's and the king divided his army into three groups (or "battles")" The two parts of the sentence are not obviously related, and shouldn't be connected by "and".
  • "This theme is most evident in the Shakespearian play Richard III and, as the finale of the play, the battle has become a focal point for critics in later film adaptations." I am unsure what is meant here by "a focal point for critics". What critics - film, theatre, historians?
    • I tried to address the first three points with these changes. As for "a focal point", it is supposed to mean the critics tend to talk about the battle in the film. Maybe a change to "a focal point of attention"? "Critics" is a general term; the article presents the views of a Shakespearian critic, a newspaper reporter, a military historian, and general views gathered by another Shakespearian critic. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Background
  • "extremely" weak smacks of POV. In any event, who alive at that time had a stronger legitimate claim? Edward IV's claim was pretty weak, too.
  • Another dubious "and": "His twelve-year-old elder son succeeded him as King Edward V, and the younger son, nine-year-old Richard of Shrewsbury, was next in line to the throne." Suggest replace "and" with semicolon.
  • "The royal court was worried, as Edward V was too young to rule and the Woodvilles, relatives of the Queen Mother Elizabeth, were plotting to seize control of the Royal Council who planned to rule the country until the king's coming of age." The sentence is too long, and needs splitting. Also, I'm a bit puzzled by the wording. "...the Royal Council who planned to rule the country" sounds a bit informal. I thought this was a statutory duty of the Council.
  • "secured Edward V" is not immediately plain. "Apprehended" or "took into custody" would be clearer.
  • "extrajudicial" is a single word
  • "Discontent for..." → "Discontent with..."
  • The verb "manifest" requires an object. Thus "manifested itself"
  • "started prematurely by 10 days" is awkward. "...started 10 days prematurely"?
    • I have edited the Background section. I hope these changes address the issues here. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

More to follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I will consider the length (and detail) of the lede. Any suggestions where to place the map? Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have shifted the map into the Background section. Jappalang (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead trimmed further... EyeSerene^talk 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no remaining issues with lead or map. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, who wrote this? Mostly beautiful or very professional prose, although I've looked only at the lead. This sentence is a little weak: "Literature, from the 15th to 18th centuries, glamorised the conflict as a victory of good over evil—it forms the finale of William Shakespeare's play about Richard's rise and fall." (All literature? Many English plays and poems? I think User:Bishonen is an expert on this area, inter alia, BTW. (2) The dash doesn't quite work as a connector for me ("and"?). I look forward to reading the rest. (3) Just a little audit on the use or omission of commas before and after names in the middle of clauses? Unsure. Tony (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  To Tony: GrahamColm, Malleus Fatuorum and others have brushed up little bits here and there, but EyeSerene is responsible for most of the beauty that is at hand. Jappalang (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

  I think Jappalang's overstating my involvement, although his kind words are much appreciated. However, I freely admit to something of a blind spot over commas because I can't always decide if a sentence reads more naturally with or without them. I'll proofread when I get the chance and try to tidy them up. EyeSerene^talk 09:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

More stuff

• Commanders: Intro, last sentence - "In a sense" doesn't seem necessary.
• Yorkist
  • "Small and slender, Richard III did not have the tall muscular build associated with many of his Plantagenet predecessors." First three words redundant - Richard' size fully covered by the rest of the sentence.
    • I was trying to point out specifically that Richard was a "small and slender" man. I think striking these three words could result in a possible "well, he is not tall and muscular, perhaps he is just normal sized or short and flabby?" kind of thought? Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about: "Small and slender in contrast to the tall muscular build associated with many of his Plantagenet predecessors,[40] Richard nevertheless enjoyed rough sports and activities that were considered manly." Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked EyeSerene^talk 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "His performance better as "His performances..."
  • "Lieutenant general" is a military rank rather than a post, though it might have meant something different then. Can you amplify?
  • Last sentence of first paragraph reads oddly, given that in the previous sentence Richard has been painted as somewhat irresolute. And why the reference to the Turks?

I've seen the revision. This looks like a sentence that should start "However,..." Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Darn... I was aiming to show that Richard was a militaristic man with that statement. Hence, this statement is not supposed to contradict or support Ross' or Carpenter's opinion but rather expand on Richard's attitude (a contrast to the seemingly pacifistic Henry). Any suggestions on how to reword this to get the meaning across? Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd still go for the "However..." beginning. At present, in paraphrase, this extract is saying: "Richard had been considered by some as a bit of a military ditherer, somewhat indecisive. However, when he became king he showed a different side" (his "thirst for war" etc. This is not a sticking point, so go with what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Also tweaked (missed your responses to Jappalang's latest, so my tweaks were made before I saw your latest. Hope they're ok) EyeSerene^talk 09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Lancastrian
  • "Slender but strong, Henry lacked a penchant for battle and was not much of a warrior; chroniclers such as Polydore Vergil and Pedro de Ayala found him a decisive man who was more interested in commerce." I think this sentence would read better if Henry's "decisive" attribute was listed with his other positive qualities, thus: "Slender but strong and decisive, Henry lacked a penchant for battle and was not much of a warrior; chroniclers such as Polydore Vergil and Pedro de Ayala found him more interested in commerce."
  • "whom he could rely on" → "on whom he could rely"
• Stanleys
  • "erupted in bouts of violence" - a bit heavy-footed. "erupted into violence"?
  • "Additionally, Stanley's position as Henry Tudor's stepfather, having taken Lady Margaret as his second wife in June 1472,[69] did him nothing to win Richard's favour." Suspect grammar: "having taken" relates to Stanley, not "Stanley's position." Also, phrase order seems wrong, and can we avoid beginning "Additionally..."? So how about: "Furthermore, having taken Lady Margaret as his second wife in June 1472, Stanley was Henry Tudor's stepfather, a relationship which did him nothing to win Richard's favour."
  • "Wary of the baron..." I've lost track of the identity of this baron.
• Prelude
  • The comparison in the first sentence is amiss – between the first invasion and the second crossing. Suggest first four words are deleted.
  • Sir Geoffrey Elton – use of title inappropraite in text
  • Does Elton use the word "idolators"? If so, I suggest you put it in quotes, as it's an odd term. Otherwise I think it is too strong a word here, since it suggests veneration and worship. Another term, such as "ardent loyalists", might be more appropriate.
  • "...failed to move against him" – need to clarify "him"
  • Do you really mean "suborned", here? (incited to commit a crime)
  • I am confused by this sentence: "Richard had been aware of Henry's landing since 11 August, but although he had ordered his lords to maintain a high level of readiness, it took three to four days for his messengers to notify them of Richard's mobilisation." Some clarification requested.

I've done a little extra ce on this - see if you agree. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is fine. Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Engagement: a superb battle account; only one minor point: "Well aware of his military inexperience, Henry handed command of his army to Oxford..." Needs to say "own military experience", for clarity.
• Post-Battle
  • Suggest link circlet, or descibe it as a crown
  • "100 of his king's men" would be clearer as "100 of Henry's men"
  • I wonder if the events described in the final paragraph can really be considered "Post-battle"?

I note what you say below. The events seem to relate more to the early part of Henry's reign, rather than the immediate post-battle period. For example, in an article on the Battle of Hastings you probably wouldn't refer to William's subsequent suppression of Hereward the Wake. This is just a thought, not a sticking point with me; if you wish to leave it, fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Will conclude later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okey, Brian. I hope these changes resolve the stuff above. As for "Post-battle", these events take place after the fighting. Literally, they are suited for that section. Jappalang (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A few last bits

• Legacy
  • "to deduce possibly valuable information..." Things can be deduced from information, but information itself cannot be "deduced". Would "insights" be a good substitute for information?
  • There is an apparently intrusive "but" near the end of the second paragraph.
  • Uncertain about the "However" that begins the last sentence.
• Shakespearian dramatisation: No comment - excellent and informative.
• Battlefield
  • Suggest "a dispute broke out amongst historians that has led many..." becomes "a dispute among historians has led many..." (neater)
  • Perhaps a Wiktionary link for "toponymical"?

Final Comment: This is a first-class article which tells its main story brilliantly, with much thoughtful analysis thereafter. I have moved to full support notwithstanding a few minor outstanding issues which are really neither here nor there. Congratulations, Jappalang, and I look forward to more of your historical tours-de-force, if not the "poetic" introductions. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Brian, I have made these changes to address your final concerns. My future endeavour, however, would likely not be of English history, but your words have inspired me; I am going to serenade the FAC masses next with Vogon poetry! Ahem... "Oh freddled gruntbuggly, thy micturations are to me!" It is surely my calling! Okay, "don't panic!" That (Vogon poetry) was a joke. Jappalang (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Don't worry, Jappalang, I enjoyed the poetic introduction - but then I've never understood the problem lifeforms have with Vogon poetry... Anyway, supported this at MILHIST A-Class review and, having re-read once more, can't see any reason not to award the bronze star as well - as I've said before, an epic in itself, well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments on sources

• The Bertram Wolffe book is listed in the bibliography, but there are no citations to it. Should it be described as "Further reading"?
• Should the "Online source" subheading be pluralised? (Big point, that)

Otherwise all sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth has pluralised the subheading, and I have removed the unused source. Jappalang (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional comments on images

The images all cite sources and are appropriately licensed. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I was bold and changed the "online source" to "online sources") Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:41, 21 July 2009 [29].

---

Ba Cut

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

An interesting, infamous but obscure Vietnamese warlord of the Hoa Hao religious sect. Basically all of the research done on the Hoa Hao is on their religious/political aspects and the military wing is basically neglected, probably because most historians regard them as little more than brainless bandits unworthy of study. For example, the book by Hue-Tam Ho Tai that I cited is regarded as the leading work on new peasant religious movements and has about 50 pages on the Hoa Hao and only about 5 sentences on this guy. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Interesting I agree, and I'd really like to see this article promoted, but it's not there yet for me. I'll give more detailed comments elsewhere if anyone's interested, but here are just a few examples of the problems I see, picked randomly:

• "Despite his weak military situation, Ba Cut sought to interfere with a fraudulent referendum that Diem was staging in order to depose Bao Dai as head of state." The phrase "interfere with" sets up a false expectation in the reader's mind that Ba Cut interfered by initiating the referendum, an expectation that's dashed as the sentence unfolds, and is therefore jarring.

• "Tho agreed to meet Ba Cut alone in the jungle, and was not ambushed." Why would a reader be expecting that Tho would be ambushed?

• "Ba Cut broke from the VNA in August 1954 with his 3,000 men, and began resisting it with force, whereas most of the other Hoa Hao leaders had accepted payments to integrate their forces into the VNA. The phrase "resisting it with force" seems strangely unidiomatic, and the tense switch between "broke" and "had accepted" seems a little jarring.

• "... possibly due to the fact that details of the planned attack ...". Everything here unless stated otherwise should be a fact, no need to underline that fact. "Possibly because ..."?

• "In mid-1954, General Nguyen Van Hinh, head of the Vietnamese National Army (VNA) of the State of Vietnam announced that he did not respect the leadership of Prime Minister Diem, and vowed to overthrow him. This did not materialise ...". What did not materialise? The vow or the overthrow"?

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed these and done another copyedit, please have a look YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it still needs some serious attention. Just look at the first sentence for instance: "Lê Quang Vinh (1923 – July 13, 1956), popularly known as Ba Cụt (Short Third in Vietnamese, referring to a shortened third finger), was a military commander of the Hoa Hao religious sect, which had operated in the Mekong Delta." Had operated before what? Shouldn't that just be "operated"? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should have been. Obviously I was careless yesterday and left a few random words/typo in there. I've swept it again YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Images fine, ideally should be moved to commons Fasach Nua (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Both images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I improved it a bit. Eubulides (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The second paragraph of the lead makes me think that I'm reading about a folk hero. It's full of colorful wording that I normally would not expect in an encyclopedia article. Rewording needed?

Well all books mention his finger at the start and start by telling us that he is demented, more or less. The body has it in more detail that analyses of him are scathing. I don't see any colourful words there, the topic is inherently colourful YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "weak position"? You should probably elaborate a bit on this.

Done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "paddies" - rice paddies or paddy fields?

Done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• • There's a sense of choppiness in the first paragraph of the "Early life and background" section. IMO, the sentences don't flow smoothly. In one sentence you're talking about Ba Cut being an orphan and in the next you're talking about his fanatical hatred towards landowners. Transitions, better flow?

Rearranged it, but there is still nothing else of his childhood except that he was illit so moved that to the front. that Tai book is the most authoritative Hoa Hao book. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I assume you're only saying that his prophecies about WWII were correct, not his miracles. You could probably clarify the ambiguity there. In addition, maybe you could detail some of the prophecies or miracles he supposedly performed?

Expanded, without giving specific examples of diseases and minutae of his predictions YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• • "During World War II, Imperial Japan invaded and seized control of Vietnam from France, and its defeat and withdrawal at the end of the war left a power vacuum in the country." – possibly split these into two sentences?

semicolin I think YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• • At the start of the third paragraph, you refer to Hoa Hao followers as "The Hoa Hao". The Hoa Hao was simply the religious tradition, not the name given to its followers, right?
  • Same issue with Cao Dai.

Some people use "Cao Daists" but the dominant wording is "The Cao Dai" etc instead of Buddhism<->Buddhists YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• More comments to follow. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support with a couple of minor conditions: I understand that all images need alt text now, per WP:ALT; also can you pls review the References section and ensure that all books with ISBNs have them noted - some won't have them but there seems to be a larger-than-normal proportion of those here. Took the liberty of making a few minor copyedits but apart from above can't see anything to withhold the bronze star: well structured, meticulously cited, engagingly written - well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt is all there and every book after 1965 has ISBN as given. The journal article doesn't have an isbn YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 13:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool - apologies re. the alt text, I didn't look when I was editing but just moused over the infobox pic afterwards and for some reason it didn't appear as it usually does... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I like this article. There are a few areas still where I think the phrasing needs to be made more idiomatic, but I'm confident that can be done easily and quickly.

• From Career: "By this time, with France on the way out ...". I know this is referring to France preparing to leave Indochina, but it's actually suggesting that it was the country of France that was on the way out, i.e., in some kind of terminal decline. Which hasn't quite happened yet. :-)

• From Career: "As the French tried to dilute his autonomy ...". Not sure you can dilute autonomy. Would something like "undermine his authority" perhaps be better?

• From Last stand against Diem : "... his remaining forces were dismantled in battle." Dismantled seems like a strange choice of word to me. Might defeated or destroyed be better?

--Malleus Fatuorum 15:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 16:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good now, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Support with reservations I have three nitpicks here. The Vietnamese article cites three sources-- two are encyclopedias, but one might provide additional information. Have you looked at these? Second, I would ask that you look for an additional photo for the large second section. Finally, it could be useful to use the proper accent marks for Vietnamese words, e.g. Hòa Hảo. Shii (tock) 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedias didn't shed any more light. Added photo. I tend to not use diacritics for convenience although if the person goes to the page they will get it in full via the link. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I believe that this article meets the criteria. The dashes seem consistent with WP:DASH, images check out, there are no dabs and no external link errors. I have one query, though. I believe that the rank of 'general' in the infobox should in this case be capitalised as 'General' as it is technically the start of a new sentence/line. I also feel it would be improved with a few more images to break up the text, but understand that it is not always possible so I do not feel it should hold the article back. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Will add a pic of Diem and Tho. Fixed the G YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:41, 21 July 2009 [30].

---

Helgoland class battleship

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote this article some time ago, and it has been working its way up the assessment ladder. It just passed MILHIST A-class review last week, and I feel it's at or close to FA standards. I welcome all constructive comments, thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Everything appears in order. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support Your pics are all right aligned. Starting from the top they need to be right / left without left aligned directly under a ===subsection===. In your Footnotes there are instances of pp. 23, 24 and pp. 23-24 (for example); they need to be consistent. --Brad (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, the problem with the pictures is that most of them are in short sections, and according to the MOS cannot be left aligned (unless they're starting in the second paragraph). For example, Iridescent moved one that was left aligned for this reason. As to the footnotes, I'll fix those up when I get the chance. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I fixed the one for "23, 24"; do you think I should do the same for "173, 175" as well? Page 174 is a map, if that matters. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good. --Brad (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - last paragraph of the Jutland section needs a reference. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 13:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oops, thanks for catching that! I've added a ref now. Parsecboy (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Oppose - I am not impressed by the prose, which is far from FA standard. The article suffers from redundancy—count the number of "also"s. There are poorly constructed sentences, e.g. "Of the need to step up naval construction due to the fact that Germany was becoming increasingly isolated in Europe, von Tirpitz stated, "The aim which I had to keep in view...for technical and organizing reasons as well as reasons of political finance was to build as steadily as possible." And, boring repetitions such as three consecutive sentences in the Lead beginning "The ships..". Some phrases are not complete, such as The ships had an armored belt that was 30 cm (12 in) thick at its strongest - strongest what? Here, The first major operation of the war that the Helgoland-class ships participated was the raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby on 15–16 December 1914 there is a missing "in". The article needs a thorough copy-edit; it does not represent our best work. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made some fixes to the article and reworded some sections. Let me know if there are more things that need to be fixed. Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it's late in the evening in England, I will revisit the article in the morning. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Images checked out pre 1923, all are PD in the US, or have permission given. Are there sources for the infobox stats? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The stats in the infobox are repeated in the prose, and cited there. Do you think I should add a note along the lines of "All specifications sourced to Gröner, pp. 24–25" in the "notes" field in the infobox? Parsecboy (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It certainly would't hurt, a short note such as "Source: Groner pp 24-25" or simply link it with the rest of the refs like "Source:[1]". --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I moved a footnote into the "notes" section of the infobox. How does that look? Parsecboy (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns as follow:

• File:Ostfriesland-2,000lb-bomb.jpg: Requires a source (url, document/archive ID, publication), since the US Government does not simply hand photos out on the street. I found a similar photo on http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/navybomb2.htm, which states it came from the book, The Naval Bombing Experiments by Vice Admiral Alfred W. Johnson. A possible issue is that the press, having been mentioned many times and seemingly well-informed of the experiments, could have been the author of this photo (guest observers). A clarification is likely needed, perhaps a check through the book for the photographer is advised.
• File:High Seas Fleet 1st and 2nd battleship squadrons HD-SN-99-02145.JPG: this is a German postcard (M. L. Carstens, refer to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Seydlitz/archive1), appropriated by the US War Department. Scenario 1: Koch of the War Department photographed the postcard for the DoD database; that does not make him the copyright holder of the photograph (postcard). Scenario 2: Koch is not of the War Department, and is the photographer for the postcard; we need to find out his date of death to allow for copyright in the country of origin to have elapsed. Scenario 2 is very likely the case since the ARC (National Archives, http://research.archives.gov/search) sources his information from "Author's Sociale verdediging, 1982: t.p. (K. Koch) p. 5 (Drs.)", which is this book (1982)—an unlikely publication from a US citizen. and published in 1982 points to his death as uncertain. Until Koch's identity and life is affirmed, it is best to move this to Wikipedia.

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the images, Jappalang. I cut the second image, at least until I can find more info on K. Koch. I seriously doubt it's the Koch you found at Open Library (he'd have to be at least in his 20s to be taking pictures for Carstens, I don't think he'd still be publishing be publishing books nearly 60 years later). But until I find out who he was and when he died, the image will have to go. As for the first photo, it seems to have come from this document on history.navy.mil. The text is from Hap Arnold's book, but it doesn't indicate what the copyright status of the images is. If you think it'd be better, I can replace it with this one, which has a dead-tree source. Parsecboy (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Koch published his books as early as the 1960s,[31] so it is not implausible for him to be a 20-odd-year old photographer who sold his works to Carstens in the 1910s. After all, it is the National Archives who declared him to be the photographer. As for the Ostfriesland bombing, it would be preferable for the photo with a definite source to be used. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've switched the photo, so everything should be in order as far as images are concerned. Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. To help get started, I added alt text to the 1st image. The rest still need it. Eubulides (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I added alt text to all of the images (don't know if I did it right though, I've never heard of that before). Thanks for pointing that out to me, and for doing the first one. Parsecboy (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The alt text still needs a bit of work. For example, for File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-61-55, Linienschiff "SMS Ostfriesland".jpg the alt text is currently "An illustration of the battleship "Ostfriesland" with a smaller boat alongside". The words "An illustration of" are redundant and can be removed. The word "Ostfriesland" should be removed, as it is not immediately obvious just from looking at the image. Other alt text instances have similar problems. Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify for more advice about this. Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:41, 21 July 2009 [32].

---

Tropical Depression Ten (2005)

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, though at first it appears rather insignificant, I feel it's a fairly substantial storm—at least as far as tropical depressions go. It never directly affected land, and as a result there's really not much to write about it. However, its remnants contributed to the formation of Tropical Depression Twelve, and in turn Hurricane Katrina. I realize that as the article is so short, the prose will likely be heavily scrutinized; however, I've spend the past hour or so proofreading it word-by-word, and I think it's more-or-less up to snuff. Hopefully you'll agree. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: Everything looks fine. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Support by criteria I don't feel that this article really is worth being featured by per my own standards, I'm supporting it since it meets FA criteria. I only have one small quibble with the article; at the end of the Met. history you say TD 12, I'd rather it be put as Tropical Depression Twelve since that was it's official designation. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the support and comments. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support I do agree with Cyclonebiskit that this article meets FA criteria, but it is not really as good as other FA's I've seen, but because it meets all criteria, I will support it. Darren23 (Contribs) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, please do list any potential improvements to the article. :) Thanks for the support nonetheless. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Support- the MH is comprehensive, I might add. --Anhamirak 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Support - Whilst i dont think this meets my own critera for FA as it had no impact etc, i have too Judge it by the FA Critera which i think it meets.Jason Rees (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Please see Template:Infobox Hurricane/testcases for possible alt text for the lead image. Eubulides (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Added. Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support I know very little about hurricanes but it looks comprehensive. Minor quibble: the last line of the impact section juts out to the left under the image (on my browser at least, which is WIE). This looks a tad ugly. Is it possible to move the image up or down to change this? -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I adjusted the image alignment, so it looks better on Firefox, but I haven't checked it on IE etc. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - with comments:
• On August 8, a tropical wave emerged from the west coast of Africa and entered the Atlantic Ocean. Tracking towards the west, the depression began to exhibit signs of convective organization on August 11. - Both of these sentences need cites, as they involve dates. Along with the Aug. 13 sentence.

• This stuff is cited a couple sentences down, so do I really need duplicate the footnote for every line? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Late on August 13, it was described as "beginning to look like Irene-junior as it undergoes southwesterly mid-level shear beneath the otherwise favorable upper-level outflow pattern". - Cite after the quote

• Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Upon being designated, the depression comprised of a large area of thunderstorm activity, with curved banding features and expanding outflow - was comprised

• Fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• By early August 14 the shear had substantially disrupted the storm, leaving the low-level center of circulation exposed from the area of convection, which was also deteriorating. - cite

• See question above. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, brilliant prose. ceranthor 16:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the review and support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:41, 21 July 2009 [33].

---

Oxygen toxicity

Nominator(s): RexxS (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article meets the criteria for FA as well as conforming to WP:MOSMED. Although this is my first FA nomination, I have taken the article through GA and Peer Review and intend to resolve any criticisms promptly and to the best of my abilities. Oxygen toxicity is potentially the greatest danger to scuba divers at depth, and is also a concern in neonatal care and anywhere that supplemental oxygen is provided. As it affects such diverse disciplines, its importance deserves a featured article. RexxS (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Overall quality seems quite promising, even excellent. A quick and superficial review found some problems that need fixing, though; please see Talk:Oxygen toxicity#Quick FAC review. Eubulides (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Knowing that the review may end prematurely, I would preliminary vote Support, under condition that authors work to resolve remaining issues (not necessarily mine).

1) The front image loads too slowly, because its size is 0.5 Mb. The image quality and resolution are low (I guess due to the old source). My point is that image compression (gif) is very inefficient there. You have uploaded this image. Why don't you convert it to jpg ? Materialscientist (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1) The reason I didn't convert the lead image to jpg is that I'm an idiot. The original was a gif and after I'd done my best to bring out the detail in it, I saved it as a gif because I always worry that changing formats loses detail - but I failed to check the file size. Eubulides has kindly rectifed that problem now, and it's a great help in reducing the load time. Thank you both. --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

2) Two journal papers by Donald (1947) are put as "bibliography" whereas they are only 5 page long and should be cited directly (in-line) instead. Materialscientist (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

2) Donald's articles are short, but are a seminal study in this field. As such they were reprinted and expanded into the 1992 book, which has to be in the bibliography. It seemed natural to me to associate the papers and the book, and there is the advantage that multiple references to different pages can then be done by {{harvnb}}. The book is very expensive and hard to find now, but the papers are available online, so I chose to cite the papers (rather than the book), since the reader can easily refer to them. Given all of that, would you be prepared to reconsider your comment? The principle of not including short works in a bibliography seems to me not strong enough to outweigh the advantages of making an exception here. --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No. (i) You do not provide pages for ref. Donald 1992. (ii) you use three references to three works by Donald, which means they all should be in-line. It is a great inconvenience to click so much to get to the source.

2) I understand what you meant now - I had originally intended all 3 refs to be to the book, so had set up {{harvnb}}, then decided to reference the articles where I could to allow easier access. I've now replaced all 3 harvnb refs with inline citations. Thank you. As for the pages in ref Donald 1992: The reference is intended to source the statement During World War II, Donald and Yarbrough et al. performed over 2,000 experiments on oxygen toxicity to support the initial use of closed circuit oxygen rebreathers. - the whole book is a description of his studies, not any particular page. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason why those refs. are still in the bibliography ? Materialscientist (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Donald's book was the starting point for much of what I have written about oxygen toxicity in divers - as such, I am obliged to acknowledge the source. I could now move the book to "Further reading", but as that section does not allow works referenced in the article, I can't move the 1947 original articles there as well. That would mean that the readers wouldn't see that they can read the original work online. I think that the value to the readers overrides stylistic conventions here. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative layout that works? --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Donald is Ok with me, but ref. Patel et al. not (same issue - no need for separating). Materialscientist (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Patel et al's article is referenced at pages 234–7 (as current ref #14) and again at page 235 (as current ref #81). I used {{Harvnb}} to allow me to quote different page numbers in each cite, thus citing the whole book just once in "Sources". I was under the impression that this was the recommended method and haven't seen any guidelines to do otherwise, so you'll have to excuse me. Am I right in thinking that your advice is not to do that where there are only a couple of different page numbers? If so, I can easily change the harvnb to full inline cites and remove Patel's article from "Sources". --RexxS (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who did the Harvard number on Patel et al., since articles should avoid having two different external links to the same external resource. I didn't realize the source was so short, though. If the source is a single journal article, or a single book chapter, there's typically no need for Harvard cites to individual pages. I just now changed it to use standard inline refs without individual page numbers. Eubulides (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand now: no point in different pages via harvnb if it's such a short source - thank you for fixing it. --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

3) The image File:Cylinder mod.jpg and its caption look weird (especially for an encyclopedia article on health issues) - as if somebody, by his own right, decided to label this bottle as 36% and 28m max. Aren't such things supposed to be properly imprinted by the manufacturer ? Materialscientist (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

3) A large part of the audience for this article will be scuba divers, as oxygen toxicity is one of the most potentially lethal problems they encounter. So I wanted the article to serve them in particular. You are quite right, I analysed the nitrox in that cylinder, and labelled it myself. That's exactly what we have to do. It means if it's wrong, nobody else is liable. Since a cylinder can commonly contain a mix of anything from 21% to 100% oxygen, it cannot be labelled by the manufacturer. But we have articles on nitrox and breathing gas, so I didn't think it was appropriate to include that much detail here. --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

4) Lead: "In recent years, oxygen has be available for recreational use in oxygen bars and for scuba divers as nitrox." sounds strange "oxygen has been (typo) available as nitrox (?)"

4) You are quite right. I've rewritten that paragraph and hope that it makes more sense now. --RexxS (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

5) Ref. 98 needs volume number. Materialscientist (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

5) I've added the volume (5) to ref #98 and tidied it for consistency. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

6) Stupid question (I know nothing about this field). Take a Nepalese Sherpa, who was born and lived at ~4km where oxygen pressure is almost half of normal, and move him to live at 0km level. What will happen to his eyesight? I guess the question is about adaptation, which I haven't found in this article upon quick glance - you focus on short exposure of (untrained) person to high oxygen pressures. Materialscientist (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

6) Good question. The studies that I'm aware of (refs #69,71,72) all deal with the effect in navy divers breathing oxygen at 1.3+ bar partial pressure - about 6 times normal. Folks undergoing HBOT breathe oxygen at 2.8 bar ppO2 - about 14 times normal, so the effect there is not surprising. As there doesn't seem to be a concern about oxygen partial pressures at twice normal (this would be equivalent to diving on air to 10 metres or 33 ft), I would guess that the Sherpa wouldn't notice anything. But that would be WP:SYNTH, so I can only offer you my considered opinion. I have no sources that address it. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

7) A side note: I never thought I will get more than 3 questions to this article .. Thus it might be better to reply below each question; otherwise the question and reply will not fit into a PC screen.. Here comes comment No7: Please either do not define abbreviations or define them on first occurrence and use later (you define them several times). I myself prefer the former and advise the same - you repeat one abbreviation only 3-4 times over the article. Abbreviations do scare general readers. Materialscientist (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the distance between the questions and replies. I hope you will bear with me because this is my first time here. I diligently followed the instruction at WP:FAC (Supporting and opposing): "Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary". I do agree with you on this but am torn between what is sensible and the fear of being "told off" for not following the accepted protocol here. I still find the whole process of GA/PR/FAC rather daunting and still have a lot to learn about it. Since you've been kind enough to provide a sig after each comment, I've boldly refactored this section to put Q & A together and hope nobody complains.

I was requested at GA to define abbreviations once per section: There are several abbreviations that that explained in one section and then used without explanation in another section. I believe few readers read all sections, but mostly dive into one somewhere in the middle. You should try to make sections stand on their own by writing out unusual abreviations (ppO2, ROP, BPD and ARDS) - and it seemed to me that Narayanese had a point. I'm willing to go back to defining only at first occurrence if you require it, but I actually think that would not improve the article. Nor would abandoning the abbreviations, since the full terms are often cumbersome. I do understand that abbreviations, like jargon, are a barrier to readers, but I was hoping that the scheme of defining them at first occurrence per section would be the best compromise. Would you reconsider this one or perhaps give me a specific example of how you think, say BPD should be used or where it should be defined? --RexxS (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You are a specialist in the field and should not get intimidated by referees (I was in your shoes just few weeks ago). Please get to the point without apologies. I boldly went ahead and deleted most abbreviations: (i) Abbreviations do not need "" (ii) There is no logical sense or rule to define an abbreviation several times and never use it (which was the case). I might be gone too far and too fast (sorry, no time today). Please reintroduce what was needed. Materialscientist (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the article looks cleaner without so many abbreviations, and I agree that many of them (e.g. HBOT and COPD) were redundant. I'm still mulling over CNS, BPD and ROP, as they are hugely used in the sources. I think "CNS oxygen toxicity" is cumbersome, but "central nervous system oxygen toxicity" is worse. Axl has kindly volunteered to look over these for us and hopefully make some recommendations. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick reply: neither "CNS oxygen toxicity" nor (especially) "central nervous system oxygen toxicity" are good, I have long noticed that the paper suffers from complex adjectives, but haven't got to that yet. How about "oxygen toxicity to central nervous system" ? Same with other similar phrases. Materialscientist (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but it's simply not the usage in the literature nor in common spoken usage. It's invariably "CNS oxygen toxicity" (spoken as "See-En-Ess") - just as "TNT" is almost always used instead of "trinitrotoluene". It seems pointless to ignore usage outside the encyclopedia in order to fit our concept of style. --RexxS (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit my wrong here trying to fix medical terminology - this should be done ~50 years ago. Please ignore my comments on that. Just bear in mind that most abbreviations like CNS have dozens of meanings. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "central nervous system" is used infrequently enough that there isn't a clear benefit from the abbrevation "CNS". I am confident that any reader who understands "CNS oxygen toxicity" will also understand "central nervous system oxygen toxicity"; the reverse is not necessarily true. "Oxygen toxicity to central nervous sytem" seems to be more cumbersome. I am in favour of leaving the article as it currently stands, with "central nervous system oxygen toxicity" throughout. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

8) Caption of the front figure "The subject in the centre is breathing oxygen under pressure." sounds funny (breathing under pressure :) . Should it be "breathing pressurised oxygen" ? Materialscientist (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's right. The caption in the source (Donald, Kenneth W. (17 May 1947). "Oxygen poisoning in man—part I". British Medical Journal (4506): 668. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.4506.667. PMC 2053251.) is "Subject breathing oxygen under pressure". Nevertheless, I've expanded the caption now to explain that the chamber is pressurised with air and only the subject is breathing 100% oxygen from a mask. --RexxS (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

9) The biggest problem of this paper is to explain things to a non-professional. It does contain unnecessary jargon. Please try to explain whatever you can in plain language. One example is caption of the second figure. I understand only few words of it and am absolutely sure it could be more accessible. As I said, I know nothing about the field, but I've learned from my parents (experienced doctors) that most medical terminology is designed on purpose so that the patients do not understand what the doctors are talking about :) If I find some time I will point to more specific examples in this article. Materialscientist (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have honestly tried to explain jargon as best I could (particularly in the lead), having spent 25+ years trying to explain things in simple terms to schoolkids. The nature of this subject (and its sources) lends itself to medical jargon, so I sympathise with you, but really need a fresh pair of eyes to tell me specifically what may be inaccessible now, as I think I'm just too familiar with the text. I had hoped Peer Review would have sorted that, but I'm rather naive about the processes, and do appreciate whatever help I can get. Thank you anyway for all the time you've invested here. I've recaptioned the rat lung, but accept that the image is less than ideal to a casual reader. --RexxS (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

10) It sound like a relieving joke to hear after a long and dead serious scientific article the story of Dr. Ox. The joke part is that "oxyhydrogen" mixtures are very explosive (no wonder that the villagers got excited :) With all do respect to Jules Verne, do we need to include such fantasies ? Materialscientist (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That was (again) a specific suggestion at Peer Review by Ruhrfisch. Although there's no need for it, I actually think that the Dr. Ox story paints an interesting picture of Victorian fascination with pseudo-science and the unknown dangers of oxygen - in some ways, quite prescient! Perhaps I should say so in the article, or would that be WP:OR? Either way, I'd quite like to keep it, but as ever, I'm willing to be guided here. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat, hydrogen and oxygen gases spontaneously explode upon mixing, causing major destruction. I did delete that part and expect the one who restores it to explain why such things may stay there. One possibility was that Verne was not that naive and did not mean hydrogen (I can't check the original). Another problem was that this article and WP article on the novel gave somewhat different versions of what happened to that town :) Materialscientist (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible that Verne in 1874 had no idea that O2/H2 mixtures between 5% and 95% are explosive and he surely made up "oxyhydric" for the sound, rather than to represent a real gas mixture. The Barnes & Noble review is online and pretty much agrees with my summary, by the way. Nevertheless, the paragraph was only suggested to illustrate how oxygen was viewed in Victorian culture, and I won't contest its removal. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read the novel and here is the summary: (i) Ox used electrolysis of water to separate oxygen and hydrogen (ii) Pure oxygen was pumped to the citizens (no hydrogen whatsoever - do not believe the reviews, read the originals) (iii) Verne clearly described that O2+H2 easily explodes, and the story ended by accident - industrial explosion destroying the factory of Dr. Ox (iv) In the end, Verne clearly summarized that the whole story on oxygen effect on humans, animals and plants is a pure fiction invented by him. Thus I am fine to have the story back provided it is fixed not to disgrace Jules Verne, as it did. Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I liked that story. I read it as a kid and was bewildered by why Verne thought it was cool (now I'm beginning to understand better :-). I think a brief mention of it is a useful addition here. Eubulides (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

11) Lead: "Oxygen toxicity is treated by reducing the exposure to elevated oxygen levels." (?!?) - does this qualify as "treatment"?

MOSMED provides for a section called "Management" or "Treatment" and there's sometimes a grey line between them. But I agree that "managed" is much better than "treated" in the lead in this case, so I've changed it. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"the long term recovery from most types of oxygen toxicity is good." (?!?) - what is "good" ?

In the sense of "... made a good recovery from ...". I'd rather not have to define what I think is a common phrase, unless you insist. I can see that it looks awkward though, so I have rephrased the sentence to put the adjective next to the noun to try to improve how it reads. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Pulmonary": "an inflammation of the airways leading to and within the lungs (tracheobronchitis) which appears" - I understood this, but is it well written ?

No, but I've tried to fix it now. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"History": phrase "operational oxygen procedures" seems incomplete. Materialscientist (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In industrial or military contexts, there are standard operating procedures, issued to regulate the use of particular items. I'll try to clarify that. --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. I have two concerns about the chart in the "Classification" section:-

1. One result is "anoxemia". This means "the complete absence of oxygen in the blood", although interestingly the word is not defined in Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary. I would be very surprised if anoxemia actually occurs prior to death. A more accurate word would be "hypoxemia".
2. Another result is "Chemical toxicity and destruction of any cell death". This doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately the nature of the chart (as a .jpg) makes it impossible for me to edit it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I share your concerns. However, that chart is an exact reproduction of John Clark's original, by Gene Hobbs - see File:Clark1974.jpg and is also reproduced in Bennett and Elliott's physiology and medicine of diving, 5th Rev ed (the 'bible' of diving medicine) on page 359. So that's what the sources say, and I'm not in a position to argue with them. I can only suppose that Clark used anoxemia loosely, and that he meant "Chemical toxicity and destruction of any cell. Death", as consequent results, but applying my interpretations to a source is WP:OR. I made an editable version of that chart last October (File:Clark1974.svg), but decided not to use it as the text didn't scale well. Given all of that, I'm happy to be guided by you in what is best for the article. --RexxS (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Eubulides again - he's edited and clarified my old svg version and replaced the jpg. Hope that's better. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still unhappy about the use of the term "anoxemia". I've been digging around to clarify the meaning of the word. From its etymology, it should mean "the absence of oxygen in the blood". Mondofacto medical dictionary states "A condition in which the blood does not carry enough oxygen to keep an organism alive". The word is infrequently used in modern medical literature, partly because "hypoxemia" is more accurate, and partly because where it is used, it is often misused to mean "anoxia". It is particularly counter-intuitive that oxygen toxicity should lead to the absence of oxygen in the blood. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The following would be WP:OR, but that branch of the tree refers to pulmonary damage, and I'm certain that the most pernicious effect of oxygen toxicity on the lungs is to reduce their ability to exchange oxygen into the blood, owing to atelectasis. It may be that in the extreme, blood may be completely deoxygenated, causing death (and any small remaining amount of oxygen could still be metabolised as cells don't all die at once).

Anyway, we don't need my speculation: As Clark is the original source of the word in that diagram, I've looked at Clark's PhD thesis - it's a good read for anybody interested in the effects of oxygen on the lungs (apologies if you're already familiar with it). On page 20, he states, "Pulmonary oxygen toxicity is characterized by an insidious onset followed by a progressive increase in severity that eventually causes severe pulmonary damage, hypoxemia and death" (my emphasis). In which case, I don't see that altering Clark's chart to accommodate your misgivings would be a problem - we're just using another formulation of the same chain of events by the same author. --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The layout of the article is different to that recommended at WP:MOSMED (the "History" section). I don't see any specific reason for this. Would you consider moving the "History" section to follow MOSMED? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As you may remember from GA, the article (thanks to your help) had a layout that exactly conformed with MOSMED's recommendations. However at its Peer Review, Ruhrfisch requested that "History" be moved higher. I explained to him about MOSMED, but agreed to ask at the Doctor's Mess. WhatamIdoing persuaded me that I could move the section as requested in Peer Review. Personally, I think the article looks as good either way, but I would find it disconcerting if I have to change the layout to one way for GA, to another for PR, and back for FA. Would you be able to review the Peer Review discussion and the discussion at Doctor's Mess, please, and come back to me with a definitive recommendation? --RexxS (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those links. I have invited Ruhrfisch to comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the suggestion to move the History section earlier in the article in the peer review because I thought it made more sense to describe the historical development of understanding of oxygen toxicity before going into all the details. While I still think it makes more sense there, I am fine with moving it elsewhere in the article. Unfortunately I do not have time to review the article in depth for this FAC, sorry. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruhrfisch. I have moved the "History" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

From the lead, paragraph 1: "Oxygen toxicity is a concern for ... astronauts." From "Prevention", "Hypobaric setting", it appears that oxygen toxicity is easily prevented in astronauts. Would you consider removing the comment about astronauts from the lead? I suggest that you leave the paragraph "Prevention", "Hypobaric setting", because this is relevant to the article, well-referenced and not given undue weight. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. thank you, that was a good catch. --RexxS (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of "Management": "During oxygen therapy, the patient will usually breathe 100% oxygen from a mask, while inside a hyperbaric chamber at an air pressure of around 2.8 bar (280 kPa)." Is this specifically referring to hyperbaric oxygen therapy? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I may be guilty of WP:OR. Hyperbaric chamber facilities (in the UK at least) are usually constructed to deal with decompression incidents in divers, and the commonest schedule pressurises the chamber to 2.8 bar, with the victim breathing 100% oxygen from a mask. This allows a convulsing patient to have the mask removed by the attendant, immediately dropping the ppO2 from 2.8 bar to less than 0.6 bar. That much I can reference (if so much detail is required). However, my work for the SAA has led me to be invited to various chambers, and while chatting with the operators, I discovered that they tend to cover their costs by offering HBOT to the NHS for treating CO poisoning, gas gangrene, ulceration, etc. They explained that naturally they tend to use the same sort of procedures for the therapy as they use for treatment of DCI. But I'm not a WP:RS. So what do you think? Were you just asking for it to read "During hyperbaric oxygen therapy ..." or did you want references? --RexxS (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are three main situations when oxygen toxicity occurs: diving, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and (premature) neonates. Would you consider separating the "Management" section into three paragraphs along these lines (or possibly four if you want to separate retinopathy of prematurity from bronchopulmonary dysplasia)? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. I've made four paragraphs: HBOT, diving, BPD (which really should include ARDS in adults as well), and ROP. I've taken the opportunity to rephrase the first two and hope that makes an improvement. --RexxS (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the detached retina images in "Management", would you consider adding labels to the images to assist people who are unfamiliar with the anatomy of the eye? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, but I only added "Pupil", "Lens", "Optic nerve", "Retina" and "Choroid" to the first image. I doubt whether more would help (and the casual reader is unlikely to understand "choroid", but I felt it needed that to show what the retina has detached from). --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There are problems with the "Percentage of severe visual impairment and blindness" chart in the "Epidemiology" section.

1. I am unconvinced of the benefit of inclusion of data about the epidemiology of retinopathy of prematurity, when oxygen toxicity is not the main risk factor.
2. Bar charts with this sort of data conventionally have the axes the other way around.
3. The categories with non-zero lower limits (Europe & Latin America) would be better represented as a floating column chart.
4. The title needs simplifying. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

But oxygen toxicity is an important factor, if not the main one. There's a good read called Retrolental Fibroplasia: A Modern Parable where William Silverman documents the progress of ROP from WWII as supplemental O2 became increasingly available for neonates; into the 50s where the use of O2 was restricted leading to reduced ROP but higher mortality; and later where strict protocols were introduced to monitor for ROP while infants are receiving O2. Clare Gilbert observed the same issues existing in their different stages in other countries and I really think something about that epidemiology deserves to be in this article. Of course, the details of all that really belong in retinopathy of prematurity.

I've remade the barchart as you suggest. I hope it is an improvement. --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

From "Causes", "Ocular toxicity": "Supplemental oxygen exposure, while a risk factor, is not the main risk factor for development of this disease." [This emphasis is not mine.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

From "Prevention", " Normobaric setting": The National Cooperative Study in 1954 showed a causal link between supplemental oxygen and retinopathy of prematurity, but subsequent curtailment of supplemental oxygen caused an increase in infant mortality. Oxygen toxicity is an important risk factor in ROP (which didn't exist prior to supplemental oxygen becoming available), but the point is that degree of prematurity is the principal risk factor. The trick is in balancing mortality against ROP in determining how much oxygen to give. That's why we have the screening protocols. The fact that incidence of ROP varies widely, indicating dependance on the stage of development of a country's neonatal care services, is relevant enough to justify inclusion in Epidemiology, imho. --RexxS (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been tricky to find a freely available online journal article in English about the epidemiology of ROP that includes statistical analysis, but here is one. Of course oxygen use is a risk factor, but I think that you are overstating its significance. In the past ('50s & '60s), it has been a major cause of ROP. Duration of oxygen use and FiO₂ are risk factors, but they are no longer independent risk factors. In the logistic regression model, they are related to the duration of mechanical ventilation/CPAP. The odds ratio for duration of mechanical ventilation is 1.06. The duration of oxygen use was not independently significant.

From Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics, 18th edition (2007), pages 2599-2600 : "The risk factors associated with ROP are not fully known, but prematurity and the associated retinal immaturity at birth represent the major factors. Oxygenation, respiratory distress, apnea, bradycardia, heart disease, infection, hypercarbia, acidosis, anemia, and the need for transfusion are thought by some to be contributory factors.... Oxygen alone is neither sufficient nor necessary to produce ROP."

"The fact that incidence of ROP varies widely, indicating dependance on the stage of development of a country's neonatal care services, is relevant enough to justify inclusion in Epidemiology."

— RexxS

I respectfully disagree. This would be appropriate information for "Retinopathy of prematurity" and "Preterm birth". However it is only indirectly linked to oxygen toxicity. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that all of this (and more) would be certainly appropriate in the article Retinopathy of prematurity, I am left unsure about how much information about incidence of ROP you want to be included here. Silvermann has suggested (in: Arch Dis Child. 1982 October; 57(10): 731–733) here that "These landmark observations also suggest a mechanism (increased blood flow and raised transluminal pressure in the developing retinal vasculature) to explain how scarring complications can occur without exposure to supplemental oxygen." which indicates a mechanism where oxygen is capable of causing ROP even at normal respiratory fractions. Given the effect of aspirin in animal studies (ibid), where suppression of vasoconstriction in the developing retina can lead to cicatricial lesions, I cannot accept that ROP is only indirectly linked to oxygen toxicity. That other factors may overwhelm attempts to correlate oxygen exposure with ROP incidence does not refute the fact that the mechanism of the damage done to the eye is that of oxygen toxicity. The Nelson textbook is surely a gross oversimplification: hyperoxia is neither sufficient nor necessary to produce ROP; but oxygen surely is necessary.

Nevertheless, you are the medical expert and I want to be guided by you as to what should be included in this article. Would you be willing to cut from the Epidemiology section whatever you feel is extraneous, or indicate to me what you would like me to remove, please? None of this need be lost as we could always incorporate it into Retinopathy of prematurity in the future. --RexxS (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we don't agree on the significance of the aspirin experiments, nor on the strength of causality between supplemental oxygen and ROP.

"The Nelson textbook is surely a gross oversimplification: hyperoxia is neither sufficient nor necessary to produce ROP; but oxygen surely is necessary."

— RexxS

Yes, I suppose that's true, in the sense that the baby would die (and ROP would not occur) if it receives no oxygen at all. [I'm not intending to be facetious, but I'm unsure how else to interpret your comment.]

In any case, I would like to achieve a compromise with you. I would like to remove the chart from this article. However if you strongly feel that the chart should remain, let's leave the chart in, although I would suggest an alteration to the title: "Proportion of childhood severe visual impairment/bindness blindness due to retinopathy of prematurity". Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

From my reading of the literature, I think that ROP occurs like this: While an eye is developing, it grows blood vessels to supply the retina; if high blood flow occurs, bringing too much oxygen (even with 21% O2 @ 1ATA - but more so with raised FO2), usually vasoconstriction occurs as a negative feedback loop; if the oxygen excess continues for too long, then the free radicals overcome the superoxide dismutase, etc. that normally mop them up; those radicals damage the capillaries and arrest growth; when normal conditions are restored, the damage may be repaired over time (spontaneous regression), or may be have produced lesions (higher stages of ROP). Studies show that in infant animals, lesions are not observed - animals other than primates produce their own vitamin C (anti-oxidant), but aspirin prevents vasoconstriction and those animals will then produce lesions.

So what I'm trying to say is that many factors (early stage of development, lack of anti-oxidant, inability to vasoconstrict, excess oxygen) can all play a part in producing ROP in different ways. Nevertheless two factors are common: that they retina is still developing; and enough oxygen is present to overcome the anti-oxidants. That's what I meant by "oxygen is necessary to produce ROP" - clearly not testable directly because you can't eliminate oxygen to trial it, but can be inferred from the studies. And the damage done is attributable to the mechanisms of oxygen toxicity, hence the relevance.

That's probably a debate for the ROP article though. I actually don't feel strongly about the chart, other than it's difficult to find good images for a topic like this. The reason we include images is to express ideas that would be more difficult in words. The image shows clearly the wide regional variation in ROP and Clare Gilberts explains why. If we take it out, we won't have lost much more than a detail in the information presented. Anyway, I'll certainly change the title. Have a look at it when I've done that and if you still feel it's more than the article needs, please take it out. It will still be around when we work on the ROP article. --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the production of reactive oxygen species (probably) is the mechanism of damage. However reactive oxygen species are implicated in many other diseases. The first sentence from the lead: "Oxygen toxicity is a condition resulting from the harmful effects of breathing molecular oxygen at elevated partial pressures." [Emphasis is mine.] The link between ROP and elevated pO₂ is less clearcut.

We seem to be quibbling about minutiae. Please go ahead and adjust the chart. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (only you misspelt "blindness"). ;-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Corrected - thank you.--RexxS (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

From "Causes", "Central nervous system toxicity": "Short exposures ... are usually associated with central nervous system oxygen toxicity". This doesn't seem right. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it a hang-over from when it was directly contrasted with "Longer exposures ..." in the pulmonary section, before they were separated. I'll amend that. --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. I don't know if it is considered good etiquette to add my own comments, but there are three issues I have where I would appreciate comment from other users (I only just found the toolbox at the top of this page):

1. The readability of the article is at quite a high level, is this unusual for an article that necessarily contains many scientific terms? --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the explanations below. --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, the automated scripts do suggest that "Oxygen toxicity" is more complex than average. Other medical featured articles such as "Coeliac disease" and "Lung cancer" tend to be a little less complex. "Schizophrenia" is a notable exception, and its featured article status has been called into question because of this issue. In my opinion, the article is fairly straightforward to read compared to other medical articles (although I have a biased viewpoint). I'm not too concerned about these automated reports. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   Please do not rely on that tools, its output is flawed. Anyway readability analysis is an unscientific field and should not be applied to this encylopedia. — Dispenser 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

2. There is one link to a dab page, Vascular, but that page actually does more than disambiguate: it also defines "vascularised" more succinctly than any of the articles it points to. Must I change that link or might WP:IAR apply in this case? --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks to Axl for providing the solution. --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

   I've now found and read WP:INTDABLINK - so I've created Vascular (disambiguation)‎ as a redirect to disambiguation, and linked to that in this article instead. --RexxS (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

   That's backwards: the idea is to not link to a dab page, rather to an article. (Also, just a note: WP:MEDMOS is a guideline, and when you need to alter the section order for a good reason, it's perfectly fine to do so when consensus agrees.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   But the problem I had was that I wanted to link to the "so-called" dab page. It's the only place on Wikipedia that defines "vascularized" properly. None of the "proper" articles that are linked from there do the job. If anybody could take a look at Vascular and suggest how I might solve this problem, I'd be grateful. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   I changed it to link to Wiktionary. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Some of the external links in references show up as "Uncategorized redirects". is that a problem that I need to rectify? --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the explanations below. --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

   It was a problem, yes. As a general rule, Wikipedia articles shouldn't contain external links to non-free sources (many of those were in that category). Also, it's nice when there's a redirect to a stable page to link directly to the page, as this avoids extra work by the user's browser. I fixed this a few hours ago, and I see from Ealdgyth's comment below that the article checks out now. Eubulides (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

   Please do not confuse these messages (green entries) with problems, "Uncategorized redirect" simply mean the AI wasn't able to sort it into the Working links or the Broken links. Also WP:R2D generally applies to external links, if not more so. Bypassing the redirect kills any archives source associate with that URL you might have been able to point if they went dead! — Dispenser 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

   I agree that green entries are not necessarily problems, but it's still wise to avoid external links to redirects unless you know that the source link is more stable than the target. Avoiding such redirects can yield noticeably better performance for the user. WP:R2D is about wikilinks, not external links, and WP:PERF doesn't apply here since this performance issue is outside Wikipedia. Eubulides (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

   Well in short, it kills any archive history you might have been able to retrieve from the Wayback machine or WebCite. — Dispenser 12:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for taking to the time to put those results into context for me - I hope you will excuse me as I'm new here. Having spotted the box called "Toolbox" at the top right of this subpage, I assumed that the results from those links would be germane to the discussion, so I checked them. Perhaps there should be some documentation on the use of the toolbox, or did I miss it? --RexxS (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

   Well most submitter already tend to miss the toolbox, but there's a link on the top right label documentation. I am now in the mitts of rewriting the documentation to be more relevant to editors and rearrange the navigation to have better position context (people kept not finding things because it was not where they excepted). — Dispenser 12:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.rebreatherworld.com/rebreather-accidents-incidents/16705-standardizing-ccr-rescue-skills-3.html#post163661

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that source's appearance is pretty dicey: a general reader cannot tell that it's a reliable source and not some random anonymous crank in a blog for all I can see. Is there a better source to support what the article says? Eubulides (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced 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." The article text that it cites reads: Dr Simon Mitchell, chair of the Underwater and Hyperbaric Medical Society's diving committee, has recently pointed out that there is no evidence of expiratory obstruction during seizure, and that benefit may be gained by lifting the diver during the clonic phase. That forum post - although not normally a WP:RS - is Dr Mitchell stating his opinion and expresses an important controversy about how best to manage seizures underwater. Dr Mitchell is an acknowledged expert in the field of diving medicine and has respected published works in this field (see Lippmann, John; Mitchell, Simon (2005). Deeper into Diving (2nd ed.). Victoria, Australia: J.L. Publications. ISBN 097522901X. for example). I wish I could find a better source, but scuba divers have a habit of often discussing controversies online nowadays, rather than in print. --RexxS (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, RexxS, for clearing this up. I was looking just at the citation, not at the text it sources, so I missed the source's qualifications. To try to avoid further problems like this, I moved those qualifications into the citation. This is better style anyway, as the main text should focus on what's known (citations can focus on the sources). Eubulides (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's an improvement. Although I would reserve the right to present opposing opinions sometimes (rather than fact), as long as we keep within V, RS, NPOV & UNDUE. --RexxS (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support and comments An interesting article on a topic of which i know nothing, but found to be a good read. Two nit picks

• partial pressures I think needs wikilinking at the first occurence
• (·O₂^–) The superoxide anion is (O₂^–); although it has an unpaired electron, it's not normally shown as a free radical

jimfbleak (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and support. Actually, 'partial pressures' is wikilinked in the very first sentence of the article, but I sometimes wonder if a second link should be made for those terms which recur much further on in an article. If you feel the place where you found it needs a link, please make one. I searched google (text and images) for "superoxide anion" and found a mix of " O₂^– ", " ·O₂^– " and " O₂·^– ", with the last style being slightly the commonest. I infer that the dot is probably shown when the intention is to emphasise that the ion is also a radical. Anyway, I'll take out the middot from the article, as it's already named as a ROS. --RexxS (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think that you would need to mention blood oxygen and carbon dioxide as drivers of respiration in order to understand the effect of breathing a more concentrated oxygen mixture than air. In COPD low blood oxygen levels are often the driver for respiration rather than high CO2 levels, with loss of the main driver on inhaling concentrated oxygen. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is possibly a remnant from the time when Hyperoxia redirected to Oxygen toxicity, but in the article it is mentioned in "Classification" as Hyperoxia can also indirectly cause carbon dioxide narcosis in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. [Patel, Dharmeshkumar N; Goel, Ashish; Agarwal, S.B.; Garg, Praveenkumar; Lakhani, Krishna K. (2003). "Oxygen toxicity" (PDF). Journal, Indian Academy of Clinical Medicine. 4 (3): 234–7. Retrieved 2008-09-28.] . The cite gives a concise description of the condition. However, I felt that this was only tangentially relevant to Oxygen toxicity as I've stuck with the distinction that hyperoxia is an excess of oxygen in the body; while oxygen toxicity is essentially the damage it may cause (directly). Possibly, we should have an article on Carbon dioxide narcosis and it certainly should be covered in Hyperoxia, but I'm not sure how much more than a mention would fit here. --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I did notice the short mention of "carbon dioxide" narcosis and I thought that the mechanism was not well described. The first line of the article says "Oxygen toxicity is a condition resulting from the harmful effects of breathing molecular oxygen (O2) at elevated partial pressures." and so clearly the article should not be dedicated to the direct toxic effect of oxygen on cells. If you explained the mechanism it would also be clearer why COPD patients should not go to oxygen bars, which is also mentioned. Snowman (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I wondered about that myself, but I didn't feel strongly about it. Perhaps I should add a paragraph to "Causes", "Pulmonary toxicity"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you could, that would tie up the "loose ends" as Snowman points out. On reflection, there's little point in my suggesting a fuller description should be in Hypoxia, when that is a just a stub at present. Perhaps we can turn our attention there at some point in the future, which would increase the value of the link to it from this article? --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have added a brief section about COPD. Please edit it as you see fit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks yet again. I've done a little rewriting to attempt to explain some of the terms in the simplest language that I can, I've and referenced Patel et al for the effects of carbon dioxide narcosis (might need a little expansion). I have a problem with the first bullet point though (remember I'm no medic), as I've read it several times as well as our articles on Vasoconstriction and Ventilation/perfusion ratio, but I still don't understand the way in which poor ventilation/perfusion matching impacts on problems of giving supplemental oxygen to COPD sufferers. Can you help me out with this? --RexxS (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

From Kim: "acute administration of supranormal levels of oxygen to patients with COPD and with ARF [acute respiratory failure] can lead to hypercapnia, and the primary mechanism is the release of hypoxic vasoconstriction in underventilated lung causing ventilation–perfusion imbalance."

From Nunn's Applied Respiratory Physiology: "Alveolar pO₂ is known to contribute to hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and so help minimize V/Q mismatch. Administration of oxygen may therefore abolish hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction in poorly ventilated areas and so increase alveolar dead space. If minute volume of ventilation remains constant, hypercapnia will ensue."

In COPD, some parts of the lungs are well-ventilated, while other parts are poorly-ventilated. The alveolar pO₂ in poorly-ventilated lung tissue is low. This low pO₂ causes arteriolar vasoconstriction, limiting the blood flow through the poorly ventilated lung tissue. Giving supplemental oxygen raises the alveolar pO₂ in the poorly-ventilated lung tissue. The arterioles dilate, increasing blood flow. Unfortunately the ventilation in those areas remains low, causing ventilation/perfusion mismatch. The local alveolar pCO₂ rises and hypercapnia occurs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

From "Central nervous system toxicity", "Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease": "Most carbon dioxide is carried by the blood as bicarbonate, and deoxygenated hemoglobin promotes the production of bicarbonate. Increasing the amount of oxygen in the blood by administering supplemental oxygen reduces the amount of deoxygenated hemoglobin, and thus reduces the capacity of blood to carry carbon dioxide. This is known as the Haldane effect." Technically, this section is entirely accurate. However the increased bicarbonate production of unoxygenated hemoglobin actually constitutes about one third of the Haldane effect. Two thirds is due to increased carbamino carriage. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Axl. I must admit I trusted our article on Haldane effect which reads: "The majority of carbon dioxide in the blood is in the form of bicarbonate." That will teach me to believe what I read in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The article "Haldane effect" is technically correct. The majority of carbon dioxide in the blood is indeed in the form of bicarbonate (about 90%). "Haldane effect" is currently missing a description of carbamino compounds, which I shall now add. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for asking me about the new section, which I was surprised to find is in list format. Perhaps it should give in indication of the relative importance of the three items on the list, including by shortening any lessor contributors perhaps. I think is could also say 95% oxygen and 5% CO2 mixture can be used in some circumstances to reduce some of the adverse effects of oxygen; see here, although better references should be provided. I think the 5%/95% gas mixture will provide some interest of the physiology and will help with the explanations. Please note that I have only been involved in the periphery of oxygen therapy and not as a specialist, but I hope that perhaps you might consider some of my ideas (not necessarily all). Snowman (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• From "Kim", the relative contributions of these three effects are 48%, 30% and 22%. I'm not convinced that this information needs to be in our article. The 95% O₂/5% CO₂ mixture is not used to mitigate the adverse effects of oxygen. It is used at the end of general anaesthesia to speed recovery from the anaesthetic. It has no place in our article on "Oxygen toxicity". Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have put a line through my error above. Snowman (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• No worries. Would you like us to add the percentages I quoted to the article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• There does not seem to be any out of the three with a very minor effect. I have done some copy editing instead. Please look for further improvements, and I hope to look again tomorrow. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• The "Causes" section. I am a little puzzles by the headings throughout this section. Is the section on "circumstances"? where there may be sub-headings on "neonates", divers, COPD. Or is the section on "Toxicity"? with sub-headings lungs, eyes, COPD, CNS. I think it might be best to change the heading from "Causes" to "Toxicity" and have anatomical sub-headings plus COPD. Snowman (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:MEDMOS#sections for the recommended layout of medical articles. Oxygen toxicity has completely different effects on different parts of the body, with different consequences. Generally, I find it useful to group together things which are similar - in the case of "Causes" (which includes risk factors. but not "Mechanism"), the similarities exist within the affected organ. Hence: CNS; Lungs; Eyes. Whereas grouping by Neonates, Adults on Supplemental O2, Divers, HBOT, Astronauts, etc. would draw together such dissimilar effects as BPD and ROP in neonates, yet separate similar effects such as BPD and ARDS, as well as CNS toxicity into Divers and HBOT. In such a broad subject, other sections may be better sub-organised in a different way (e.g. "Prevention"). I don't find that breaking up an article into large numbers of small subsections (based on minor differences) in any way improves it. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: it has been reorganised to move the mechanisms in COPD from the section on "Causes" to "Mechanisms", which is much better. Snowman (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gene Hobbs disagrees with the inclusion of COPD information in the article. Here are his comments (copied from Talk:Oxygen toxicity):- Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

<RANT>

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY DISAGREE! It does NOT need to be here.

Many in the field initially resisted a change to the term "oxygen toxicity" and much preferred the old term "oxygen poisoning". The strongest argument against the change was that people would not know the difference between "oxygen toxicity" and the "toxic effects resulting from oxygen". They thought the use of the phrase "high partial pressures" in defining it would help. Even as recently as 1999, Lambertsen would not use oxygen toxicity without also saying oxygen poisoning in the same article. (JAP) We have now proven their concerns to be correct.

In my mind, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) for that matter are far from the classic "oxygen poisoning". I indulged when ROP was included because it was listed in Mosby's Medical Dictionary as such and you were able to convince me that this is a good use of the term. With the relationship of COPD used in this article, we should be scrapping ALL other medical disorder articles and redirecting them to hypoxia. After all, people don't die from a hemmorage, Cardiac arrest or any other medical disorder, they die from the lack of oxygen to the tissues and brain. Maybe it's that I am clinging to history a little too much but if it should be included, why is the literature so poor and the use the term "oxygen toxicity" to describe this non-existent?

What are ICD9 and 10 codes for? Nobody I know ever uses these for either COPD or ROP. Might that be because it is not the best description of the disorders? (Yes, this is retorical)

I do agree the topics should be briefly addressed but calling the respiratory arrest resulting from oxygen breathing "oxygen toxicity" is just bad physiology.

And, why are we worried about other articles and their correctness as it relates to this one? If the others are bad, fix them next. If they are so bad that this article can not reach FA without improving them first, so be it. This article is FAR from ready for FA with all this "other" information creeping into it.

</RANT>

I'll obviously respect what ever you all decide and refrain from further comment. Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• In reading the current version of the article I agree with Gene Hobbs that too much space is given to COPD and this should be trimmed back. I don't think COPD needs to be mentioned in Classification; nor in Causes (COPD doesn't cause oxygen toxicity!). The 200-word COPD discussion in Mechanism should be moved to some more-relevant article (it's a good discussion) and summarized here in (say) 50 words or less.
• The lead mentions COPD as part of an FDA warning, but this isn't specifically discussed in the body, in violation of WP:LEAD. I suggest replacing COPD with "heart or lung disease" in the lead.

Eubulides (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've searched Wikipedia for another article to move this to: Oxygen therapy# Negative effects has one paragraph describing the condition; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease#Supplemental oxygen has one sentence; Hypoxia (medical) mentions COPD but doesn't describe this complication. Rather than start whole-scale rewriting of these articles, with the problem of WP:UNDUE, I'm (boldly) creating a spinout for the moment: Effect of oxygen on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Hopefully, those with medical expertise can use that to improve the articles to which it is most relevant, and I can always request a delete when that is done. --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

With the new article now in place, I've removed the paragraphs on COPD, leaving only the brief mention in "Classification" because that is the present location of the information summarising effects which are not oxygen toxicity or only indirectly related to it. I've added a "See also" section for readers curious about oxygen and COPD. Any suggestions for improving those changes would be welcome. --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's great, thanks RexxS. You've achieved a compromise that (hopefully) should keep all parties fairly happy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 04:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. RexxS has created an excellent article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 04:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment excellent indepth article. I am wondering if however a few more of the images should be set to default sizes. Makes it easier for slow machines.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment, Doc. I do appreciate that the sum total of the images used is around 100KB. The five svg's make up 85KB since they are rendered by the wikimedia software as full 32-bit png's quite unnecessarily. For example, the 30K image 700px-Clark1974.svg.png would be only 13K if a 256-colour palette png were to be used (and only 9K if a 16-colour palette were used). However, I'm not sure what you mean by default size. Unlike normal webservers - which serve an image at the size it is stored on the server and leave the browser to resize it - wikipedia servers first rescale images to the size set by the editor, and then serve that (usually smaller) image. That means, in this case, that the only way to help small machines would be to set smaller image sizes. I believe I've already made them as small as I can for viewability in the article (apart from the Paul_Bert_01.jpg which would be smaller if the |upright parameter were put back). If you wish, I can create optimised png's for each of the svg's and upload them for use in the article in place of the svg's. That would probably save around 50KB. --RexxS (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The only images that are non-default sizes are Image:Clark1974.svg (which I just now tweaked from 700 to 600px), Image:Lipid peroxidation.svg (300px), and Image:Incidence of ROP.svg (400px). Making them much smaller would be iffy, and allowing them to be the default size would make them completely unreadable for most users. I did mark two upright images as upright; I don't know why the upright parameter was removed from the Paul Bert image (Image:Paul Bert 01.jpg), but it does seem to belong there. Eubulides (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the rendering of svg into png does not rescale text linearly, but in steps, resulting in text being clipped at the right edge if the width is set to 600px. If we can decide on a width for each svg, I'll prepare and upload optimised png's which should address all the issues. --RexxS (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that. I changed it back to 700px. If it were me, I wouldn't hassle with working around the bug; I'd just leave it at 700px. Eubulides (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on image concerns:

• File:Pulm O2 tox histology.jpg: a source (url, archive, photo ID, or publication) is needed; other than Wikipedia and its mirrors, no other sites (including the Naval Medical Research Lab sites) carry this image.
• File:Paul Bert 01.jpg: contrary to its statements, the author is known (at least by surname)—Destréguil. See the frontispiece of this 1900 book. Undoubtably, it is public domain in US, but it might still be copyrighted in France if Destréguil was in his 20s when he took the photo (of a likely 50+ year old Bert) and lived to his 80s (meaning the photo becomes only PD in France during the 2010s). This image should be moved to Wikipedia, which I have taken the liberty to upload a superior copy at File:Paul Bert.jpg (point: use the Wikipedia copy).

All other images are appropriately licensed or verifiably in public domain. Jappalang (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the 2nd image with this edit, which substitutes the superior copy you located (and thanks!). I left a note for the uploader of the 1st image asking for its source and pointing at this thread. Eubulides (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, how do I say that the image was provided for this article upon request by a pathologist at NMRL following my request to a friend for a lung histology image following a prolonged O2 exposure? That pathologist and my friend have both been moved to other commands now so getting the exact project name for this might be next to impossible and research data is not archived like normal government images so it has no ID number. Remove it if you must, I can try to find something else (Though it took a month to find this after it was asked for). --Gene Hobbs (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If the pathologist is willing to have his or her name here, along with with the date and as much detail about which part of NMRC it came from as you can muster, I think that would suffice (but perhaps Jappalang could weigh in as well). If they don't want to leave their name then I think it'd get a bit iffier, "anonymous researcher at NMRC" sounds a bit funny. Eubulides (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the basic requirements is verifiability of the images (hence a source provided with details to faciliate verification). For photos obtained directly from the source, a Photo or Archive ID number (perhaps a Folder or Project number in this case?) helps for those who wants to verify the images with the NMRC. Failing that, the OTRS (which can cater for those wishing to remain anonymous by forwarding the creator's permission) is the "seal of approval" for images that are not the creations of the uploader. Jappalang (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We have both thought for some time that particular image is in some ways the "weakest" because everyone unused to such slides will have difficulty in seeing the damage. However, there really are very few images available (in or out of copyright) that illustrate the effects of pulmonary oxygen toxicity, and Gene put a lot of effort into obtaining it, so we kept it. Nevertheless, I have an idea to replace it with a box containing the table of symptoms that Prof Donald observed in 1947 when he did the big study on Naval volunteers. It nicely shows the huge variability of tolerance and of severity of symptoms. Unless anyone thinks it's a bad idea, I'll try it out and see if it's a suitable replacement for the "Signs and symptoms" section. --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I solicited help from the Office of Naval Research and pathologypics.com today. Since the folks that gave this image to me to start with have moved on, it will be very hard to get info on this. If we come up with something, I'll get it loaded. Thanks all! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've substituted a summary table of symptoms from Donald's observations for the moment. That should help take the pressure off Gene. Hopefully, at some point the image will become unambiguously available and we can decide then what to do. If anyone feels the article would be improved by removing the table, or can modify it into something more aesthetic, I'm happy to comply. --RexxS (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support I reviewed the article through GAN and I thought it is a good article for FA> Now it is even better!Nergaal (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Cough I don't see any more outstanding issues. Isn't it time to promote? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:41, 21 July 2009 [34].

---

Silent Alarm

Nominator(s): Rafablu88, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. You may remember me from such FAC discussions as Fantasy Black Channel. I have followed that album's template and improved it considerably. Garden and I followed the GA reviewer's advice, did post-GA work, sent it to peer review, got a few copyeditors to have a bash at it, and even got it in on the Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week. The article should be more than ready for FA. I hope you won't find anything to complain about, but if you do, I'm sure it'll be minor stuff. I've followed the Fantasy Black Channel advice down to a tee on this, including the detailed comments from Karanacs. As a final note, I would encourage any willing editor to just be bold and edit the article if they feel they can improve its quality to FA. Garden and I will handle any other advice accordingly. Thanks in advance. Rafablu88 21:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Consider this a co-nom as it were; myself and Rafablu88 have, as he said, been working on this for a long while, and although he has done a lot more than me I will still patrol this FAC and address any comments that need addressing. Thanks in advance, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is Garden a co-nom for this? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my co-nomination was editconflicted with this comment. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE Whoever wants to support or object, please make sure to weigh in on the sources left at editors' discretion since it is very likely you will be asked back by the FAC people to talk about them if you haven't already done so. Thanks. Rafablu88 18:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Comments - Amazon.com and Discogs.com are not acceptable sources. Please find alternate verification or remove the cited material. You don't have to inline cite tracklisting; the album itself is the source, and it won't be disputed unless the tracklisting or writing credits are unclear. Delink ovelry common words. I restructured the article a bit to make it more concise and maintain focus on certain topics so that they aren't sprawled throughout the article; this is what I was trying to tell you on yoru talk page. I haven't even really rewritten anything, but it reads much better with certain sections moved around and merge wih others. Trim down the details on the individual songs; this album has five singles, and much of the detail must go on those sub-pages. Remember, deal with the album as a whole, and get specific when you need to. A track-by-track rundown is cumbersome. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Working towards editing/replying. Rafablu88 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Amazon is wiki and Ealdgyth "reliable". Discogs was removed.
  • Removed all tracklisting-related citations.
  • Delinked unnecessary words.
  • Trimmed down singles detail.
  • Track-by-track is now tight and cohesive with a balance of comprehensiveness and summation.

Rafablu88 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.rockfeedback.com/article.asp?nObjectID=2873

"A page on the site that gives their rules for submissions that indicate fact-checking and editorial oversight."; "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source" read: The Daily Star, The Guardian, and various record labels.

That first link doesn't say what their fact checking is, just lists contributors. The second link is from their own site, their "Wow we're great" page, which makes it less convincing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, they do cite The Daily Star and The Guardian. Both are from print versions that I cannot find short of phoning the outlets themselves. Also, Rockfeedback used to have a show on MTV 2 which could be found on at this address: www.mtv.co.uk/channel/mtv2/rockfeedback_tv. Unfortunately, it's been discontinued. Here's Drowned in Sound reporting the news (my head is gonna spin in a minute from all the reliability slippery slopes and perpetual cycles but nonetheless...): Rockfeedback hits MTV Rafablu88 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Found a comprehensive source [35]. (Note: rockfeedback.tv = rockfeedback.com) Rafablu88 21:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://drownedinsound.com/

"Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source" read: Reuters; Best Online Music Publication at the annual Record of the Day awards: [36] [37]; Nominated at the 2007 PLUG Awards for Music Website of the Year: [38]

This one I'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the wide editorial consensus here it should not be a problem. I think maybe have a chat with music experts on here like Wesley Dodds about DiS which should confirm its reliability so that you don't keep asking the question because you're going to get the same answer every time. Rafablu88 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

More "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source" read: The Guardian "The acclaimed British music website is six years old." (and actually talks about one of the refs used in the article (DiS is 6-years-old...)) Rafablu88 22:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the ultimate source for "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source (read: The Independent)" I think: DiS Feature Can we please for the love of god consider it "reliable" once and for all? Rafablu88 22:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/archives/2005/03/an_interview_wi_3.html

"A page on the site that gives their rules for submissions that indicate fact-checking and editorial oversight." Scroll down and see the left column: editors and staff writers; "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source" read: Slate Magazine.; "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source" read: The New York Observer.

This one I'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although I still don't understand from last time and this time what more you require apart from what you yourself have written here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. Rafablu88 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • Thanks, Steve. Found the ultimate biopic on the FW from Gelf Magazine via Google News: If this doesn't confirm its reliability, I'm leaving Wikipedia Also, here's Spin citing them: [39] Plus, the editor has been published, a book called The Hipster Handbook, here's USA Today: [40] Rafablu88 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • http://www.discogs.com/ (Note it's a "a community-built database of music information")

I personally don't see what the big deal is. They undertake hierarchical peer review for every submission. I only used it for Catalog details of CDs. If you're still bothered, I'll take them off and just cite the CDs themselves but I really don't see the point just for a simple code citation.

This would be better cited to the actual CD, honestly. Avoids an uneccessary layer which can introduce transcription errors. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I'll have a look at Esprit International first though, especially for the vinyl codes which I don't own. Rafablu88 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed all but one Discogs which may or may not need more sources researched. I'll have a look tomorrow. Rafablu88 23:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

All Discogs gone. Rafablu88 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Magazine titles in the refs should be in italics. I noticed current ref 29 (Southall..) but there may be others.

Ones without italics are obviously not print media even though they are magazines. I've checked the sources over and over especially following your comments on the Fantasy Black Channel FAC. Rafablu88 17:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest going with "Stylus Magazine website" then, as just giving the title gives the implication that it was in the print version, not online only content. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove Magazine then. Just to point out that some editors explicitly advised me and edited about adding the Magazine. Rafablu88 20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the magazine's website, right? So calling the publisher as "Stylus Magazine website" and including the magazine as well as the words website is quite fine. I can understand why they wanted you to add Magazine, and I agree. I'm just suggesting adding website at the end to make it clear that it's the website in the ref. It'd look like this: Southall, Nick (14 February 2005). "Bloc Party: Silent Alarm". Stylus Magazine website. Retrieved 11 February 2009.. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's alright. I left Stylus on its own with the link to Stylus Magazine. Adding website would be a bit cumbersome I think. It should be fine now. Rafablu88 21:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Comment I have more comments to add, but my Wiki time is very limited these days, so it might take me up to a week to come back to this FAC. While I haven't looked at Drowned in Sound yet, it definitely should not be given usch prominence in the article, to the point of quoting the site in the lead. With album articles, I generally refrain from listing any specific comments by critics in the lead, instead favoring an outline of general critical consensus about the work; there's tons of room later in the article to quote reviews. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the quotes out of the lead.  PUBLIC GARDEN  13:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point about naming critical sources in lead. No need to go overboard though with removal. Found a happy medium. Rafablu88 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

---

• Comments This is a very nice article; I don't think it's far away at all, though there are a few very minor issues. I haven't finished the review, but as this FAC has been here a while I thought I'd post my thoughts on the first three sections to give you time to look over them while I do the rest of the article Steve ^T • C:

Background

• "Discussing 'She's Hearing Voices', the first demo song later remastered in the studio sessions"—ambiguity; does this mean that "She's Hearing Voices" was the first demo that was remastered in the studio sessions, or merely that it was the first demo song (and which was later remastered)?
  • Attempted a fix: Discussing "She's Hearing Voices", the first demo song to be remastered in the studio sessions
    • Made it even tighter. Remastering is mentioned in Lyrics... Rafablu88 20:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Studio sessions

• "In the summer of 2004"—ambiguity; in the southern hemisphere, summer is winter (I know they're lousy cricketers, but you have to consider the Australians!) You have the actual months in the sentence that follows, so if you want to avoid both the ambiguity and the repetition (while retaining this introductory sentence), perhaps "In mid-2004" would be the best fit. Alternatively, consider merging the first two sentences to eliminate the redundancy (e.g. "In June and July 2004, Bloc Party recorded Silent Alarm in studios in London and Copenhagen. The band recorded fifteen tracks in 22 days; all of the songs were ..." That's a very rough example, but you get the idea.
  • Done both of them. Both seem beneficial to me.
    • Used month in section and mid-2004 in lead. Rafablu88 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• "allowing the guitars space to improvise"—guitars don't improvise, guitarists do.
  • Oops. Fixed.
• "The band's priority was not geared towards making the songs danceable"—half the sentence is redundant for getting the idea across; why not simply, "The band's priority was not geared towards making to make the songs danceable"? And is a song "danceable" or "danceable to"? The action, the verb (to dance) is not performed by the song, but by a person. Unsure how this could read better for now, but consider alternatives.
  • Fixed, and attempted a workaround: The band's priority was not to make the songs dance-aligned
• "The quartet believed that 21st-century rock music can only survive if people start "mixing styles that aren't supposed to be together"—tense issues. "believed ... can"; perhaps it's technically correct, but the effect is jarring. It might be better to use "believed ...could ... started". I think that works well enough.
  • Used The quartet believed that 21st-century rock music could only survive if people started "mixing styles that aren't supposed to be together". Seems right here admittedly.
• "Bloc Party embraced this idea and tried to explore from the beginning in Silent Alarm rather than in their further work."—reads a little clunkily; I think it could be rendered more concisely, as "embraced this idea" is implicit given that they went ahead and did it (e.g. "Bloc Party tried to explore this idea from the beginning with Silent Alarm, rather than in their further work." That last segment is possibly redundant too; would it lose any of the intended meaning by finishing the sentence at "Alarm"?
  • Tried Bloc Party set out to explore this idea from their debut, rather than in their later work.
    • Avoid "this". Rafablu88 20:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• "In a later interview, Moakes pointed out that the band members were relative novices when they entered the recording sessions and that, most of the time, they only did what they were told; this is an additional reason why the album is disjunct and not focused on any particular musical style." The interruption ("most of the time") introduces a bit of a speedbump that is more noticeable than might otherwise be because of the length of the sentence. Consider: "Moakes later said that band members were relative novices when the album was recorded, and that for the most part they only did what they were told; this contributed to why ..." We also don't need to know that it was an interview, making it more concise still.
  • Trying to use the recording sessions, and that for the most part they only did what they were told;

Promotion and release

• Should "NME" be italicised in "NME Awards Tour" (similar to how we say "Billboard 200")?
  • Yeah, probably.
• Is it necessary to mention the font used for the band name and album title? Unless it's unusual in some way, this information feels a little irrelevant and/or indiscriminate.
  • I haven't the foggiest why that is there. :/ Got rid.
• "The British and European release date was on 14 February and the record achieved gold certification within 24 hours."—could this be more concisely rendered as, "The album achieved gold certification within 24 hours of its European release on 14 February." There's probably no need to say "British" as it's included in "European".
  • Changed to the improved version.
• "Between 17 March and 9 April, they undertook their first ever headlining U.S. tour to coincide with the American release of Silent Alarm on 22 March 2005 through Vice Records."—this is a little clunky, perhaps trying to cram in too much information, or maybe just not presenting that information in the most concise way. Maybe a split would allow it breathe?
  • Shoved a semicolon in; perhaps a new sentence would be needed there.
    • Reads shorter and better without redundancies. Rafablu88 20:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no pressure from me to incorporate any of these; I'm happy to strike an issue if you disagree; feel free to rebut. (Other sections to follow later.) All the best, Steve ^T • C 21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input; it was a great help. Cheers, weburiedourdramainthegarden 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. Had a couple of tweaks, but nothing major. Rafablu88 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, consider the issues above resolved. :-) Nice work, now on to the remaining sections Steve ^T • C:

Critical reviews

• "The syncopated forward rhythm found in single "Banquet" was often compared to the work of 1980's New Wave bands and contemporary post-punk revival bands. The song is typical of Silent Alarm's staccato guitar style. It also illustrates Paul Epworth's understated use of electronic studio effects."—as this is bolstering the fair use rationale for the song excerpt, it would be useful if the caption had a citation.
  • Merged the last two sentences and added two refs for the two sentences left... if that makes sense.
• "Rolling Stone claimed that the album is similar to the debut album from fellow British band Franz Ferdinand."—reviews are generally considered to be featured writers' opinion pieces, unlike editorials, which represent the "official" view of the newspaper. So for reviews, we should always name the writer. However, as Barry Walters has already been named above this point as Rolling Stone's reviewer, it would be redundant to say "Rolling Stone's Barry Walters claimed ..." again—instead, you might get away with simply "Barry Walters claimed ..." or similar.
  • I would think the average reader might be confused by the use of his name alone, but I understand the redundancy thing so I've changed it for now.
• The same goes for Mojo, though if the writer is unnamed, there's nothing to be done about that one.
  • Unfortunately I don't have a copy of that magazine so it will have to remain unattributed for now.
    • Has no author. It's a small paragraph only. Unattributed. Rafablu88 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics and composition

• Right, I can understand why you'd want to beat me about the head with a trout for this one, but… "Bloc Party performing "This Modern Love" at Mean Fiddler"—in this construction, "performing" is a gerund, so technically that should use the possessive, i.e. "Bloc Party's performing ..." (you wouldn't say "me performing at Mean Fiddler", but "my performing"). Alternatively, if you think that reads strangely, you could recast the sentence to avoid either.
  • But surely "they are performing" is implied there? Or even consider that it is a sentence fragment (for instance, a photo of me might say "Me posing for a photo" or perhaps with a comma after "me", whichever works)? Argh, I'll use a cod and rewrite the sentence.
    • Sorted. Rafablu88 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• "... is said to be about the band members' anger at ..."—begs the question, said by whom?
  • Imran Ahmed, the NME reviewer. His name is mentioned in the section above and attributed to NME so I've put his name solely there.
    • Would confuse people in a new section if publication is not added. Rafablu88 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• " ...about being a romantic human being"—would it lose any of the intended meaning to say "about being a romantic"? I would think that "human being" is implicit.
  • I suppose not.
    • It didn't read well so I added "individual". Rafablu88 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Second single 'Banquet' is ..."—someone more learned than I might be able to clarify this, but I suspect that we need the definite article at the beginning of that ("The second single, 'Banquet', is ...") Similarly, "Third single 'Pioneers'".
  • I'm not so sure... it reads well both ways to me, and the way it is now is more concise. If it is really bugging you I'll happy fix it on second asking.
    • Seconded. Rafablu88 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• " ... a friend of Okereke's who used to take medication after suffering from schizophrenia."—wouldn't his friend be taking medication while, not after? Also, I believe there's a preference among the WP:MED crowd to avoid the use of "sufferers" and similar from articles about mental disorders, so I guess that proscription would apply here too.
  • I'm sure it should be during. I've gone for about a friend of Okereke's who used to take medication to relieve his schizophrenia.
    • Tweaked and minus redundancies. Rafablu88 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• "lyrics ... makes use of".
  • Ah, woops. Question: that make use of or which make use of? I'm still not 100% on the that/which bugbear...
    • Sorted. Rafablu88 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Awards and nominations

• "on its alphabetical shortlist of the best albums of 2005."—I can see the logic of saying "alphabetical" when a position is given, but as we don't, there's probably no need for it.
  • Fair enough, removed.
    • Added "unnumbered" cos it wouldn't make sense to include URB if they just listed it where other ones have it at number 1. In their list, all are number 1 (although BP got on the cover with M.I.A. and the others didn't.) Rafablu88 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't let this lists of issues put you off; I'm a picky bugger. This is a well-written article which should have few problems getting through. All I'll say in addition to the above specifics is that there is a very slight tendency towards wordiness that could be streamlined to make for more concise prose. Consider where a subject is clear, and remove accordingly. Random examples: "a sudden change of pace from the first four tracks on the album"—the last three words are unnecessary, as it's implicit that we're talking about the album through both the article subject and the use of "the first four tracks"; "includes additional studio effects and a removal of the original version's 'tinny' sound."—"and removes the" uses fewer words and is more logical than saying "includes ... a removal of"; "is a slower affair"—"is slower"; "on four different continents"; "The record itself won". As I say, minor stuff, but it's certainly worth giving the article the once over with this in mind; this guide is a primer in removing redundant language that I've found very useful in the past. Steve ^T • C 10:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to go about that for you - I'm not a copyeditor by trade and I'm pretty bad at pointing out these kind of issues in text, but I'm more than willing to have a shot with that essay as a guide. Thanks again for the brilliant input. weburiedourdramainthegarden 11:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, thanks and had a few minor tweaks. If and when you write your verdict, please weigh in with a sentence on the sources left at editors' discretion. Rafablu88 20:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

---

• Oppose, 1c. I didn't look at the prose, but the FreeWilliamsburg source is a deal-breaker right now. You've provided proof that a couple news outlets have mentioned it in passing, but part of the reliable source requirement is that it be considered authoritative. You'll need to provide examples of established, reliable sources calling FreeWilliamsburg authoritative. I'm on the fence about Drowned in Sound. --Laser brain (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I don't understand how you can be on the fence on Drowned in Sound. There's a wide editorial consensus here about its suitability. It's been cited by Reuters, The Guardian, and The Independent did a major feature on its editor, history, and day-to-day running. It formed a partnership with BSkyB, which was later mutually rescinded and has been the recipient of awards and nominations in the UK and even in the U.S. at the PLUG Awards. All of this was discussed above in Ealdgyth's section. The criteria here have been more than fulfilled. Rafablu88 21:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As for FREEWilliamsburg: "Are some of them the highest quality music sources? No. Are they the highest quality available for this topic? I would say yes. The only two that remain somewhat questionable to me are Click Music and Subba-Cultcha, but they are not supporting anything controversial, just interviews." - Laserbrain 16:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC). I don't see the difference between Click Music and Subba Cultcha and FREEWilliamsburg. In fact, I only showed "A page on the site that gives their rules for submissions that indicate fact-checking and editorial oversight" for Click Music and Subba Cultcha with no mentions of "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source or that the author is a noted expert in their field". FREEWilliamsburg has these, admittedly in passing, so the question is: why is FREEWilliamsburg less reliable than your verdict on Click Music and Subba Cultcha when it has third-party mentions on top of its detailed editorial info section? Rafablu88 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • As it happens, I was looking into the sources when I saw this. I think I'm OK with Drowned in Sound, but FreeWilliamsburg I hadn't yet looked at in detail. If the existing rationale could be bolstered (beyond the "passing mentions") that may go some way to resolving the issue. I haven't looked at the individual article pages, but there are some promising snippets in the Google News archive that will hopefully give you what Laser brain needs. Steve ^T • C 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Argh, some of those look very promising - most however aren't free to look at... I have two of the site selling a popular book but that's not really helpful to our cause, is it. The San Fran Cronicle calls it "a neighborhood blog and culture guide", again referencing the book. This book seems quite handy really. weburiedourdramainthegarden 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
        • See Ealdgyth's section. Added tons. Rafablu88 22:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
          • All right, all right! I cry uncle. --Laser brain (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Damn right you cry uncle. Steve, Garden and me are like Republican senators attacking a "wise Latina". P.S. People are more than entitled to object after reading this terrible joke/pun/abomination. Rafablu88 22:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I defer to Laser brain's expertise regarding sources. If the above is resolved, as well as my nitpicks, I'll support.

• "The record peaked at number three on both the UK Albums Chart and the Irish Albums Chart."
  • DONE
• "style moulded around alternative rock bands" "moulded on" is more idiomatic, I think. Alternatively, you could used "revolved around" or "based off".
  • DONE
• "the band were playing in" "were"-->was (British English doesn't apply here since this is a common noun)
  • It does I'm afraid. Have a look at these: [41], [42], [43]. "The band were" is just the way it's always been over here. It's been treated as plural since forever, my guess is since Robin Hood. I've seen tons of discussions on WP about it and the Brits always use "were".Rafablu88 22:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Funny you should mention this, because there was an extended discussion about singular vs. plural in a similar situation at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Luton Town F.C./archive1. See the comment by Malleus Fatuorum. Input from Laser brain and Steve is welcomed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • So, Luton Town FC (the entity) uses "is/was" and Luton (the players) uses "are/were". I'm still not sure they've got that discussion right either. Clubs are always plural in media here. BrEng and all British sources use it for bands too, even when referring to the entity ("Bloc Party are/were"). I know it sounds off to you, but it's the received way here. Rafablu88 23:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • "Bloc Party" plural from BBC: [44], [45]. "The band" plural from BBC: [46], [47]. Rafablu88 00:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Surely it's common sense that if "Bloc Party" is plural, using the word "band" instead makes the use of "band" also plural? weburiedourdramainthegarden 08:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Don't let generations of illiterate British sports journalists mislead you. :-) In BrE, it's supposed to depend on usage—whether the emphasis is on the group as a whole or the individuals within the group. For example, you would say, "Manchester United are the champions," but it's proper to follow that with, "The club plays its home games at Old Trafford." Of course, this doesn't help you one jot, as now it needs to be decided which category "the band" falls into. :-) Steve ^T • C 09:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• ← Right, so the basic issue here is whether we want to use The band [they] performed or The band [it] performed? I don't suppose it would simplify anything by using band members instead, as that would introduce redundancy. Argh. weburiedourdramainthegarden 09:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, here's a good example from the (featured) U2 article: "U2 are a rock band formed in Dublin, Ireland. The band consists of ..." However, if you want to avoid the issue entirely, it might be better simply to go with, "at the time, the band played in an unambitious style moulded on ..." Steve ^T • C 09:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Steve, we could but let's get some sort of consensus/precedent here about the use if we can. Garden, Karanacs doesn't consider "band members" redundant, in fact she encouraged the use for disambiguation when it's needed. Let's see what Dabomb87 makes of the responses. I think considering BBC = Received Pronounciation then we should always treat band and all band entities as plural when writing in BrEng. Rafablu88 17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I could see it going either way in this case. Do as you wish. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. At least we got more discussions going in the last two days than we did for a month before that. Rafablu88 17:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Right, I've handily stepped over this grammatical bananaskin by replacing the band were playing in with the band played in which is also more concise - win win. Thus I thus we can give a nice fat bold all-caps DONE here. weburiedourdramainthegarden 18:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You are truly the Peter Taylor to my Brian Clough. ;) Rafablu88 20:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Cheers, I guess :P weburiedourdramainthegarden 21:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• "including one at BBC Radio 1 where "She's Hearing Voices" was labelled "genius" by DJ Steve Lamacq."
  • DONE
• "fifteen tracks in 22 days" Comparative quantities should be spelled the same, and numbers over 10 should be written in numeral form.
  • DONE
• "universally-appealing " -ly adverbs don't need hyphens.
  • DONE
• "Okereke agreed and explained that they try to make clear an existential pointlessness in life." This is a bit ambiguous. Is that there general approach to life, or the goal of the album?
  • DONE
• "It went on to be certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry after more than 500,000 copies were sold in the UK."-->It was certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry after more than 500,000 copies were sold in the UK.
  • DONE
• "Over one million copies" "More than" is better, but that's personal preference.
  • Less words is better, no?
    • Not a big deal, but I think "More than" is more idiomatic in this case. Probably another English variation issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I can see it working. Done. weburiedourdramainthegarden 10:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• "All of these positive comments were encapsulated "
  • DONE
• "wonderfully tight and energetic&emdash;the same kind of spiffy half-dancing rock" A syntax error, I think.
  • DONE, big dash is in quote
• "deals with intimate relationships" "concerns" is slightly more encyclopedic than "deals with".
  • DONE
• "The band played their first ever dates in " "dates" make me think of candlelight dinners, but perhaps that's just a AmEng thing.
  • Changed it to "The band played their first ever phoenix dactyliferas in"
    • Less sarcastically, the word "date" in BritEng in this context does indeed mean "gig" or "concert". Either of these could replace it if you're still bothered about "date". weburiedourdramainthegarden 10:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • "concerts" is fine. You could do without "ever". Dabomb87 (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Were you still bothered by this? My bad. I thought you were OK with the BrEng expression. Rafablu88 17:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• "but lost out to"
  • DONE
• Sentence fragments shouldn't have periods at the end. Example "track 15 on the UK re-release."
  • DONE

Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Will do these soon. Just the "dates" thing cracked me up. I'm pretty sure us BrEng peeps the other side of the pond are so prude to not think of candlelight dinners when using "dates", just an expression. Rafablu88 22:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It was either that or Phoenix dactylifera :) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • All sorted I think. Rafablu88 22:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. My concerns listed above have either been tackled or successfully rebutted. The prose is better than it was a couple of weeks ago; special attention has been given to removing redundant words and phrases, and I'm happy with the results. Images comply with policy, and the song excerpt appears to have a strong rationale for inclusion. On the sources: a couple of reviewers were on the fence about Drowned in Sound and FreeWilliamsburg.com. Hopefully the discussions above have allayed those concerns; they might not be ideal in all circumstances, but I think they pass muster for use here. Nice work, Steve ^T • C 07:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you and Dabomb87, especially for giving us pointers when no-one else was bothering to do so. The discussions weren't dull either. ;) Hopefully, there's enough consensus and rebuttals now to make an FA decision. I highly doubt the article can be improved any further. Rafablu88 08:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I second the thanks there - very useful advice that has no doubt improved the article further. I was perhaps expecting a bit more opposition - perhaps just my last experience of FAC was a lot more busy. But sincere thanks also to Ealdgyth - always nice to know the sources are being scrutinised as well as the prose!  GARDEN  says no to drama 13:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Noble cause. All sorted. Rafablu88 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
    • That was fast, thanks; and it's mostly done. A couple of things, though. The infobox image needs alt text still. Also, the phrase "Bloc Party" shouldn't be in the alt text, as it conveys no useful visual info to a naive reader. Another way to put it is that a non-expert reader can't look at the image and immediately verify that it's Bloc Party (they won't know what Bloc Party looks like). Eubulides (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
      • That's OK, I'll remove it. Could you do the alt text on the infobox yourself cos I have no clue how to do it there? And then I'll know for future reference. Rafablu88 21:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I did that. Eubulides (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The caption for the audio sample is difficult to read. Perhaps abbreviate it or would it be possible to resize the audio sample box? Otherwise, good article. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In which way, the fact that it is long or the fact that the font is small?  GARDEN  says no to drama 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't fully understand the comment either. If it's about the length of the caption, then it's needed to solidify the free-use aspect. If it's about the citations, then we were told to put them to further solidify the free-use aspect. If it's about the layout, design, and font, then I'm afraid there's nothing we can do as that's how WP renders audio samples and captions. Rafablu88 01:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I've had another read-through and it's looking up to standard. Thanks to everyone who's worked on this! On a side note, I downloaded the album and am looking forward to listening to it. --Laser brain (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. (And you won't be disappointed by it.) Rafablu88 18:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Seconded. It's probably the best album I own, so :)  GARDEN  says no to drama 19:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
      • This album is fantastic... --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Hehe, you betcha. And the thing is, it will hit you even more when you read the lyrics, and also when you try to separate all the elements in your head whilst listening to it. Rafablu88 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not in the habit of downloading entire albums, but which songs would you recommend? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
            • All of it, trust me! ;) Stylus: "There are thirteen tracks here spread over 50 minutes, but not once does the quality or pace dip below thrilling." Rafablu88 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Personally I like A Weekend in the City more, so if you really like Bloc Party, then check that out...

Media review: media used are appropriately licensed or qualify for fair use with the rationales provided. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:41, 21 July 2009 [48].

---

Quark

Nominator(s): —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC), Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because even User:Markus Poessell feels it's ready – and that's something. ;-) In all seriousness, I'd like to thank Markus, TimothyRias, Headbomb, Army1987, and many others for their substantial help with this one. Any of the above should feel free to add their name to the "nominator" category. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support This article had a number of factual and reference issues at the previous FAC. Since then these have been addressed, and I believe it is now both factually correct, and well referenced, while still fairly accessible. I have, however, made significant edits to this article since the last FAC, so my opinion cannot completely be viewed as independent. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)) −

• Comments -
• Have a deadlink

• That is odd, it was OK two days ago, but it appears to be gone. I've removed the link since it was non-vital anyway. (TimothyRias (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

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

• I have spelled out all abreviations I could find, except CRC Press which seems be much more well-known by its abbreviation and SLAC, which is typically also better known by its abbreviation. (TimothyRias (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Support As TimothyRias already mentioned: previous versions of this article had significant problems, and I voted "oppose" for its previous two candidacies (complete with a long list of problems I saw). Since then, in my opinion, the article has come a long, long way, and Anonymous Dissident has done excellent work in clearing up the remaining problems, including those raised over the last few months in preparing the article for FAC. I've gone over the current version and its predecessors a number of times with a fine-toothed comb and a magnifying glass (or does that amount to mixing metaphors?), and the physics now looks fine to me. I have also checked all references that were accessible to me (that is, all articles and all but a few of the books). As far as I can see, the article covers all relevant topics, with each given proper weight. Markus Poessel (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments looking good, will jot a few notes: Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

antiquarks have the same mass, lifetime and spin as their respective quarks - should this be 'lifespan' (i.e. meaning length of life?)?

I believe the term lifetime is, quite arbitrarily, preferred in physics circles. Can't cite it though; maybe someone else can provide deeper insight. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

that's cool, I keep thinking of biology articles :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Most studies conducted on heavier quarks have been performed in artificially created conditions, such as in particle accelerators - given conditions required for their creation, shouldn't this be all studies? (or just studies)?

Good catch. Fixed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This should be most, not all. There are cosmic rays studies, which are natural conditions.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That being said, I think the current version is fine.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Last thing - I thought adding 'the fundamental building blocks of the atomic nucleus' in the lede after 'proton and neutron' to emphasise just how ubiquitous these are. Not a deal-breaker though.

• Comment—There's some good material here and it looks nearly ready to go, but I have still a few issues that may need addressing:
  • The lead contains the following: "Up and down quarks have the lowest masses of all quarks, and thus are generally stable and very common in the universe." How does it follow that the lowest mass particle in a family must be very common in the universe? This is not explained in the article (that I could find), and so is uncited.
    • Well, the reason they're very common is given in the same sentence: they're more stable. Higher mass = lesser stability = less common. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The reason is that decay means "going to a lower mass". Since these are the least massive, they cannot decay (well the down quark can decay into an up quark because the d is slightly more massive than the u, but that decay only happens in certain condition. See beta decay for details). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • • I've placed a note so it should be clearer for readers now.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Perfect. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, not to quibble, but that logic presupposes that the particular particle (or it's decay ancestors) was already very common. I'm not sure that logic follows based solely on the mass. Take positrons, for example. Also, aren't the baryon-to-neutrino and baryon-to-photon ratios very low? I think you need a point of comparison there for the "very common" to make sense..—RJH (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • • Common as in pretty much everything around us is made of up and down quarks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I would appreciate it if you would add such a qualification for the reader in order to give a basis of comparison. To me, in astronomical terms, they seem exceptionally rare: the photon-to-baryon ratio is about 10⁹. Most of the universe is a very hard vacuum, and critical density is about six atoms per cubic meter.—RJH (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There seems to be some overflow of the Properties content into the Classification section. For example, there are three paragraphs on hadrons in the latter, which would seem to have little bearing on the classification of quarks, but plenty on the properties. There is also a paragraph in the Classification section on the fundamental interactions, which also seems more appropriate for the Properties section. Perhaps the hadron information belongs in a "Hadrons" subsection?
    • Hmm. I think hadrons are part of the quark classification. The Classification section is designed to discuss the relative place of the quark in the scheme of the particle zoo. Discussion of hadrons, their composites, belongs here. The same can be said of the fundamental interactions. Sure, the way quarks actually interact is a property, but the mention of the fundamental interactions in the Classification section describes how "quarks are the only known elementary particles that engage in all four fundamental interactions of contemporary physics". This is part of the classification. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I guess I'll reluctantly yield to your logic.—RJH (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "A great number of hadrons are known..." If you have lists, why not give a rough number here? More than a hundred?
    • "Hundreds" inserted. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Restored "A great number of hadron" (see Talk:Quark#Unproven). Essentially, counting hadrons is not something most people are comfortable with.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Sorry but what does comfort have to do with this? To me a "great number" is a nearly meaningless expression. C.f. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Unnecessary_vagueness. For example, Paul Davies, is his book Superforce (p. 85) says, "there are literally hundreds of hadrons."—RJH (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
          • See Talk:Quark#Unproven for the details. Davies means hadronic resonances. How to count hadrons is something no one agrees on.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
            • That seems even worse. How then should the reader interpret the expression "great number"?—RJH (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Normally, I would agree with you, but in the context, I think it's fine: right next to "a great number", we link the reader to two pertinent lists. Attaching any kind of vague value to this will simply provoke 1) more ambiguity or 2) confusion because of the disparities in definition discussed by Headbomb above. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
                • Well then it might be sufficient to just cite somebody notable using that expression, or something comparable. Would that work for you?—RJH (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • I'm not sure if I can cite someone notable saying that phrase verbatim, but I could quite simply find a source mentioning that there are a great number of hadrons. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                    • That would work for me. I found a source saying there are a huge number, but I was wrong about Paul Davies's quote so I'd prefer that you guys find the source. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                      • Well, as I said, we are pointing readers to the list of baryons and list of mesons so they can see for themselves. I really don't see why we need a source to specifically opine that there are a great number of them.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                        • Well, frankly, I looked and I did not see a great number, so the statement seems flat out absurd. A few hundred hadrons does not constitute a "great number". It like to see a source for this assertion, or have it removed.—RJH (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                          • I guess that depends on your definition of 'great number' in the context of "one, two, many" 100+ is a huge number. More than 100 is a huge number for particles that at one time were thought to be fundamental (which is the context in which this statement was made). Compared to the number of particles in the observable universe it is negligable. (TimothyRias (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
  • "...the formation of composite particles known as hadrons in a process of hadronization." Please fix this ambiguity.
    • Well, I've clipped the redundancy; it says ""...the formation of composite particles known as hadrons" now. Is this the problem? I don't think overt detail is appropriate for this section, and we have the section link for a reason. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That's fine, thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "Several experiments claimed to have proven the existence of tetraquarks and pentaquarks..." Experiments made the claim?
    • Clipped that, and the surrounding two sentences. The construction was awkward, and went into too much detail. The claims are just that: claims. "but not proven" is enough. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please clarify "2008 Tevatron" through a wikilink or a description.
    • Done. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "...they typically annihilate each other very quickly within the interior of the hadron." Please provide a value/estimate to clue the reader into the time scale here, and so avoid unnecessary vagueness. Is it 0.1 seconds or 10^-20 seconds, for example?

Since the life-time is here mostly controlled by the Heisenberg uncertainty relation, I'd expect the time scale to be of the order of an inverse quark mass. So, your 10^-20 is the right ball park maybe a few orders of magnitude lower still. However, if we're going to include such a figure in the article, it needs a ref. Anybody know if the current refs metnion anything about the time scale? (TimothyRias (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

I for one couldn't find anything. 10^-20 does sound approximately reasonable – I know I've read a figure like 10^-18 somewhere. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to cite a notable source saying it happens "very quickly"? Or perhaps you could explain the time scale in terms of the "Heisenberg interval". Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, once upon a time (about one year ago) the article said that happens "about a septillion or a thousand billion billion times each second", with a source. I replaced that with "about 10²⁴ times". Would anyone with a less slow Internet connection than mine bother to check the article history for that? --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 20:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. So it's 10⁻²⁴ seconds... Does anyone have access to that source? --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 10:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actualy that is about the number of virtual gluon exchanges between two quarks. Nothing is said about the lifetime of virtual quark pairs inside a hadron, unfortunately. Nice try though. (TimothyRias (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

• • "has been postulated", "It has been conjectured that," "It is believed that", "Such sea quarks are commonly assumed to form", &c. I think these may conflict with Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. The use of "physics community" in the History section seems less weasely, at least to me.
    • Removed all but one that I thought was necessary. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Close enough. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "perhaps comparable to those found in neutron stars" Why the 'perhaps'? Is this a gentlemanly perhaps, or a theoretical perhaps?
    • Theoretical. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Somehow I missed the FAC and now just noticed it. I worked on this, and support the article as an FA, as I'm pretty satisfied and proud of the job we did. I don't think there's anymore that could be said about quarks in this article, and what we said is, IMO, well-said, well-structured, with something for every type of reader out there. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I have initiated a line-by-line prose review which, per this suggestion by SandyGeorgia, is being listed at the article's talk page. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Support. There are a couple of ongoing discussions on the talk page as well as a few "optional" points that I brought up, but other than that I am completely satisfied. This article is the embodiment of the spirit of the Wikipedia model: a handful of users around the world collaborating and persevering to create the best possible article. Good work, everyone. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  It would be a lot more convenient if you listed which of your grievances remains unadressed here. Because right now, it's really hard to gauge why you are opposing. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not done reviewing the article. As issues are addressed, I will strike them. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  For the closer: we're slowly chugging through the points listed on the talk page. Progress is being made and the FAC has not stagnated (just kind of half taken place on the talk page). —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  Although there are several little issues being discussed on the talk page, there are two that I'm really concerned with: First is the use of the Schombert ref, second is that there seems to be no consensus on what material the "Weak interaction" section should present. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  I think we've come out pretty clear on the second one. I think we're all somewhat agreed now. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  There is an ongoing discussion about the CKM / PMNS matrices. Very little has been done to address my concerns that the "Weak interaction" section does not make it clear whether the decays are one-way or two-way processes. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  How can "[b]y absorbing or emitting a W boson, any up-type quark (up, charm and top quarks) can change into any down-type quark (down, strange and bottom quarks) and vice versa" [emphasis added] be interpreted as stating that it's a one-way process? --A. di M. (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• One of my concerns was with the presentation of the CKM matrix, though I see that this has been resolved with the addition of "(or vice versa)". The pictorial representation of the matrix is misleading with its one-way arrows. Properties issue #8 is also unresolved: Headbomb proposed a solution but then reverted is as being "misleading". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  How is issue #8 not resolved. You just said that this was resolved by adding (or vice versa)? As for the CKM image, it illustrate quark decays, and is quite clear about it. I don't see what could possibly be confusing/misleading about it.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  No, issue #10 was (mostly) resolved by the addition of "(or vice versa)"; I have struck the relevant parts of it. Issue #8, regarding the difference between up-to-down decay and down-to-up decay, is still unresolved. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  The diagram is very clearly is about the decays and not the reverse process. (And up to down isn't a decay).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, see the first sentence of "Positron emission" and of "Electron capture"; but that's another story. So "up to down isn't a decay" isn't always true, but cases when it's not true are way beyond the scope of this article. --A. di M. (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  The nucleus decays, not the quarks.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. The article is even in better shape than when I took the last careful look at it more than a month ago. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 15:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. A. di M.'s recent rewriting of the 1st paragraph of the lead[49] got rid of the simple explanation for what a quark is. Quarks are the building blocks of protons and neutrons. If the lead doesn't state that clearly, I can't support the article. It now says only that quarks are "found within" protons and neutrons. Please either rewrite it or revert it so that someone who isn't a physicist can read the article and learn what a quark is. Kaldari (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this paragraph for now. Feel free to try another rewrite if you like (or revert to the previous version if you object). Kaldari (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on image concerns from someone with only high-school Physics knowledge:

• File:Charmed-dia-w.png: the original emails in User:Aarchiba/Brookhaven permission should be forwarded to the OTRS and the ticket attached; however, the wordings contain amibiguity. "Usage of the image(s) constitutes your agreement to the terms of Brookhaven National Laboratory's image licensing policy": http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/images_legal.html says nothing about public domain or such. In fact, its wordings are more in line with fair use, especially in regards with the sections "License Granted by BNL", "No Alterations", "Publication Right", and "Indemnification".

  Nominated for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charmed-dia-w.png. Oppose will be stricken on resolution of this request (either keep or delete). Jappalang (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• The image is public domain. If you want to upload it on the fair use image space and change the license to fair use in the meantime, go ahead, but please don't oppose based on a trivial detail like "is this image public domain or fair use".Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:Beta Negative Decay.svg: only knowing elementary physics, is this sort of diagram drawn on evidence (i.e. does it matter if the W- line is drawn as a sine wave or not)? If yes, perhaps a reference source should be provided.

  In Feynman diagrams, fermions are conventionally drawn as straight lines, photons and weak bosons as wavy lines but the latter with larger wiggles, and gluons as "springs". See the pictures in Feynman diagram and in [50]. So long as each particle is labeled appropriately it doesn't matter terribly, but I don't see the need to either deviate from the standard convention or provide a reference for it: after all the article is about quarks, not about Feynman diagrams. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 12:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:Quark decays.svg: please give at least a description of what this image is supposed to represent

  Provided a short description of the image.

• File:QCDphasediagram.svg: what does "QCD" stand for? I think this requires a source [so one can readily verify the temp-density relationship between the properties(?)].

  Added a reference. (TimothyRias (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Other images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• support I read this in detail some time ago, and thought I'd voted then, but can't see it above. A surprisingly accessible article on a difficult topic jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The term Standard Model in the first paragraph requires the words "of particle physics" after it, for someone who thinks that the standard model comes with a cd player, retractable seat belts and an air bag.Amandajm (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the context, the capital S and M, and the link are enough. "The only particles in the Standard Model of particle physics" sounds quite redundant to me. What do you others think? --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 16:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it sounds repetitious. However, if one is completely ignorant of the fact that such a thing as a Standard Model of Particle Physics exists, then one needs to have it included, for clarity. I would tend to capitalise the whole lot, as I have done here. Amandajm (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, "Standard Model" is a proper name and "particle physics" isn't. I know that's weird, but see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_108#Capitals for scientific theories? Why? and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_109#Follow the sources. --A. di M. (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is needed for readers who can't see the images (see WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3). I added alt text for the lead image to illustrate the process; could someone else please do the other images? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've written some of them, but I'm not familiar with that stuff, and I'm not sure of whether there's too much or too little detail in them. Could you review them? --A. di M. (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The were a very good first cut. I tweaked them a bit, mostly for brevity. Alt text still needed for the other images, and for the math. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for finishing this up. Eubulides (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 14 July 2009 [51].

---

Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race

Nominator(s): Tone 13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This article was nominated two months ago but it didn't attract enough reviewers to generate a clear opinion whether to promote it or not. Since all the issues have been resolved during the previous nom, I am renominating it again. Thank you for your consideration. Tone 13:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support with comments Looks great! Few things, but all trivial and all-but-one stylistic, so definite support:

• Could the Guardian source on Moreno's drug test be in the intro as well? The intro also states the "first Olympian of the 2008 games to be caught" factoid, but the CBC Olympics cite used only says "Moreno is the first athlete to fail a drug test during the official Olympic doping control period." Maybe that means the same thing and I'm dumb, but the Guardian source seems to have firmer language.
• Could the infobox, Arndt image, and Yonghe temple image be spaced a bit more? I'm usng IE, monitor set at 1280x960 (perfectly normal), and there's an large whitespace between the two "Course" paragraphs because the two images rub together (because the "Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics" infobox forces the Arndt image down). Could you move that infobox down, say to the "Race" section, which is imageless, to allow for a cleaner page?
• Similar problem with the lead infobox, it spills into the "Qualifications" section so there's an even bigger whitespace after "Main article: Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Qualification: Road" waiting for the main infobox to end. Could you get that text to wrap around the box better?
• And finally this is a more fundamental stylistic question, but is this the best article title? I realize it's the universal standard and is already used in other FAs like the men's race brother to this article, but isn't that dash really awkward? Wouldn't a far better title (and one at least somewhat more likely for someone to search for) be exactly what's in the infobox, "Women's cycling road race at the Games of the XXIX Olympiad" (or just "at the 2008 Summer Olympics")? I'd be interested in your thoughts, but this would probably require a much bigger discussion within the Olympics Wikigroup itself and such. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Don't quote me on it, but the article name seems to be a result of the hierarchy of these Olympic articles; Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics is the "parent article" for this one, so the appendage of "Women's road race" with a dash seems appropriate here. I have a question, though: should "Women's" be capitalized? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support with comments Looks good, but ref 18, "Wet Weather disrupts Olympic Schedule" has gone walk abouts, please fix. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 23:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems the link is working again. --Tone 07:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Time really does help to find new issues. But I've fixed them already, so I give my full support for this article. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• WP:MOSFLAG asks for names next to flags on first mention in tables/lists for clarity purposes. In the same spirit, abbreviations might be just as confusing to readers (ref: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Using abbreviations for countries in flagicons). Can the first mention of a country name be in full? An abbreviation can be attached, e.g. "(Norway, NOR)", if abbreviations are desired to be used in later repetitions.
• I brought this issue up before at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ice hockey at the Olympic Games/archive1: those pictograms are not the official ones, are they? As such, by putting them in a Navbox titled "Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics", would readers be possibly mislead into thinking they are official pictograms?

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The rationale behind the pictograms is probably the same as for the ice hockey. They are not official but they have been created juts for WP purposes and they are standardized in all Olympic articles. And I suppose this is good since of official were used, that would present copyright issues and they would change for events of every edition of the Games. Regarding the MOS with the countries, I see there is some disagreement at that talk page. Your rationale is fair but if this is to be changed, it needs to be addressed at the template level, I don't think it's wise to change it just in this article. I personally don't think full names are really needed in this case since there is a link directly at the abbreviation but that's just one opinion. --Tone 22:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Although free for use, these unofficial pictograms could mislead readers and that is the main contention here. Should we make them think that those pictograms are official Olympic logos? Would that not be deliberate misrepresentation? Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How do the pictograms mislead the readers? Why would the reader think that the logo is the official logo? Nothing says that the logos are official, nothing even suggests that. I can not see the problem here. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have stated the concern above, but I will be more explicit and clearer here.

1. The article is titled "Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race" and is illustrated with the winner of the event, which is fine and dandy. The reader, however, comes in expecting Olympics as the main background and context of things in this article.
2. There is a navbox on the right just under the Infobox; it is titled "Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics". Note the emphasis. The pictograms are in the navbox, with that heading, under sub-titles of "Road cycling", "Track cycling", etc, and each link brings the reader to a "Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics - <cycling> event".

A reader is very likely to get the impression that those pictograms are official 2008 Summer Olympics icons. Jappalang (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it solve anything adding alt text to the pictogram images stating they are not official? Parutakupiu (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your arguments, jappalang, but the conclusion (that the reader is very likely to get the impression that those pictograms are official 2008 Summer Olympics icons) is in my eyes a non sequitur. The logical conclusion for the reader is that the pictograms have something to do with the Olympics. But it would be strange (in my eyes) for the reader to think that because the words "2008 Summer Olympics" are close to the pictogram, the pictograms are official. And any reader that for some reason might think that the pictograms are official, can click on the pictogram, go to the file description, and read that the pictogram is unofficial. As far as I know, that is where information about the images is usually stored in Wikipedia.

On the other hand, if you say that it made you think that the pictograms are official, there is at least one reader that interprets it that way, and probably a lot more. Most likely, the official pictograms are not possible, so what would solve the problem? Alt texts, as Parutakupiu suggested? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally, readers are not likely to just go click on the pictograms to verify the authenticity; they would simply mistake them as official logos of the 2008 Olympics and click to read the other races. They could be fooled because the Olympics have official pictograms for each year's events and the icons are broadcast on TV programmes (transition screens). I am not sure "alt" text are the way to go. One, alt text do not show up (even in tooltips) unless images cannot be rendered. I see these pictograms as "okay" to be the header of general navboxes, e.g. "International road cycling competitions", "Mountain biking races in France", etc. Having them specifically in a navbox for Olympics could mislead. Jappalang (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it is possible to think that they are official. But it is also possible to make no assumption at all and I'd think an average reader would do just that. In any case, if the reader checks Olympic articles from other Games, it quickly becomes clear that those pictograms are not the official ones of these specific Games. And besides, if someone makes an assumption without checking (like using this pictogram under GFDL somewhere else and stating it's the official one of the 2008 Games), it's not our fault. Since the picture description clearly states the nature of it and even provides a link to official pictograms, I still don't see an issue here... But I believe we are straying from the topic here, and this is the debate about the article and not about the template. If any changes are to be made, you should propose them at Olympics Wikiproject. --Tone 07:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I contributed a bit to this article and didn't realize it was up for nomination. I don't mean to meddle at this late stage but would be it be at all useful to provide context to the doping case i.e.

Concerns had been raised before the Olympics, upon investigations carried out by drug experts, that some positive results for EPO were being returned as negative, and Jörg Jaksche, a cyclist implicated in the Operación Puerto doping case, believed that (as in the Operación Puerto case) doctors, athletes, and potentially cycling teams, would have colluded with each other before the Games. Apart from Moreno sample, there were no major doping cases at the time in the cycling events, although the silver medalist in the men's road race, Davide Rebellin, returned a positive test for EPO upon retesting.

...or is this excessive? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more appropriate to include this paragraph in the Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics as the main article on cycling? For this specific article, I believe it's a bit too much/too broad. --Tone 07:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – I gave the article a full review at the first FAC, and little has changed. This sentence from the race recap caught my attention, though: "A steady pace set by the German team caught them soon after." It sounds like the pace caught the lead group, not the riders who took advantage of the pace. A simple tweak should make this clearer. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 14 July 2009 [52].

---

Battle of Corydon

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have put about three weeks into this article, made a few trips to the library, visited the battlesite, and used a book of my own for sourcing. It has passed a GA review, and an A class review from the Military History project. I beleive it is now comprehensive and ready for this process. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support A fantastic article. The article is fully referenced, and I'm not asking any questions. I did some copyediting myself, and I find it to be well-written and illustrated. Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I believe that this article is appropriate for FA status, but have the following comment:
  • in the References section you have a subsection called "notes", however, just above there is also another section called "Notes". I like the way you've separated the two, but feel that they should have different names to avoid confusion. Perhaps the aside points should remain "Notes" and the actual page number references could be called "Citations"? Just a suggestion. Anyway, good job. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I have taken your advice, and changed the page notes to "citations". —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on image issues as follow:

• File:John Hunt Morgan.jpg: copyviolation. In short, although it was taken during 1860s, it was never published until 1999 (creation is not publication). By US copyright laws (see http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/), this means that it is copyrighted until 2047. Use File:The Late Rebel General John Morgan.jpg or File:John Hunt Morgan portrait.jpg.
  • I was under the impression that images were also public domain at 70 years after the creators death. If this image was taken in 1864, and the photragrapher was say 18 at the time, he would have had to lived to age 93 (highly unlikely in those days) for this image to still be protected. And in any case, each year that scenario becomes less plausible. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • US copyright laws are primarily based on year of publication, not death of author. 70 years pma apply only after the first publication is after 2002 or for works created after 1977 but first published with notice during 1978 to 2002. See http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm. Jappalang (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• File:Alice Dean (1863).jpg: no information of its publishing, author, or date of creation? Is this a photo, a scan of an engraving? Lexington Rifles have not provided the source for this image, and it is doubtful they are the publishers of the image since Riverboat Daves has a worse but wider perspective scan.

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure where this image is taken from, (I have seen it in books and know it to be accurate) but the same rational would apply as above - since the ship was destroyed in 1863, if the photragpher was 18 at the time the image was taken, he would have had to live to age 94 for this image to remain protected. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Same as above, US copyright is concerned mostly with first publication, not year of death. Jappalang (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• File:Battle of Corydon with Morgan's Raid in southern Indiana copy.jpg: should be an SVG per WP:IUP. From where does the upper left portion (depicting the location on a larger US map) come from?

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know how to make an SVG, but anyone who does is welcome to convert it, I have the original image in a PSD format and could email it, and it is layered if that helps. Or if someone could tell me how to make it SVG in photoshop, i could do it. And the image of the breakoutmap was taken from a PD image on the commons. I can remove it if you think it is a problem. And in any case, it won't hurt anything to remove the two images. I can get others that are PD, but not of the same relevance to the article. There will be a reenactment next week and I can get some good reenactment photos as well. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Replaced with an SVG. Jappalang (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ok I have remove the two images in question and put two different user-taken photos in the article instead. Hope to get some more relevant photos later next week at the reenactment. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• If you are interested in verifiably public images of John Morgan, take a look at commons:Category:John Hunt Morgan. Jappalang (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thats great! I didn't about looking there. Thanks. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Query The current paragraph "With the resistance seemingly at an end, Morgan began crossing his troops in the captured steamers.[19] The first company to land moved up the ridge on the north shore and engaged the Legion defenders in a skirmish. Union commanders in Louisville dispatched the tinclad Springfield, down river to stall the crossing" Implies that the Springfield was sent to the crossing in response to the first landing. Considering the speed of such steamers I'm suspicious of this and would suggest that you recheck your source - it might be necessary to split out the paragraph and have one mention of the Springfield when she is sent and another when she arrives. Also I've made some copy edits, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. ϢereSpielChequers 07:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I will try to write that, you are correct, the springfield was dispatched the day before when reports of his attempt to cross first arrived in Louisville. New Albany is though only about a half hour upstream (20 miles) by steam ship from the place of the crossing. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done, I appreciate that troop numbers are a moveable feast but the plaque says 2,200, the info box 2,000 and the lead 2,500 cavalry. ϢereSpielChequers 09:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

PS 20 miles upstream would have been rather more than half an hour for the steamships of the day - that sort of speed wasn't achieved until decades later. ϢereSpielChequers 11:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the differences are for several reasons. The primary difference is over losses. he set out with 2500 from Tennessee, by the time he arrived at Brandenburg he was at closer to 2000 - according to both of my significant book sources. There is variance of about 500 men on the confederate side, and variance of about 100 on the union side depending on which sources you use. I went with what was in the two newest book sources (Horwitz and Conway). The figures in Funk matches what is on the plaques, and that book was published in the 60s. The plaque was placed in the 1960s, and I suspect that their information was fully accurate. I could place a note regarding the difference.

In regards to the steam ship speed, the sprinfield was upstream of Brandenburg, meaning it would be traveling downstream to reach it. The Ohio River is pretty swift, i would think you could float that distance in a couple hours. I might not have been clear with that. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses and good luck with the article. ϢereSpielChequers 06:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - looking at the prose now, but it appears to be a bit overlinked throughout. Geographic locations are linked multiple times (ex. Laconia), and some fairly common terms may be linked. Also, you don't have a consistent strategy for linking city/state—sometimes you just write the city and pipe the link, sometimes you write out the city/state. Please check it over. --Laser brain (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I have been traveling. I believe I have addressed your concerns. In linking to places, Once the text has made it clear they are in Kentucky, for example, I use only the town name until I need to make it clear they have left Kentucky and are then in another state. it seems repetive to keep adding the state in a string of places, but is neccesary to show the change of state at places. I have also tried to delink multiple linked terms. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the matter. The article appears to have been promoted yesterday so I will have no further feedback. --Laser brain (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 14 July 2009 [53].

---

Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Second nomination. Issues from last time addressed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• At a drive-by look, there's a lot of citations to CricInfo and CricketArchive. I know nothing about cricket, but can someone confirm they pass WP:RS? Stifle (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  Well Ealdgyth and everyone else has always passed them. Cricinfo is the world's largest cricket news website and is owned by ESPN and works with Wisden. Leading cricket historians who write for Cricinfo include Gideon Haigh and David Frith, etc. CricketARchive is used for statistical research by professional statisticians like Bill Frindall YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Look to be well-written.

• Opening sentence is mostly blue: "Ron Hamence was a member of Donald Bradman's famous [[Australian cricket team in England in 1948|Australian cricket team, which toured England in 1948 and was undefeated in its 34 matches]]." Is it possible to pipe with fewer words? Perhaps just "toured England in 1948"? Should it be "team that" (if Bradman led other such teams to tour, maybe).
• "The MCC fielded seven players who would represent England in the Tests,[27][28][29][30][31][32] and were basically a full strength Test team, while Australia fielded their first-choice team. It was a chance to gain a psychological advantage. Given Hamence's early struggles in the English conditions, which saw him make only 161 runs at 26.83 in his first six innings,[1] while all of Australia's first-choice top six had made centuries,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38]". Any chance those whoppers can each be conflated into a single note? Tony (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, I will do that YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Changed to "team of 1948" to give indication that the personnel changes over time. Bradman was captain from 1936-38 and 1946-1948 YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The prose is looking good and the jargon is explained reasonably well for average readers. It is of quite limited scope, but the wealth of information available makes the subarticle appropriate in my opinion. --Laser brain (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Question: Although Hamence is notable in hs own right as an Australian Test cricketer, you say in the lead to this article that he was not instrumental in the 1948 team's success. The performance figures which you give confirm this, as does the stuff about being "ground-staff". So why is it justifiable to have a separate article about his 1948 non-exploits? Shouldn't his modest achievements on this tour be merged into his own article? Aside from that issue, the prose has improved a lot since the last FAC, and the elongated reference strings have vanished, which is good. I'm still troubled by one sentence in the lead, though: "Aside from Colin McCool, Hamence was the only squad member..." Why "aside from McCool", as though McCool is unworthy of serious consideration? Why not say "Hamence and Colin McCool were the only squad members..." etc Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed the sentence. As to the issue of forking, Hamence played 99 FC matches including 3 Tests and 19 on the Invincibles and this articles has 20k of prose and if the article was eliminated and merged, the content would have to be mostly killed off as we aren't going to have 100k of prose on him. While his contribution was small in comparison to the likes of Lindwall and Morris, in those days, they played 6 days each week and so backup players were required for rotation, Hemence even opened the bowling on occasion to rest Lindwall, and first-class cricketers are inherently notable, and he played in 60% of the matches; many members of leading Champions League teams do not see 60% game time for instance. I guess as articles have been created on the other 16 players who all played in the MCC matches or Tests at least, it would leave an odd man out, and there are certainly RS for Hamence. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point here. I don't question the right of Hamence or any of the 17 "Invincibles" to have their own biographical articles. What I'm dubious about is the need for all of them to have additional articles dealing with their deeds in 1948. In the case of those – Bradman, Lindwall, Miller for example – who made a stellar contribution to the tour, there might be cass for separate 1948 tour articles as well as their biographies. But for the likes of Hamence, who in your own words contributed modestly to the tour, I think it's over-egging the pudding. I think Hamence's contribution could easily be contained within a section in his biography headed "Hamence in 1948" or some such. However, I am expressing a personal opinion. Aside from thiis issue, this article looks good. Brianboulton (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No I was referring to the subarticle. The only way this would fit into the main article is if I carved it down. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – After cleaning up some overlinking and a couple of remaining prose glitches, I think the article is better than when it first came here, and quite a bit better than when I weakly supported at the first FAC; in particular, the creative fix for the reference strings is much appreciated. Even though he doesn't appear to be the most famous member of the team in question, to me there's just enough to justify a seperate article. The match statistics would just be too much in the Hamence article, causing summary style issues. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: only one self-created chart and it checks out. Jappalang (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good. From someone who knows practically nothing about Hamence, it's easy to read and understand. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind, fixed them myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 14 July 2009 [54].

---

Cloud Gate

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) Torsodog (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a high quality article that has been completely reorganized since the last FAC. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Seems mostly OK, but I'm not sure that three separate non-free images are justified under WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The two lead images jointly illustrate a very important property of the artwork and the third image of the Omphalos would be extremely hard for the reader to conceptualize. This number is way down from earlier versions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I wouldn't oppose over it anyway. Good luck. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know how well you know the FAC process, but since you have read WP:WIAFA you certainly know more than many. Often a reviewer formally states Support or Oppose, which in large part is used to determine the outcome of one of these discussions. Seems O.K. is not as useful as say Weak Support, which is considered a more formal response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Then please take it as a weak support :) Stifle (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support This is a very nice, concise but comprehensive article. It is fully referenced and to me is very well written. I made a few copyedits and have no further concerns. Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support by Comments from Ruhrfisch - I am doing a copy edit on this and have some comments / suggestions. I am done with the copyedit of the lead and Design sections and my comments will be in stages as I complete other sections. I have also read the most recent FAC.
  • For the lead I agree that the The sculpture and the plaza are sometimes referred to jointly as "Cloud Gate on the AT&T Plaza". sentence seems out of place in the lead. One of the refs for it (from NASCAR) is from a reliable source, but the use of the name is from a fan's comment, which hardly seems reliable. See here.
    • If you feel one of the refs is suspect, you are free to remove it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I commented the NASCAR ref out for now. Am OK with the sentence in the lead, but perhaps other editors might weigh in on its inclusion there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I also wonder if the lead images would look better if they were on top of each other and not side by side. They could be displayed at a larger size (300 px wide perhaps) so they could be seen better and the caption could be top and bottom instead of left and right. This is a suggestion, not a requirement. More to come, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I have rearranged the infobox as suggested.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I moved the map to the left and moved it up a paragraph too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The article has six images and three of those are in the Construction and maintenance section. I wonder if it would be possible to move the image of the tent to the Reception section and right-align it there. There is a brief description of the tent in a film there, and moving it would make it possible to display both the tent and omphalos at thumb width, again showing more detail. I will work on the last two sections tomorrow. If I introduce errors or make unwanted changes in my copyedits, please revert (or let me know). Hope the copyedits are helping. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I trust your judgment to rearrange the images as you see fit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the vote of confidence - I moved the images around as I suggested. I have finished my light copyedit and while I did not check every reference, I looked at each one where I needed to check what the original said for tweaking the sentences in question. While I fixed some instances of overlinking, I did not check every link. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• I now support this for FA as I feel it meets the criteria (my support is bolded above). Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why was the joint alternate name eliminated with this edit?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because I strongly feel that it is given undue weight by sticking it in the lead, not to mention the fact that it was awkwardly tacked onto a paragraph. It is mentioned in the body and, IMO, that is enough. --Torsodog^Talk 21:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment "Cloud Gate has become a very popular sculpture and is known worldwide. ". Very generalised. Needs rewording to avoid implying that it is known by everybody across the world. Something like " is recognised internationally" would be better. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made the suggested change.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"It is Kapoor's first public outdoor work in the United States,[15] and is the work by which he may be best known in the country." I think you should remove the word "may" as it makes it look like speculation rather than fact. The Financial Times source asserts that "it is his best known work in the United States" so I think you can safely say "it is" rather than "it may be". Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What makes Findarticles.com a reliable source? Does it have professional credentials or is it written by amateurs? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure which reference you are referring to, but find articles is an online republication of an original secondary source. The original is an WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good, that's want I wanted to verify. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Chicago art critic Edward Lifson considers Cloud Gate to be among the greatest pieces of public art in the world". Is this surprising? Is his view somewhat hampered by inherent bias given that he is a citizen of the city and inclined to relay a sense of pride in it? Maybe find a more neutral response. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The text clearly notes that he is a Chicago art critic. Can't we leave it to the reader to put two and two together. I know of other sources at this time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave that open.

Support I think this is just about at featured level although in the lower sections I think some of the sentences could be rewritten slightly to provide a better understanding, what stood out was "Kapoor also creates a tension between masculine and feminine within his art by having concave points of focus that invite the entry of visitors". Overall this provides an excellent overview of the sculpture providing all the relevant aspects. I've made a few copy edits and added an image File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpgwhich I think is very relevant to illustrate the way in which the structure reflects and distorts reflections. Given that this is a centralised discussion in the lower sections i think this significantly contributes to the article. The image would seme to be about the boy rather than specifically the sculpture. Is this image acceptable or does it require a fair use rationale? Does it infringe upon personality rights? The image is correctly licensed as Cretaive Commons 2.0 Attribution to under the terms of this license we should be able to use it in the way this license says. Either way, I believe the image is of benefit to the article and an improvement. I'd be interested to see what the image experts have to say, if it is an issue it can be removed immediately. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the image of the boy and his reflection on the sculpture aid the reader sufficiently to merit inclusion. I hope that the additional image does not infringe upon WP:NFCC concerns and am willing to remove it upon request by an image reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

CommentSupport

• Great article.
• "The committee chose the design of internationally-acclaimed artist Anish Kapoor." This just needs something to make it flow better. I suggest "However, the committee chose the second design, by internationally-acclaimed artist Anish Kapoor."

done although I do not think the second comma belongs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Kapoor's contract states that the constructed piece should be expected to survive for 1,000 years" This sentence does not seem connected to the ones before and after it. Can it be given a better home in the flow of the text? Is it known whether this was in Kapoor's contract alone, or was it a condition of the design competition?

Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) has done an excellent job with copyedits. I am not sure where this should be moved to. Maybe he might have a suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I was BOLD and moved it to the end of the Construction and maintenance section and made a few other minor copyedits. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• "...notable February 2009 incident during which the names "PeterS" and "Ashley"..." We really do not need to know the names, and reproducing them somewhere prominent like WP can surely only encourage such vandals. Please please please leave the names out.

O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

*"Prior to creating Cloud Gate, Kapoor had created art that distorted images of the viewer instead of portraying images of its own. In so doing, he acquired experience blurring the boundary between the limit and the limitless." I dunno. I think of myself as an art buff, and write WP articles about artists, but I'm going to need an explanation of how distorted images of the viewer "blur the boundary between the limit and the limitless".

This is sourced content. However, as the viewer can make himself part of the subject and as he can infinitely change the subject by his movements, we do have limitless possibilities.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Re both this and the next point - I don't doubt it's sourced content, it's just that, sometimes, reliable sources write gibberish, or to be fairer to the art critics, sometimes they are not writing for the lay audience of an encyclopedia. Take the above point. Your explanation is a good one: "as the viewer can infinitely change the subject by his movements, we do have limitless possibilities". However, that isn't what the article (and perhaps the source) said. It talks about distorted images, not multiple ones, and it talks about blurring the boundaries between limit and limitless, rather than about creating limitless possibilities. The exact words in the article are, in my view, non sequiturs and, arguably, nonsense. I don't blame you, TonyTheTiger, I expect you're doing the best you can with the material available, but I would like to ensure that the critical observations chosen to be included in the encyclopedia will make sense to a lay reader. The same goes for my point below about masculine and feminine, though with hindsight I didn't explain myself, thus being guilty of the same crime as the art critic. The article makes a link between "a tension between masculine and feminine" and "multiplying visitors' images when they are positioned correctly". This again does not actually make sense. I'm aware of the concave/convex feminine/masculine concept, but that isn't the way it has been used in this sentence, which instead says that the creation of multiple viewer images in a certain location creates a tension between m and f. I just do not think that works.

• If I understand your complaint it is that instead of describing the tension between m and f, I describe f aspects. I think the point is that the viewer takes the masculine role by inserting himself into the concave area and once the masculine role has been played the viewer is multiplied. My prose may not get the point across and I welcome advice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think tension is an artistic/thematic term here and it does not mean that viewers of the sculpture feel tension.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the distinction between distorted and multiple images is not that significant. When art critiques get immersed in literal meaning I think much can be lost. Cloud Gate both multiplies and distorts images, which takes us beyond the boundary of simple reflections to a world where one can levitate or multiply oneself. I am not an eloquent art critic, but I think I am close to making a proper artistic point. I welcome any advice on this subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kapoor is a great artist and this encyclopedia entry deserves the sort of serious critical discussion that is being introduced in this section, so I support your efforts to make it work. I'm not sure how much I can do without Gilfoyle, but I'll do my best to think about it and try something out. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Kapoor also creates a tension between masculine and feminine within his art by having concave points of focus that invite the entry of visitors..." What??
  • Masculine and feminine abstract art themes are nothing new. Concave is female and convex is male. What is the issue. Again this is sourced content. I am not making this stuff up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Whereas I think the "relevant Kapoor themes" section needs tweaking, I like "Cloud Gate themes" which works better.

Feel free to make suggestions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have attempted a few copyedits here and there. Happy to discuss if you think they don't work. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• the reference "Yates, Jon (July 15, 2004). "Chicago finds 'bean' meets taste test". Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/chi-0508240314aug24,0,1725342.story. Retrieved on June 29, 2008" appears to hyperlink to the wrong story?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltonstone (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have fixed the link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• I think the copyedits to this section have improved it. I think my objections are part of a broader objection to what gets written in art criticism in some quarters, and in lots of different WP articles as they become honed by enthusiasts and specialists in their subjects. Tony, you suggested that when "art critiques get immersed in literal meaning I think much can be lost". I think it depends on the audience. Some of the language used in the sources is fine for talking to artists, to fellow critics, or to an educated art-lover audience. When one is talking to a lay audience including everyone from prospective Chicago tourists to British primary school students who have heard of Kapoor in class, I actually think one must ensure that the literal meaning is clear, because such an audience can draw on nothing else in their efforts to understand. However:

• I imagine I am in a minority view on this;
• Your edits and arguments are also good ones;
• I haven't come up with a better idea; and
• in any case, I don't think my arguments have merit in holding up the nomination of the article. I'm satisfied with your case and your changes, and am supporting. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Image layout - I am posting a few comments on image layout on the talk page for this FAC so as not clutter things up here. I am fine with the new image of the boy and his distorted reflection (assuming those more knowledgable about WP:NFCC are also OK with it). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The revised layout looks good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support I will begin a look-through and may make simple copyediting changes for style. Feel free to revert if you feel I inadvertently change the meaning. The prose needed a bit of work but was readily fixable - have a look as I reduced some redundancies and repetition. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose on two non-free image issues:

• File:Cloudgate5.JPG: there are some problems with this photo but the biggest one at this point is failure to comply with WP:NFCC#4, "Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia." Where was this published before its upload to here? There are some photos of the interior (albeit of the finished product, perhaps some shots of the unfinished product exist as well) on Flickr that can be used in place of this. Would the shot of the bottom here be a better illustration of the polished weld lines and curvature? Jappalang (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think this image might even be better than the one we currently have to illustrate both the sculpture's underside and welds. I support replacing that photo and will gladly make the switch if there are no objections. --Torsodog^Talk 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I will concur with any resolution to this issue because it is outside my area of expertise. Whatever Torsodog and Jappalang agree to is fine by me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I also support the new underside / welds photo - it also shows people interacting with the sculpture and their reflections, which is discussed in the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Can we get some commentary by the image reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The image suggested by Torsodog is the very one I have suggested, so it would be ideal to use that published photo to help illustrate the aspects of the sculpture instead of the unpublished image. Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Torsodog, you are our image guy. I will let you take care of this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would gladly switch out these images so Jappalang could strike this concern, but I'm a bit confused. While this image will pass NFC criteria, do we have permission from the photographer to use his photo? Maybe I'm missing something... --Torsodog^Talk 13:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• As I understand it, Jappalang is saying that this would be an appropriate fair use image according to NFCC. Thus, we need to properly claim fair use, which is done without obtaining consent. I could do it, but you have handled a lot of the images that have been uncontroversial in the Millennium Park articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• The non-free content here is the sculpture itself, which is publicly displayed in Millennium Park. —Jeremy (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Basically, I believe it would need the same licensing as the main images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I believe Jeremy is trying to say that the sculpture is the subject and has been published, and WP:NFCC#4 applies to it. However, there is an error in this thought. Cloud Gate has not been published. As discussed in commons:/Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Sculptures and public art in the United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a public exhibition of a work of art does not constitute publication "where there are bylaws against copies, or where it is tacitly understood that no copying shall take place, and the public are admitted to view the painting on the implied understanding that no improper advantage will be taken of the privilege." Basically, US law defines publication as the distribution of copies of the work to the public. In this case, Cloud Gate as a singular existence of the art has yet to be published. Thus this photo fails WP:NFCC#4 by any means. Jappalang (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am now confused. Above did we agree that a specific image is an appropriate candidate for fair use within this article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I, along with you and others above, agreed that preposterousuniverse.com's photo would be good to use in this article. However, it is not yet used. I oppose the use of the current image (File:Cloudgate5.JPG) uploaded by User:Iuthem because it was not published outside of Wikipedia. Note that preposterousuniverse.com's photo should not be uploaded over Cloudgate5.JPG as it should contain its own history. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I will swap out the image if Torsodog does not do so by the middle of the week.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, it was a busy weekend in Chicago. I have finally added the new image, however, and I will add a deletion tag to the old image shortly. I think this should clear up the concerns with this image. --Torsodog^Talk 16:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I was actually arguing that, as Cloud Gate has been publicly displayed, the photo passes WP:NFCC#4. Also, per WP:NFCC#3 I feel that using an image of the sculpture where the photographer has granted permission for us to use it (as was the case with File:Cloudgate5.JPG) is far preferable to using an image grabbed without the photographer's permission (as appears to be the case with File:Bean3.jpg). As such, I think that changing the image was a very bad decision. —Jeremy (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ha, its a good thing I'm pretty cautious. I also emailed the photographer two days ago and obtained permission to use the photo. I will forward the email to the permissions department ASAP. --Torsodog^Talk 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Permission has been confirmed and image page has been updated. This should address all issues with this particular image. Any other concerns, let me know! --Torsodog^Talk 00:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Good job there, Torsodog, and I think this point can almost be considered fully resolved I noticed you have also reduced the size to ~530k pixels. Generally as far as I understand it, the recommended size is 100,000 pixels (area formed by height × width). 530k seems a bit high resolution still. I have tried reducing it to 50% locally and the welds, human interaction and distortion still seem visible. Is there a rationale for it to be 638 × 850? Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Nah, the only real reason I had for resizing it the way I did was because the other non-free use images in this article were a similar size. I resized this image 50% to reach the ~100,000 pixel area and tagged the image to get the previous versions removed. The other two (or one, depending on the outcome the discussion below) non-free images will also have to be reduced in size. --Torsodog^Talk 13:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from west'.jpg and File:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg (are the "'"s typos?): non-free photos are likely the only illustrations we can have for recent works of art in some countries and this is the case. What concerns me here is the use of two photographs for this sculpture. Although they are taken from opposite directions, giving a complete coverage, is there a critical need for that? Are 360 degree panoramic shots required for each sculpture in its article then? The way I look at it is that a single photo, showing the subject at its most commonly identified angle (if any), would be the best shot for the article. If there is heavy critical commentary on another aspect of the work (in this case, the interior), a photo covering from that angle could (with rationale) qualify as another fair-use image. The aspect of Cloud Gate, however, is the mystical distortion of objects reflected in the sculpture's surface, not individual angles of perspective. As such, I doubt two images are really needed. My preference is for the West image as the surface shows the distortion of buildings, sky, people and the tiles prominently. I do not believe taking away the East view results in a noticeable loss to the article. Jappalang (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The file names have single quotes probably as a result of either human error or a renaming system that may be an artifact of avoiding filename duplication to reduce the size of the image while original sizes existed (or some other duplication avoidance). Surely, the filename is not a substantive part of your objection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• I had sort of thought that after four FACs we had pretty much agreed that the pair of images jointly depict the image in compliance with WP:NFCC. It is beyond my expertise to argue about what is allowed. However, I take issue with the term "mystical distortion of objects". There is "clearly visible distortion of objects" described in the caption where oddly items on the north are reflected both on the east's and west's surface. The view from the east is the "most commonly identified angle" because of where the object is situated. There is not much room to view it from the west.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• We had convinced Fasach Nua that based on the current caption, the joint images are a service to the reader at FAC2 and Awadewit at FAC1. By the time of FAC3 this issue was uncontested.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• To be clear, Fasach Nua did not strike his oppose (he was reconsidering his opinion) by the time FAC2 was closed. While Awadewit sees no issue with using two copyrighted images to illustrate the subject, I am not as convinced as her (but not so much as a vehemant objection; basically resolving the first issue above would make this issue on the two views a weak oppose). If the article shows why two views require illustration, I would be convinced to strike the oppose for this point. As it is, I think it is the aspect of the distortions and not individual views that require illustration; hence one image instead of two. Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• If we put the point made in the caption in the text, it would require both photos because there is no secondary source that makes this point. It is an artistic point made from obviously visible buildings in the photos (primary source). Although WP relies on secondary sources in general, on occaission in the absence of secondary sources, uncontroversial primary sources are acceptable. I could put the text in the main body of the article and then reference the pair of images jointly. Would that be O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have added the text to the main body (see Cloud_Gate#Relevant_Kapoor_themes). I am not exactly sure what additional referencing is appropriate. I could put a footnote with links to the two main images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• TonyTheTiger, I think that is running into OR territory. Based on images alone, it would be fine to say the buildings can be seen in vantages from either east or west, but to define that as Kapoor's concept of duality? I think a notable art critic's opinion would be required. Jappalang (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• O.K. so what would appropriate verbiage be to properly transition into this uncontroversial fact from the images? Where should the fact go. I just thought it went with the east–west duality. If it belongs somewhere else and should be transitioned into in another way please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is taking information (the appearance of skyscrapers) from primary sources (the photos), and defining it as an indication of an artist's concept (personal interpretation). As brought up in Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 35#Original images, "Yes, images should not be used as sources. Own interpretation == OR. This is what I think the most image OR comes from, i.e. the editors are not using images to demonstrate what text already says, but basing text on images." If the duality is indeed interpreted as the appearance of certain skyscrapers from two vantage points, someone notable would have spoken of it; it is in that situation then can we put the thought down in the article. Jappalang (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Lest there be any confustion, the east-west duality statement is properly sourced from a standard secondary WP:RS. My question is what is the proper method to incorporate an uncontroversial fact (that buildings to the northeast and northwest can be seen on both the east and west sides of the sculpture) into the text. I am not trying to use an image to say that east-west duality is a theme of the sculpture. I am trying to present an interesting fact about the sculpture in our article. This is a new sculpture that has not yet had time to appear in contemporary art scholarly works. This article is almost entirely sourced by newspapers at this time because of the newness of the subject. Time will tell if it is a scholarly subject. However, it is certainly a subject of international encyclopedic note. I think the point you are making and that the link you reference is making is that an image is not a replacement for a scholarly source, i.e., "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments". As an example. Suppose we had a painting of a blue sky. We could then say to the reader this is a painting of a blue sky. We could not say to the reader that this is a painting representing the artists motive of using variations of primary colors. In this case, the uncontroversial fact is that buildings to the northeast and northwest are visible in the reflections on both the east and the west. Yes I concur with the premise in the link that you mention that "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments". However, this is a case of the blue sky. The premise generally does not truly apply to this basic uncontroversial fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• TonyTheTiger, as far as I can see within the article, there is no secondary source that is backing the assertion of the "east-west duality" as the "appearance of the skyscrapers when seen from the east or west". For all I know, Gilfoyle could be speaking of metaphors when talking about "east-west" duality, some other physical representationm, or even another of Kapoor's work and not Cloud Gate. Jappalang (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Correct. Gilfoyle mentions an east-west duality. No text mentions appearance of the skyscrapers when seen from the east or west in the reflection. However, the sky is blue and the buildings are reflected on the sculpture. The current text of the article does not link Gilfoyle's thematic statement with this uncontroversial fact. Furthermore, the link that you mention says "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments" and that "Images (including photographs) are primary sources, and as such should not be used as a source on Wikipedia, except for a statement about that particular image itself" Is it a statement about an image to note an uncontroversial fact in it (I.E., buildings are visible in the reflection shown in this image)? In other words, could we say this is an image of Cloud Gate and its reflections of the city skyline.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Describing what the photos are showing physically is fine. It is claiming what the photos physically show are connected in some concept that would prove problematic. It is okay to say "A shows these buildings here, B shows the same buildings there." It could be an issue in saying "A and B exemplifies the concept of duality by displaying the same buildings from two different angles." Jappalang (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Are you on board with the current verbiage? Should I add some sort of footnote mentioning the images?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) TonyTheTiger, I appreciate your attempt to resolve this but I do not think it will work. Let me try again to explain this time, breaking things down in parts.

1. situation: there are two external shots of the subject, Cloud Gate: one from the east, and one from the west
2. issue: I do not feel it necessary to have more than one external shot
3. why: aside from identification of a work of art, the photo would serve to illustrate critical commentary of it, which is pretty much summed up by the article's "By reflecting the sky, visiting and non-visiting pedestrians and surrounding architecture, Cloud Gate limits its viewers to partial comprehension at any time. The interaction with the viewer who moves to create his own vision gives it a spiritual dimension." Only one view (the best photo that illustrates this point, not necessarily the most common view) is needed.
4. TonyTheTiger's first attempt to show signficance for two photos (diff): states the different views as illustrating a "duality"
5. my issue: possible original research; the photos can serve as primary sources for physical descriptions, but interpreting meanings/themes from them would be OR without a reliable secondary source to back it up
6. TonyTheTiger's second attempt (diff): describe the skyscrapers that appear on each view
7. my issue: no significance or coming from a critical commentary. Taken at face value, it is describing what is on the photos and tantamount to pure illustration without critical commentary. Taken at the implied purpose, it—attaching "duality" to the reflections from two views—can still be construed as original research, even though the attachment is not overtly stated.

I think statements of the skyscraper's reflections on the sculpture would not address my concern. It would require significant commentaries from a notable critic(s) about the reflections as the representation of "duality". Even so, would it not be accurate to say that after seeing the reflection on one view, readers can easily envisage the reflection on the other?

I am going to try an analogy (oh boy): Imagine if Rodin's The Thinker is still copyrighted. Would it qualify our strict fair use standards to have a front photo, a side profile and a rear view if the only commentary is an overall, general commentary of the appearance of the sculpture (that of a man seemingly in thought, sitting with a hunched posture and resting his chin on his hand supported by his leg) when one photo readily does so? No matter how one takes reference from the photos and describe the musculature/sculpt lines from each angle, it would come into original research, especially if attached to a concept that a critic just talked about in abstract, or pure illustration. I hope I have explained my issue with having two photos of Cloud Gate here more clearly. Jappalang (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As you said at first "Taken at face value, it is describing what is on the photos and tantamount to pure illustration without critical commentary." Then you make a somewhat faulty analogy by comparing a 5-year-old sculpture with a 107-year-old one. This analogy does not hold for two reasons. Critical commentary, reflection and circumspection on Rodin's work has been extensive. There are probably even critical commentaries on the Musée Rodin. Neither the artist nor this park has extensive critical commentary yet. We are limited in that regard. Second, this is not two images saying here is the sculpture from the left and the right. This is a sculpture depicting something tourists from around the world should want to see and that is consistent with a critical theme. Further response coming later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I stopped in at my local branch of the Chicago Public Library (Blackstone Library). There is a second book about the park that also focusses on the construction of this new park. Critical review of the artistic elements do not yet exist in the literature. I will add a few thematic points from construction engineers and the like during the day, but there is not much critical review of this work yet. However, including both images is an instructive depiction for the reader. I have found a quote about another theme (sky–earth).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through the section on Cloud Gate in an additional reference. The engineers reference the critical themes, but do not provide critical commentary. We are without critical sources because we are dealing with a new sculpture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you have misunderstood the point of my analogy, that is: if only a general statement or commentary about a sculpture by secondary sources is given, one cannot extropolate information from photographs (primary sources). Yes, the sculpture is new and if it lacks massive commentary, the article should reflect that. The project is in the business of taking opinions from secondary sources and collating them in an organised form. Original interpretations are a no-no. That is why WP:RS and WP:OR are in place. If no one states duality (by what concept does it mean) is expressed by seeing certain skyscrapers from the east and from the west, then we should not imply so. Neither do I see aspects of "you can't see where the sculpture ends and the sky begins" in either photo, which Cerny is likely to be referring to the situation where due to light conditions, the reflection of the sky on the sculpture is graduating to the same color and illumination as the background sky, thus showing no abrupt change (one cannot see edges or sudden shifts in color). Jappalang (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I recently reviewed Sistine Chapel ceiling for WP:GAR and the GA Sweeps. It seems that the WP:WPVA group has set several precedents with art work where in the absence of WP:RS, an image has been used (see Talk:Sistine Chapel ceiling/GA1) as a "detailed illustration" rather than as a reference. The current verbiage makes no point about duality. It merely illustrates an artistic element of the sculpture in terms of an odd reflective property of the curved surface. Would you consider going from oppose to neutral with the current verbiage since we have resolved one of your two concerns and mollified the second?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I may have some sources. Check back later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your point about Cerny. We have a RS saying there is a sky-earth duality and we have a quote explaining it. Is there something wrong with this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, in short, my contention is that it is not necessary to have two images that prominently display the themes described in the article; one is more than enough. As far as I can tell, your efforts are to ascribe additional significance to either view (to substantiate a need for two different views of the same structure), which I have failed to see any. Jappalang (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought your complaint was that there were no sources discussing how the sculpture distorts the skyline. Now that we have one, the pictures jointly illustrate the point. Would you consider a second opinion because the two prior image reviewers were leaning toward their inclusion even prior to the new sources documenting their relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not changing my stance, but do note that it is now a weak oppose (the heavy emphasis of my oppose was on Cloudgate5.JPG, which is now not in use). Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your integrity. If there is a consensus to remove one of the images, I will do so rather than lose the promotion, but if the nomination can be successful without removing it, I would prefer to keep it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest here. It feels like we've been dealing with non-free use issues concerning these images of Cloud Gate for half my adult life. I am very pleased with the amount of FREE images we managed to get into this article considering the limitations. If we only had to cut one of the infobox images to have only two non-free images of the sculpture in the article, I wouldn't be terribly unhappy. I will say that I prefer the image from the east, though, as it shows both buildings and non-building reflections. Just my two cents. --Torsodog^Talk 14:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur, that if required, I am more than willing to remove one image to get the FAC promotion. However, currently we have 5 supports and 1 weak oppose plus two active editors in support. In addition we have two prior FAC image reviewers leaning toward supporting the weakly opposed issue by the current reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I recently found and upload an image of kapoor that we can use. Still not sure what is going to happen with this non-free image stalemate, but image:Kapoor cropped.jpg can also be incorporated into the article if we feel like it would add to it. --Torsodog^Talk 14:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The current image placement is problematic for high resolution viewing such as 1400x1050, 1440x900 1600x1024, 1600x1200, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200. I view at 1680x1050 and with the map on the right it conflicts with the infobox to create a large whitespace area. We could either move the Kapoor pic to the top and move the map down or move them both to the opposite sides.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The more I look at the article, and the more I mess with its images, the more I am convinced that the second infobox image is unnecessary. The two images and the resulting caption absolutely dominated the infobox and is over all distracting to the general layout of the article. Furthermore, I think the two similar images combined with the extremely cumbersome caption might actually confuse some readers less familiar with the piece. All this combined with the fact that I could possibly see some NFC issues leads me to believe that the article might be better served without the picture from the west side. After all, the east side picture does show both building and non-building reflections! --Torsodog^Talk 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You are the picture guy. Do what you think is best.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly we have critical commentary on the interior (omphalos).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• I do not believe you are objecting to File:Cloud gate construction.jpg or File:Tented cloud gate.jpg because they do not actually depict the work. Is this correct?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• It is unclear to me whether you are objecting to File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpg because to me the subject is the boy. Of course, this image depicts one type of distortion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am confused; where have I voiced objections to the three images you raised above? Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• When you say one image in the infobox and one image of the interior, it could have meant no other images. I am glad we are in agreement that the rest of the images are acceptable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Having followed this, I think everyone agrees that the new photo of the omphalos and its welds should be used in the article (in place of the current image). The only other discussion on images is whether there should be one fair use image in the infobox or two - I don't really have an opinion on whether to have one or two as I am not an expert on fair use images. I will say that if there is only one image used, and it is from the west, I would prefer one with the full sculpture (the right edge is cropped here) and without the sky blown by the sun. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• The two images are by the same photographer taken on the same day. If we go to a single image, you could choose any image. However, it should be from the east, which is the common view. However, please consider my 02:40, 2 July 2009 argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• P.S. during most of the day if you shoot the same subject from both the east and the west, one of them is likely to be somewhat sunblown. It is not that bad a shot though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose stricken; all images appropriately licensed or justifiably qualified for fair use. Jappalang (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Image removed In the interest of seeing this promoted, I was BOLD and removed one of the two images from the infobox (the view from the east). I did this as Jappalang and Torsodog are in favor of removing the image and Stifle seems to be, while TonyThe Tiger seemed to be OK with it. I used the {{Infobox Sculpture}} template which is a redirect to {{Infobox artwork}}. I could not get a caption for the image in, so I added it as a ref / footnote. If my removal of the image is not OK, please revert. If anyone can add the caption to the infobox, please do so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

PS I will [have] also reread the article and copyedit[ed] the recent additions if [as] needed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC) 02:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 14 July 2009 [55].

---

Ruff

Nominator(s): jimfbleak (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's named after a fashion item and has a weird sex life, including cross-dressing males, and the most promiscuous females in the bird world. Read this steamy saga, and check out the very detailed GA review jimfbleak (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - gong to support this soon, but I am slightly concerned by the lead, which is structured oddly to my mind. I think the lead should vaguely follow the same structure as the article itself, (which is taxonomy, description, distribution, behaviour, relationship with humans), tempting as it is to leap straight into the sordid details of its reproduction. I think the weight is rather tilted towards the sexual behaviour in the lead as well, it could stand to be slightly more balanced. I've watched the article take shape recently and overall I am impressed and look forward to supporting. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I take your first point, and I've now reordered the lead and slightly tweaked the text (too many "female" and a stray chick sentence I hadn't noticed being added). The article now starts with the more normal order (where it's found, taxo comment, appearance, behaviour, status). The experienced GA reviewer felt that the unusual mating behaviour was distinctive enough to need some description in the lead; there is actually only one sentence about mating, since the description of the breeding ornaments has to be there as the most notable feature of the plumage anyway. I think I need to keep some mention of the lekking behaviour, but if you are not happy with the current level of detail I could remove including a rare form that mimics the female - or we could wait and see what other reviewers think of that sentence? jimfbleak (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The structure is much improved. I'm not suggesting removing information so much as adding a little more to the other sections, although the restructure makes it look more balanced anyway. Perhaps the addition of some information on its morphology other than its breeding plumage - its shape and size for example, at the start of the bit where you talk about its plumage and how it relates to breeding. Also, wikilinks are rather scarce in the second and third paragraphs, why does corvids merit a link but not gulls or skuas? I've linked a few articles that might be interesting to readers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point on description, para 2 now starts This is a long-necked, pot-bellied bird. The female and non-breeding male have grey-brown upperparts and mainly white underparts, but this species shows marked sexual dimorphism; the male is much larger than... also linked gull and skua. I've tried not to overlink since FACs are sometimes criticised for linking words (common countries, familiar animals) where it's reasonable that a reader would know the word. Thanks for the other links, they seem fine to me jimfbleak (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment after more thorough read through; chick rearing is a single line. It might be worth spelling out what the female does for the chicks after they hatch. Does she brood them, if so for how many days after hatching. They are precocial, which to my mind suggests they feed themselves, can you confirm this? Does she defend the chicks from attackers or try and distract attackers, does she creche her chicks with other females? Do the chicks leave her as soon as they are able to fly? I think this needs a little more to be considered comprehensive. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This was raised before FA; the problem is that with waders much is taken as understood and not stated explicitly by sources. I've added they feed themselves on a variety of small invertebrates, but are brooded by the female. since that at least can be sourced. No indication how long they are brooded, probably dependent on weather anyway. With most waders, as you know, the female will protect the downy chicks at least until they fledge, but I can't source this for the Ruff. Crèching is interesting and is usually mentioned when it occurs, but finding a negative source saying Ruffs don't crèche is impossible! Its a similar situation with predation, it's only possible to list the predators of grassland waders in general terms, since they are unlikely to single out particular species. jimfbleak (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that the info might not be there, but I had to ask. I agree that if creching isn't mentioned that it most likely doesn't happen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion on chick rearing started during GAR and is on the talk page at Talk:Ruff#Chicks. Snowman (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - COI - I am a bird project editor( made a few edits to the article as well). Also not at the time I support there are two tags in the article that are in my opinion unwarranted, I am refraining from removing them until I have had more time to discuss the matter with the editor that added them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for support and comment on tags jimfbleak (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, spelled out those two, can't see any others except IUCN, which is linked but can't be spelled out since it's a template. jimfbleak (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments and moral support - have watched the article for a while and it seems to have shaped up again after a brief post GA dip. Have made a few copy edits but here are a few comments:
  • "Males typically winter further north than females" : further here is a bit confusing, actually they are flying less than the females.

Males typically make shorter flights and winter further north than females

• • "identifiable through rings or dyeing" - more general term "marked" could be used.

and individuals marked with rings or dye reads better and avoids the inevitable "how?" if just "marked" was used

• • "The staging posts are closer together..." - "refuelling site" may be more explanatory

Done - originally refueling, but GA reviewer said it sounded like unleaded or diesel (:

• • "and keep warm by shivering;" - suggests that they shiver all the time

and, when necessary, keeping warm by shivering;

• • "the only bird in which males have genetically determined differences in plumage and mating behaviour" is somewhat unclear given the later clarification. Perhaps the statement should be more along the lines of "well marked genetic (or perhaps replaced by heritable) variations among the males"

males have well-marked inherited variations in plumage and mating behaviour

Shyamal (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for comments and ce, let me know if not happy with my changes jimfbleak (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the claim of "unique" in having polymorphic males based on this paper which also mentions "... that alternative mating strategies are heritable behaviours that are associated with plumage colour polymorphism, dark males being aggressive and white males adopting a sneaky behaviour to copulate with females (Hill, 1991)." which I did not notice in the article. Shyamal (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moral support and that edit, I've just tweaked a bit to avoid "few" twice, and to spell out journal name. jimfbleak (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• The ancient cooking recipe appears to be a "how to". Snowman (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstand, the quote is from an old text to illustrate in an interesting way that the bird was trapped and eaten. I don't think you can seriously believe that I am giving guidance on how to kill and cook a Ruff - perhaps you been reading too many "how-to-keep-a-parrot" articles ;) jimfbleak (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please withdraw the allegation that I have been reading too many "how-to-keep-a-parrot" articles. Snowman (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

allegation? Did you miss the :) ? jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the ";)", and I now see that it was intended to be a joke. Snowman (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Very feeble joke, I'm afraid, I should apologise for that anyway jimfbleak (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is the spelling in the quote the spelling of the time or are there typographical errors? Snowman (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's as in the text, that's what sic means if you follow the link jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, the sic does indicate a archaic usage. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No - sic means "thus" in Latin, to indicate a verbatim quote (with misspellings or archaic words or whatever was in the original). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I phrased that badly, I should have said that sic includes an archaic use. Snowman (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have looked at it again and I think that part of the quote could be regarded as a how to. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that is stretching the meaning beyond any reasonable sense. If I quoted the opening of Genesis, is that a how-to create the world? jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article says that Ruffs are taken for food in some parts of the world, and the article seems odd to mention an old recipe without the recipe currently used. Actually, I think that the old recipe is largely irrelevant to the article and should be removed. Snowman (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait and see what others think, since I believe the quote supports the previous sentence and adds interest jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• You have started the quote as if it is the start of the sentence, so I find the quote incomplete and misleading, because the full quote regarding preparation for the table is

"... ;where

they are taken in nets, and fattened for the table, with bread and milk, hempfeed, and fometimes boiled wheat, but if expedition is required, fugar is added, which will make them in a fortnight's time a lump of fat : they then fell for two millings

or half a crown a piece."

Snowman (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've paraphrased that bit in the preceding sentence jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote in the article begins with "If", but in the actual book it begins with "if" and commences after a comma. Snowman (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, now "...if" jimfbleak (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Population data; "The annual survival rate of the adult is 52%, with no difference between the sexes; the survival rate for juveniles is unknown. The Ruff can breed from its second year, and the typical lifespan is four years." If only about half Ruffs survive each year, how is it that the typical lifespan is four years? Out of the Ruffs that reach adulthood in their second year only half are alive in their third year and a quarter in their fourth year. How is "typical lifespan" calculated? Snowman (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the 52% is the first year as an adult and drops thereafter, but the source doesn't say that that so sentence removed jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "typical lifespan" is kept in, but I am not sure if this indicates, mean, mode, or median. Does the ref make it clearer? Snowman (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Found something; on hovering over the "?" icon in the source website a small pop-up window says that it is the "life expectancy", which is defined as the average number of years of life remaining at a given age. I think "typical lifespan" should be replaced with a more precise meaning; that is either "life expectancy" or "average lifespan". I think that the source is not clear on this, because the website static text says "typical lifespan" and the pop-up window says "life expectancy". Note the ref says that four years is the life expectancy of the birds that reach maturity, so, if the birds reach maturity at one year and their life expectancy at that juncture is four years, then they live an average of five years. Snowman (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Life expectancy is calculated using -1/ln(sr) and in this case the survival ratio for adults is 0.52 and so that comes up to about 1.5. Since the information is lacking for juveniles (in really detailed studies, you would integrated the area under the survival curve) this value is added to the average breeding age of 2 and that seems to match at the level of precision one can expect for such values. "Typical lifespan" seems like a fairly good term for "life expectancy" and the BTO site usage should be considered as quite reliable (thanks to the likes of Colin Bibby) Shyamal (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks Shyamal, that's a better summary than I could have given jimfbleak (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

-1/ln(sr) used in a reply above is jargon which I do not understand. Snowman (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The BTO website has small pop-up boxes to help with the explanation. I think that "Typical lifespan" as used in the wiki page is not adequately explained by supporting text or pop-up boxes. Snowman (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

With the latest amendment the line reads "The Ruff can breed from its second year, and the [[Life expectancy|typical lifespan]] is four years, ...", which I find confusing. Life expectancy is the number of years of life expected from a certain age, and typical lifespan is an unscientific expression regarding something about total lifespan. Snowman (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Have added a new reference. The BTO site does make it clear that this "typical lifespan"="average lifespan" and that is the same as "life expectancy". Shyamal (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that is fixed now and the new amendment is much better. I wiki-linked "Life expectancy" above to show clearly that life expectancy is the average number of years of life remaining at a given age, which is not necessarily the same as total lifespan. The BTO website page that was linked says with a pop-up window "Life expectancy of a bird reaching breeding age", so on this webpage the life expectancy given is defiantly not the total life span. It might also be clear on this webpage. The new ref used is much better too and says "and mean life span for ruffs past the chick stage has been estimated at 4.4 years". The linked page "Life expectancy" is not very good for "mean life span", but that is not the fault of this page. Snowman (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• The problematic phrase "refuelling site" has been returned to the article. The jargon phrase "staging areas" also occurs in another part of the article. Better more descriptive phrases could be used. Snowman (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to take refuelling out and then asked to put it back. The meaning is obvious, so I'll leave as is, staging changed to refuelling. jimfbleak (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I emphasise with your predicament. Nevertheless, I note that the GA reviewer objected "refuelling" that has now been returned to the article. Snowman (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I just rechecked and "refuelling" seems to be perfectly fit for use even in scientific papers. (See Google Scholar search)Shyamal (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I don't think it's enough of an issue to change yet again, since the meaning is obvious jimfbleak (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Primary sources; I have added some "primary source claim" tags where the article appears to be a the cutting edge of new science. I am not sure where some other scientific claims have come from, so I have added some "citation needed" tags. Snowman (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've repeated the relevant citation at the end of the sentence. As to the primary sources, I'm unclear whether you are challenging the fact or don't accept the source, in which case I'll remove the disputed text jimfbleak (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am questioning unconditionally taking up new research data into the article. It is not about challenging the fact or not accepting the source, it is about using new research data with caution. Snowman (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowman, we've discussed this before (about how journal articles aren't primary sources). It could be years before another paper looks at that aspect of the Ruff's life. Should we not include it at all? Should be wait until a book regurgitates it, because it isn't acceptable until someone else repeats it? How do you suggest we include that information? Couch it in weasel words or say something like "Even though this is a rather interesting yet uncontroversial discovery, its new so don't trust it."? Do you have an actionable comment to make about this? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment is about the particular and not about the general, and it is actionable. Snowman (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Explain. At present you are misinterpreting primary sources and not saying what you think should happen. Please explain why you feel that this article should not be up to date. Please provide us with some reason why we should doubt the science presented. Is it a controversial technique? It doesn't appear to be. Actually, please explain how a 1997 article can be considered cutting edge? 11 years is plenty of time for someone to read the article, undertake a undergraduate degree to get the backgrounded needed and then a PhD to study the claims, refute the claims and get the refutation printed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks SS, although it is actionable in that the text can be removed, i don't think the tagging is justified for the reasons above. Unsigned edit by jimfbleak (talk) at 05:34, 29 June 2009

With regard to this primary source that I have tagged. There is a clue in the introductory text at the top of the page which says "Forum Forum Forum: Forum is intended for new ideas or new ways of interpreting existing information. It provides a chance for suggesting hypotheses and for challenging current thinking on ecological issues." I think tagging this as a primary source is appropriate. The wiki has guidelines on primary sources which apply with or without printed refutations. Snowman (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The part of a line that I have tagged as being from a primary source is saying that as a response to a high avian malaria risk "... they might be expected to invest strongly in their immune systems; ...". Anyway, humans from hot parts of the world have a haematological mechanism (not immunological) to defend against the partly intracellular parasite malaria, by evolving fragile red blood cells as in sickle cell disease and thalassaemias. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Read "might". It says that they might, not that they will. Given what was known, it might be predicted that they would do this, as it turns out the next cite shows that they didn't. Might is sufficient couching for the article, which is a forum article (a bit like a review) in a respected journal that has been cited 57 times since publication. I am removing the tag, it is not a primary source, but a review/thinking article, and the idea, that birds in areas that have malaria might show immunological responses, is not remotely controversial. . Also, please know what the hell you are talking about, humans have immunalogical responses to malaria as well as haemtological. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not phrase that very well so that I have crossed part of it out. There is not much malaria in the UK. Yes, humans have immunological mechanisms against malaria. This is obvious or research into vaccination would not be done. I really think that the article in question is not a review; I regard it a primary source of a new idea presented in a forum. A review would be where this new idea is discussed and collated with other information. There has not been any agreement here that the primary source tag should be removed, so please put the primary source tag back. I think that discussion here should continue to discuss my claim that the primary source to a forum is unsuitable for the wiki. Snowman (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Primary source. Primary source = Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Secondary source = Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. It is clear to everyone except you apparently that the source is a secondary one. It takes the primary sources, the witness statements (data collected by researchers) and analyse, synthesise, interpret, explain and evaluate what they means. A forum paper in a journal is not a primary resource under any definition. Wikipedia may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source. The journal in question is a reliable source. End of story. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The close event here is the thinking up of a new idea. I am not going to pursue the "primary sourse line" but look at a different facet instead. I am questioning the article's presentation of the information retrieved from these sources. I have amended the article to reflect what I think the sources are saying as a quick way to sort it out. I do not think the article should have a sentence to single out avian malaria as it did, because it is only one of a range of diseases and vectors that the birds are exposed to and this is the way it is presented in the source. Anyone is welcome to rewrite my amendments. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless the article is itself about an idea (a theory, or hypothesis) specifically (say, the history of evolutionary thought), ideas are not themselves the event, they are explanations or analysis of the events (the data). Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I refer you again to the clue in the header of the article's webspage, which I quoted above, which begins; "Forum Forum Forum: Forum is intended for new ideas ...". This reference also says "...and differences in the investments in immunodefence between species, provide critical ingredients for a general hypothesis to explain several peculiarities of the distribution patterns of shorebirds and, indeed, of other animals." I have added the emboldened fort to key words for clarity. The close event here is the thinking up of a new idea. Snowman (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No. general hypothesis to explain several peculiarities of the distribution patterns of shorebirds and, indeed, of other animals Primary source = the odd distribution of birds. That is the event. Secondary source = general hypothesis. That is used to explain the primary source. As in, from Wikipedia:Primary source to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. See? The forum paper explains why shorebirds are distributed as they are, why we see that pattern. It takes the primary sources (and secondary ones) and it explains them. Making it a secondary source. That the explanation is new is nether here nor there. It matters not. What matters is that the article is not interpreteing raw data, raw unfiltered primary sources, but summarising a secondary interpretation of the data. Thus meaning it is using secondary sources. Clear? (God I hate wikilawyering). Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My common sense tells me that the paper presents a new idea, which needs to be treated cautiously until its reception is clear. The article says "may be" several times and also "I will argue that", "apparent immunocompetence", and the title of the paper is question and ends in a "?". I feel that it was entirely appropriate that I highlighted this with a tag; although, in retrospect I think two tags lined up together, with the extra tag added for different reason might have been better. The tags are a bit lumpy and it is sometimes difficult to find one to say exactly what is needed. When I added the tag I also thought that the wording in the wiki article did badly distort the facts from a primary source to become misleading and I thought that the whole line should be deleted; however, with your reassuring claim that the the source has been cited 57 times, I have fixed the text. I have heard what you say and perhaps you are concerned about a principal rather than the specifics in question here. A quick look at the references shows that there are a number of obvious primary sources on the Ruff article and a case study, and they at first glance seem to "go with the flow of the article" and I have not tagged these. It seems to me that the wiki guidelines leave a lot to interpretation. Perhaps we should both accept over this issue that "not everyone's common-sense is the same" - a quote from question-time of a lecture given by psychotherapy professor I attended some years ago. I see why you think it is a secondary source, and I have explained in some detail why I think it should be regarded as a primary source; that is, partly because it presents a new idea, the article is written in rather speculative language, and its publication in a forum specifically for new ideas that challenge current thinking. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole world of difference between treating theories and hypotheses with care when they are new and treating them as primary sources. The first is indeed a decent enough idea. The first is actually a good idea, though it should be done with in context. The more outlandish a new idea the more carefully it should be treated in the article until more evidence is collected. That has nothing to do with WP:SOURCE though, because as I have tried to explain at length these are explanations, and however novel they are they are not the event. Because they were ideas, as yet untested, they were couched with the words "might be expected", thus making it clar they were as yet a hypothesis. Your point that we need to treat novel ideas carefully is not invalid, but you can't use the wrong guidelines. I am certainly concerened about the principal, if we start moving the goalposts of primary sources to include any novel idea writing articles and sourcing them becomes ten times harder for no particularly good reason that I can see. Expect me to fight tooth and nail not to have good information and sources thrown out simply to accomdate a rather novel interpretation of a guideline that apparently contradicts its very wording. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Some parts of the text may contain excess British content. For example; "Ruff were formerly trapped for food in England in large numbers, with 2,400 being served at Archbishop Neville's enthronement banquet in 1465." and also the cooking and trapping details and the quote are all about a the English population of birds, which is a small proportion of the total population. Snowman (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• As with all bird stuff there is always an imbalance of sources, we can only spurce and add what other people have already written. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• You appear to agree that there is am imbalance in the article, and perhaps you could refer more to the bias is this article in particular. Snowman (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are two mentions of England, one of Malawi and a more general point unconstrained by geography. But this is not reflective of regional bias in the information provided so much as it is imbalance of examples provided. The two points discussed in that section are 1)hunting and 2)potential pest status. Two of the three examples given are from the UK, which is not remotely surprising since it is the major English speaking country in which the species occurs. It would be nice to have more information from non-English speaking countries but we don't have it so how are we to be expected to include it? Or should Jim remove on of the British examples just to satisfy some arbitrary notion of balance. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Ruff population in Britain is a small proportion of the total population. I think that the UK bias need not be amplified with a quote about UK birds, when the content could be much compressed. Snowman (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There is quite a lot about Ruff in Senegal in the same source (which has two further English language references) used in the "Relationship with humans" for feeding in wintering grounds. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

South Africa is about five times larger than UK. English is one of the 11 official languages of South Afica, where English is recognised as the language of commerce and science. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant. South Africa is also a lot poorer, and thus has less biologists, writers, researchers looking at these things and has a smaller population (of which only a smaller proportion still speak English, and a tiny proportion speak it as their langauge of choice). As for the Ruff population in Britain being a small proportion of the total population, well yeah, true, because of humans (particularly Brits). Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the wiki page on South Africa, about 8.2% of South Africans speak English at home, but I guess more than this can speak English. The birds migrate a long way so hunting in one area can affect another area - that is why they are protected by a treaty for migrating birds. Anyway, UK is not primary where Ruffs live at the present time. Snowman (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments about the demography aside (8.2% = 3 million people, much less than the UK), what is your actionable requirement? To remove an example, and content, from an already light section just to achieve your desired balance? I won't support that and neither would Jim I suspect. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A kind swedish-speaking user has pointed out some Swedish and Danish information, which I have added. I have left notes on the dutch, finnish and russian wikiprojects as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Re File:Philomachus pugnax.jpg. The article text mentions that the lekking is over an area of ground. The caption for the image indicates that the bird is displaying, but the image is of a bird just above water and there is no mention that displaying occurs over water in the article text. Should the caption say "Bird taking off from water" or "Bird jumping into water"? Snowman (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's just coincidence that it is over a particularly soggy bit of ground, to describe as displaying over water would be misleading and unsourceable jimfbleak (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Parts of the ground are out-of-focus - the reflections make it look like water to me. Its feet are clean, and if it is on soggy ground it is likely to have muddy feet. Snowman (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that Ruff do not habitually display over water, this one must have drifted over the wet area in its leaping, but that's unactionable - I've read dozens of descriptions of the display with no suggestion that display over water is a specific practice. jimfbleak (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Do they display in all weathers? It might partly explain the photograph if they display in the rain as well as good weather. Snowman (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• (moral) Support Comments (as WP birds member) I am just looking into the primary sources. I am happy with the cooking section as indented historical text. Given that it is presented as historical in a quote, I do not mind in that case that it has preparation information. I also see 'refuelling' and 'staging' as used in migration as, although slightly esoteric, readily understandable. I can't think of a better way of expressing them. Preliminarily, the only thing I can think f with the primary sources is clarifying that it was researcher X who proposed Y and carried out the study Z, which should not be too hard to do. It is monday AM here and I should be getting ready to hea out the door but will read sources later today. I am very close to supporting once I look. I have reworded the one I can read so it accurately reflects that it is a primary source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I have a family funeral today, so it could be 24 hours before I edit again jimfbleak (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Take care Jim. Casliber (talk · contribs)

What is "(moral) Support Comments"? We are all giving the article and User Jimfbleak moral support, but that does not automatically make the article an FA. Snowman (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I use the adjective "moral" to disclose the fact that I am a WP:Bird member and (often) small-time contributor, hence in some way non-impartial. It has been discussed (without reaching a consensus) whether involved editors should actually support articles in situations such as these. Hence the explanation, which allows me to register that I feel the article has reached what I consider FA status yet signifies my position to the Featured Article director, who can then take this into consideration when the nomination is closed. I cannot speak for how they regard my comments or not. I was happy that there were no deal-breakers left but will look over the AEWA listing below as I agree with you that it is worth looking at. As far as non-english sources, I regard them more as surplus to requirements but will see what we can come up with when asking around. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Casliber, many thanks for the edits and support in my absence, much appreciated. Snowman, on the moral support issue, I do this too. I think it's quite acceptable for project members to indicate when they think and article has reached the required standard, especially since they have the greatest interest in and knowledge of the topic. It's equally necessary, I believe, to declare a potential COI as a project member. There may be a better phrase but the meaning is clear. jimfbleak (talk)

I do not think it is particularly clear what it means, but I know what it means now. Snowman (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Ruff listing on AEWA in class 2c is an omission; see here. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I had an idea on how to pursue some non-english material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The omission is also apparent in the introduction where it rather clumsily says that there are "no global concerns" and then goes on to explain that there is a decline in European populations. The AEWA listing in 2c indicates "Populations numbering more than around 100,000 individuals and considered to be in need of special attention as a result of ... significant long-term decline" applying to "Northern Europe & Western Siberia/West Africa" and "Northern Siberia/SW Asia, E & S Africa". Snowman (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried this but I am tired so some wording might be clumsy. You're welcome to adjust it. I will look in on it when I wake up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I might mess it up by editing it. Someone reading it for the first time might be able to see something that I can not. Snowman (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I will look at it again tomorrow to double check myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrective edits on this mea culpa. On sources, I do look for foreign language sources (see Northern Bald Ibis for example. In this case, even the foreign researchers mostly write in English. Its inevitable that most data comes from wealthy areas with lots of scientists, and I deliberately trim UK stuff (Red-billed Chough would have been 90% UK if written proportionately to the source material). Material from outside Europe is hard to come by unless Shyamal is able to dig something up. jimfbleak (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is very biased bird! Not seen in large numbers in South Asia. Material from West Africa may be good to look out for. In addition there may be some useful Norsk and Dutch material. Some other things to look at could be [56] (Their breeding as far south as Kazakhstan may be of interest [Khrokov, V. 1988. Breeding record of Ruff Philomachus pugnax in Northern Kazakhstan. Ornitologiya 23:224-225 [in Russian] cited in [57]) [58], [59] Shyamal (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Australian birds are already adequately covered in the Article, is there anything else interesting about these birds. My 1995 bird migration atlas indicates that the Australian birds migrate to the far east of Russia and says that their migration route is unknown. Snowman (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• The concept of "wintering grounds" does not seem to apply to the majority of a bird species that spend the summer in the north and migrate to the summer or the tropics in the south. The actionable point being that perhaps this Eurocentric view of seasons that prevails thought out the "Distribution and habitat" section should be amended. I had to check in a bird migration atlas to find out what the article meant. The article refers to "... wintering in the tropics, ...", which probably means migrating to the tropics to a part of the world where there is not much summer and winter variation. To an Australian person the Ruffs would arrive in Australia to spend the summer there and perhaps an Australian would not think of Australia as a "wintering ground". If I am being presumptive, I am sure the Australian editors and readers will have an opinion, and so will South African readers, and so on. Snowman (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• In New Zealand the non-breeding range of the cuckoo species which breed here and migrate north across the Pacific and Australia is refered to as wintering grounds. The term is a common way to refer to the non-breeding distribution. Alternitavely you could say it winters in New Guinea. It is hardly a difficult idea to grasp even if you have not heard of it before, I mean, it is ground where they spend the winter. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is good to hear your view from NZ. Perhaps, this wintering concept depends on a little knowledge and, like any other jargon, could be explained or avoided. The actual mention of the months when the birds migrate appears late in the "Distribution and habitat" section in the fourth paragraph and that is only for leaving the wintering grounds. I think that the section would be clearer if the months of migration were mentioned earlier in the section and preferably in the first paragraph. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

amended to and spends the northern winter in the tropics which should avoid ambiguity, although for a species which breeds exclusively in the northern hemisphere, I think that's implied anyway. jimfbleak (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Also followed up Shyamal's link and added another re Kazakhstan jimfbleak (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is a trend for images to have alt text. Is this being taken up here? Snowman (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• What's that when it's at home then? The article doesn't explain what that means in layman's terms. There is certain;y no indication it is required, but what benefit would there be? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It gives text when the image can not be shown. Some GA reviews have been asking for them, but other FACs do not have them, so I guess that it is not a requirement. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is discussion, it was not a requirement at the start of this FAC and I don't think it's needed anyway. Snowman, it's not necessary to reference every sentence, items are normally referenced by the next in-line reference, even if it's further on. I don't want this to end up full of unecesssary cn tags/repeated references. Nevertheless, I've repeated the Hayman ref to remove a cn tag. Whilst I can understand you querying whether an on-line source says what I claim it does, it's difficult to see on what basis you are challenging a reference to a book unless you have actually checked in Hayman Unsigned comment by jimfbleak at 05:04, 1 July 2009 (talk). See this edit

Jim, I think it is safe to remove that double cite. Snowman, if something is cited on the next sentence it is unnecassary to cite twice. If you aren't sure if the citation at the end of the next sentence applies to a fact, it is polite to ask before you slap a tag in. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The ref is needed because it is not clear where that claim came from. It is standard and polite to add a cn tag where a ref is needed. I wanted the ref because the line seems odd to me and I have added another problem about it below. Snowman (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"if something is cited on the next sentence it is unnecessary to cite twice"; where does this come form? For the text in question there are two references at the end of the next sentence and another two references at the end of the sentence after that one. Snowman (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To User Sabines Sunbird, I think that you have underestimated the care with which I add tags. It may help you to know that I thought about adding the cn tag in question for some time, and I read the paragraph over and over again. The paragraph was difficult to read and ambiguous and I could not work out where one sentence had come from, so I could not correct it myself from the source. I request that you withdraw your comment that seems to refer to me slapping a cn tag in. Snowman (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to hear you do not "slap" down tags, and that you think about the review process before commenting and editing. However you'll forgive me but I don't make a habit of rewording, or withdrawing, what I have said except to clarify my meaning. This is not a court of law, and what I have said (or typed) I have said. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the cn tag in question was appropriately placed and I know that I did not slap it down flippantly. I wrote a explanatory edit summery and the ambiguity where the cn tag was has been amended. I received appreciation for a previous cn tag that I added to this article; see my talk page. I have no doubt that you are aware that "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia." Snowman (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I haver indeed heard that! I look forward to you assuming good faith in the future by not assuming that good natured jokes and casual language use are slurs against you and demanding apologies. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make it very clear that I have not said that your comment was a slur against me. What I did politely say was; "I request that you withdraw your comment that seems to refer to me slapping a cn tag in." I think that a joke (by another user earlier in this review) has been amicably discussed in a few sort lines, and I do not see any need to discuss that joke any further. Snowman (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that you do not consider it a slur, I must confess am I confused as to why you are so adamant that I should withdraw it. Moreover I feel I should point out that one does not need to outright state something in order to imply the meaning. You have clearly taken great offence at my wording, and Jim's comment prior to the clarification, insofar as you have demanded (and not for the first time, I feel the need to notice) that we withdraw our words from the public sphere. If you do not think I have slurred you, why the desire for me to "withdraw" my comment? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Referred to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#About_a_discussion. Snowman (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me, but I continue to be confused. I have apparently not slurred you, yet my refusal to strike the wording I have used in comments I have made, and my questioning as to how thise wording has offended you while not slurring you (a question as yet not answered by you) have somehow moved you to feel that this needs escalating to AN. What, exactly, has my demotion to the status of admin got to do with this discussion? Because I use my admin bit rarely if at all, and never in this discussion (except as an example, off page, of my long running distaste of CN tags). I see that you hope to settle this (whatever this might be) amicably (you words) but I cannot help but wonder if that was the case why you felt you were unable to do so by simply continuing to talk to me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 13:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Image concern as follows:

• File:Philomachus pugnax (Marek Szczepanek).jpg: for photos uploaded by someone other than its creator, permission should be authenticated through an OTRS ticket; this photo is lacking such a ticket. I thought I had told Pkuczynski to do that... (ref: commons:User talk:Pkuczynski#Marek Szczepanek's photos Jappalang (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• disputed image removed jimfbleak (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• "In Great Britain and parts of coastal western Europe, birds may be present all year.[20] Non-breeding birds may remain in the wintering quarters all year.[3]" This part could be misleading or could cause confusion in the way one sentence is followed by the next. It might suggest that in Britain all the birds that winter there are non-breeding birds. I presume that it means that some birds stay in the tropics or the south all year in non-breeding form. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• rephrased In Great Britain and parts of coastal western Europe, where the breeding and wintering ranges overlap, birds may be present all year.[20] Non-breeding birds may also remain year round in the tropical wintering quarters. I think this is now unambiguous, so the redundant Hayman ref also removed jimfbleak (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The wording is now clear, but I do not know why you removed an in-line reference which is still needed. This claim needs an in-line reference; "Non-breeding birds may also remain year round in the tropical wintering quarters." At the present time there is nothing to indicate where this information came from. Snowman (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral; I have a conflict of interest in voting because I have edited the page and other bird articles. I think there are some unfinished discussions here which probably need to be completed, but I see nothing significant enough to prevent an FA grading. However, new reviewers to the page may inspire further edits, perhaps for issues already raised, before FA is achieved. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Snowman, thank you for the positive comment. 05:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Unsigned comment by jimfbleak (talk); see this edit.

Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Note: I don't know squat about birds. I do think that this article could do with a good copy-edit.

• "It is usually considered to be the only member of its genus, with the Broad-billed and Sharp-tailed Sandpipers as its closest relatives." "with" is usually a poor logical connector. Suggest "It is usually considered to be the only member of its genus, and the Broad-billed and Sharp-tailed Sandpipers are its closest relatives."

• done as suggested

• "This is a long-necked, pot-bellied bird." Call it personal preference, but using "this" as a reference to the subject, especially when it is not mentioned in name immediately before, is jarring.

• the Ruff is...

• "The female and non-breeding male have grey-brown upperparts and mainly white underparts, but this species shows marked sexual dimorphism; the male is much larger than the female (the reeve), and has a breeding plumage which includes brightly coloured head tufts and the large collar of ornamental feathers which led to its English name." The contradiction you're trying to underline isn't emphasized enough (that despite males and females sharing similar colorings, they are also markedly different), making the logic confusing to the reader. Also, attention needs to be paid on whether to use "which" or "that" google search, as that is a recurring grammatical problem.

• I've rewritten this paragraph, please check

• "Insects are the main food, especially in the breeding season, but it will take plant material, including rice and maize, on migration and in winter." Just awkward, especially the usage of "it". How about "It primarily feeds on insects, especially in the breeding season, but will take [better word than "take"?] plant material, including rice and maize, on migration and in winter.

• Amended as suggested, consume instead of take

• "least concern IUCN Red List, the global conservation concerns I don't see any closing quotation marks

• Classified as "least concern" on the IUCN Red List criteria

Those are examples from the lead. I'm confident that WP Birds will rise up and polish this article. Perhaps a job for Casliber? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for comments, changes made as above, plus a which/that check jimfbleak (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds" Why the italics? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Striking my oppose, as the prose improves considerably as one goes down. As the lead is in many cases the hardest part of the article to construct, I see why I may have been misled with regard to the writing. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for strike and c-e. I hate doing the lead, it's so difficult to meet all the conflicting requirements well. jimfbleak (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment from nominator. although I started this FAC before alt text became a de facto requirement, it has now been added since it is clearly helpful and within my limited technical skills jimfbleak (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm reading through this article, and will add comments as I go through it. My first question is about the cross-dressers. Is there any proposed advantage for the cross-dressing males? Has there been a hypothesis on why the female-mimics don't fully molt into the full male plumage? The text seems to indicate this may be an older trait, now abandoned by nearly all males of the species, so possibly it was no advantage at all. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The existence of faeders was only discovered in 2006, so there are a lot of questions still to be answered. Even the exact genetic mechanism that produces the faeders is unknown, although the fact that 1% of males are of this form is consistent with the ratio that would be expected if it was due to the bird having two "satellite" genes. I found a new (2009) reference which partially answers your question, and I've added Females often seem to prefer copulations with faeders above copulations with normal males, and normal males also copulate with faeders (and vice versa) more often with females. The homosexual copulations may attract females to the lek, like the presence of satellite males. The advantage to the faeders is that they get to mate, and to the other males the advantage is that more females may be attracted, so like the satellites, it is self-sustaining.

Thanks Jim. My next question concerns the range map. The text says "The Ruff is a regular visitor to Alaska (where it has occasionally bred), Canada and the contiguous states of the US, and it has also wandered to Iceland, Central America, northern South America, Madagascar and New Zealand." However, the map shows no activity in any of these places. Is the amount of Ruffs in these regions too small to show on the map, or do regular and occasional visits not count on range maps? Firsfron of Ronchester 16:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Range maps typically show the normal distribution. Some bird guides show vagrant records (wanderers) as dots (like Sibley) but these are habitually of more interest to twitchers. More rarely guides may signify rarity in an area with a more washed out colour as well, but to my mind it is acceptable and even conventional to leave vagrants off the map. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I guess it was just the "regular visitor" part that threw me. If they're regular visitors, shouldn't the range map show it? Also: the lead image in this article, File:Kampfläufer 2007-06-08 118.jpg, appears on List of birds of Western Australia. But the range map, again, shows no birds in Western Australia. Only the southestern portion of Australia shows Ruffs. Similarly, articles such as List of birds of Singapore, List of birds of Queensland, List of South Carolina birds, List of Hawaii birds, List of birds of Canada and the United States, List of Japanese birds: non-passerines, List of birds of Cyprus, List of Oklahoma birds, and many others list Ruff as present there. If they're featured enough to be present in these lists, why not on the range map as well? (Feel free to ignore this observation if it's painfully clear I don't know what I'm talking about as a non-bird person). Firsfron of Ronchester 01:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, if you aren't clear then I guess the article isn't either. A regular visitor is birding terminology - an area is not a typical area for a bird to be but a few end up there each year - essentially it is a mistake in migration that is consistently made by a few individuals (as opposed to a small songbird being blown over the Atlantic - which is a very rare occasion for a particular species). As such the numbers involved are statistically insignificant as a proportion of the whole population, but are significant compared to other vagrants, and therefore often recorded on lists (as a careful or impassioned birder would be expected to find one if he tried and knew where to look). So I think we need to make this clearer. Let's see what Jim has to say. It should be pointed out that 1) many of Wikipedia's bird lists are auto-generated and need improvement in regards to making it clear when things are rare/irregular visitors. Also, B the maps show where they breed and where they winter. This particular map excludes areas where they are passage migrants - their flyways and staging grounds. These are areas they may use only for a matter of days or weeks, and are often excluded from these maps because we actually don't know teh exact route with any precision. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Sabine has dealt with the main points, but I've rephrased as The Ruff is an uncommon visitor to Alaska since regular gives a misleading impression. Cyprus and Singapore would be regularly visited by Ruffs on their way further south, and the US listings are undoubtedly as a rarity. My source maps did not show areas where Ruff is seen on migration, it's understood to be everywhere between the breeding and wintering areas. Records of vagrants aren't normally mapped, and none of my map sources show them. The bird lists, as Sabine says, need to be taken with a pinch of salt, and I haven't listed vagrancy unless it's from an authoritative source like Hayman. jimfbleak (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns as a reader have been addressed. This is yet another truly wonderful article from Jim and the WP:BIRD people. I checked other encyclopedias, and none of them had an article remotely as well done as this. Britannica's article and World Book's entry are much less detailed. I don't know a lot about birds (in fact, when I started reading this article, I thought a Ruff was something like a Ruffed Grouse... I imagined a chicken-like animal), so now I'm all eddycated about this crossdressing sandpiper relative. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the kind words - it's just as well that we bird folk don't blush easily! jimfbleak (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments This is looking solid on a surface reading. Some tidbits I pulled out of sample sections:
  • "the large collar of ornamental feathers that led to this bird's English name" Would you object to "that inspired this bird's English name"?

• That's good, done

• • Already did some delinking, but do we really need to link things like "nest", "bill", and "gravy boat"?

• The first two were linked by other editors, now delinked, I was specifically asked to link "gravy boat" at GA, so I would like to keep that - it's perhaps the least obvious of the three

• • "This decline has seen it registered" Unwieldy.

• now "listed in", Is that any better?

• • "This species was first described by Linnaeus" Why piping his full name instead of just writing it?

• Why indeed? Done

• • I can't tell from reading WP:ALT, but I'm fairly certain we don't want to wikilink words in alt text when that very same word is linked in the caption. Anyone looking at/listening to the alt text will also see/hear the caption so they don't want both links.

• Showing my ignorance there, I thought it was either/or, not both. All repeated links removed

• • "In Kenya, males moulted 3–4 weeks ahead of the females" Unsure why we've switched to past tense in this section. Do they do it every year or just in one documented case?

• Tense drift is one of the first things i check when reviewing other editor's work, so I'm suitably mortified by this. Fixed now.

--Laser brain (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the delinking, review and helpful comments Jimfbleak. Talk to me 05:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this has been promoted as of yesterday. Thanks for the changes and congrats! --Laser brain (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Even though this has already been promoted, I want to go on record as saying this is an excellent article. I have one question, though. Is "Ruff" considered plural or singular? I see "More than half of female Ruffs mate with" but "Ruff were formerly trapped for food " (and I may have accidentally worsened the inconsistencies). Otherwise, great job. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Good question. The species is the Ruff (singular) but individual birds are sometimes pluralised as "Ruffs" and sometimes kept in the singular form. "Three Ruffs" and "three ruff" are both acceptable, but obviously some consistency would be helpful. I'll check through, but it may not be until tomorrow. Thanks for the support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:07, 14 July 2009 [60].

---

Diocletianic Persecution

Nominator(s): Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has undergone two brief peer reviews and a very thorough GA review. I am greatly indebted to Ealdgyth's comprehensive commentary at the latter, and eagerly await the "Oppose" she will no doubt be lodging here [winking emoticon]. I cleaned up the article to the best of my ability, and rely on the team here to catch anything that might have passed me by. I welcome any criticism and commentary you can give me. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I saw one date range specified as 301–2, while the rest of the date ranges are fully specified (example, 301–302) ... should be consistent throughout. (Picky, picky.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• May I be picky-picky too? "31 B.C.–A.D. 337"—space the en dash if there is one space or more within the items themselves. See this if you can bear it. (Nerd-warning in advance.) Personally, I'd get rid of the fly-spots in BC and AD, but it's entirely up to you (31 BC – AD 337).
• My personal pref. is for two closing digits in a range where possible (117–19). No big deal.
• Opening sentence: do we need the commas? Do we need the comma after "Constantius"?
• Consider inserting "it was" before "weakest. It almost needs a colon rather than a semicolon – or a dash.
• Is "else" doing any good?
• Perhaps a comma after "260" (you don't have to, though—it's a pretty short sentence).
• The reversal sentence: "did" grammatically marks the meaning; perhaps one "did" is enough; see what you think.
• Unusually, I seem to be taking issue with commas ... this is otherwise excellent writing: "His son, Constantine, on taking the imperial office in 306, restored Christians to full legal equality, and returned property confiscated during the persecution." Reads more smoothly without the comma after "equality"?
• Is there a less ungainly equivalent word to "de-emphasize"? I can't think of one; you may be able to.
• Past or present tense? "From the time it first appears to its legalization under Constantine, Christianity was an illegal religion in the eyes of the Roman state."

I haven't read further than the start of the first section. It's a fascinating topic, and the prose is of a type encountered every so often: elegance, clarity, technical skill, marred by a few recurring blank spots. That's a very good position to be in as a writer. My only other possible issue at this stage is that there are an awful lot of claims that I hope are rooted in authoritative sources further down. Interested to see other reviewers' takes. Tony (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind review, Tony. On your points:

• I can't find that date range in the article.
• I put two closing digits in a range where possible, too. However, where a number of the ranges end in the oughts, I switch across to full date readouts: 303-305. Since the tables contain dates of both varieties, I put them all in full readouts for consistency. If this doesn't comply with the MOS, or if I'm not complying to my own rules, do tell.
• Some other kind soul has removed the commas there.
• Dashed.
• Fixed.
• Done.
• I am not sure what change you're looking for here.
• Done.
• "Downplay".
• Done.

Thanks again! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Very few named refs; some can be added. These are not required, but they make thnings much neater. Will make a list of places where they could be used. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't there a bot that can do this? I remember seeing one trawling across one of my articles some time ago. It would certainly spare us a lot of legwork if we can find it. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, somewhat reluctantly; but the footnotes are misrepresentations as they stand. (Added after the discussion immediately below.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral on this issue; could we have another opinion on whether the present form of the footnotes is clear and justified? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have doubts about this. It's a delicate subject, dealing with a surprisingly foreign legal and social system. Excessive reliance on primary sources (and, by their nature, biased primary sources) has been only spottily corrected by consulting secondary sources.

My principal reservation is From the time it first appears to its legalization under Constantine, Christianity was an illegal religion in the eyes of the Roman state. Its members were always suspect, and could be arrested and condemned to death at a moment's notice. Yes, Christians could be put to death at a moment's notice in principle; but this is doubly misleading: they normally weren't, as much of the article tries to explain - and, more importantly, in principle, so could anybody else. This extract from Gibbon on the extent of the Emperor's power, in principle, should be enlightening; also Gibbon's note that using that power without the gravest necessity would be condemned by public opinion.

It wasn't just Nero who executed Senators without trial and at a moment's notice; Hadrian executed four at the beginning of his reign, and two at the end - and we know this because Cassius Dio condemned his memory for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond, PMAnderson. I hope you don't mind if I object to some of your characterizations here. You write of "excessive reliance on primary sources", but I must confess (and I'm perhaps ashamed to confess), I haven't actually consulted the primary sources at all. The only path through which primary sources have entered the article, and the only means by which they've influenced the text, has been through the secondary sources I've consulted. I believe the article reflects their emphases and choices. If they mirror the narratives of Lactantius and Eusebius, so much the worse; that is their choice. You might note a large number of citations to primary sources in the footnotes, and infer that they're the primary source of the evidence presented in the article. You would be incorrect. A second look reveals that every primary source citation is immediately followed by a secondary source citation.

Let me explain. Take what is now note 275: "Eusebius, De Martyribus Palestinae 3.1; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 151, 356 n.27." I have made an edit that clarifies precisely what I've done here: "Eusebius, De Martyribus Palestinae 3.1, cited in Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 151, 356 n.27." I have not read Eusebius' Martyrs of Palestine; I have read Barnes. I cite Eusebius' Martyrs because it is the sole source Barnes provides for his evidence. I offer it to the reader, not as a means of checking the text (although that would certainly be fine, too), but as a means of checking Barnes. Suppose you find a piece in the article you don't quite believe. Were I only to cite Barnes, you might say "Oh, Harvard University Press, good reviews, tenured professor", and ignore the more pervasive slant of Barnes' sources. As a follower of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, this is what I, as an editor, must do. If no one provides detailed criticism of Barnes' narrative, I have no reason to question it. You, however, have the chance to check the citation, you realize that the sole ancient authority is a rather rhetorical passage in one of these authors. The only modern to accept it is Barnes, and Barnes, well, you've heard that name before: too credulous by half. You dismiss the tale.

I have reflected the best secondary accounts of the events I could find. I did not create an narrative with primary sources, only to 'correct' them with secondary sources. No: It was secondary accounts, first to last. If perhaps you feel that some vein of scholarship has lain untouched, or if you can point out where a critical scholar has dispute the evidence, or would shade the evidence differently, I welcome your comments. As it is, I fear that either I have misunderstood the substance of your complaint, or you have misunderstood the nature of my article. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid I must oppose. You are entitled to summarize Barnes' text; you are entitled to borrow his quotes, although this is often unwise; you are not entitled to take his footnotes, with one minor exception. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 33.1; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 20 claims that one of our editors has consulted Lactantius. You may not cite works you have not consulted. If (and only if) you are quoting Barnes' quotation from Lactantius, you can put something like Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 20, which quotes these words from Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 33.1. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is a shame. I have consulted Lactantius, I have consulted Eusebius, and I have also consulted the martyrs' acts, by way of Musurillo and Tilley. What I have not done, and why I say "I have not read them", is read them in Latin or Greek—I am unlettered. I will re-read them, confirm that (in their translations) they support the assertions in the article, and will remove them where they do not. (I will not remove the attached statements in these cases, deferring to the greater expertise of the secondary sources.) For those works I have not consulted—inscriptions, Optatus, the minor works of Cyprian, Augustine's works against the Donatists—will be marked as "Secondary source, citing primary source". If this is not satisfactory to you, I will remove the citation to the primary source altogether. I will post to your talk page when I have completed the runthrough. I hope to be done within four hours of this posting.

The emphasis from my first reply, however, remains: Primary sources have only entered into the text through the secondary sources, and this article reflects their emphases, not mine. I hope that, by rechecking, I will correct the feeling that the sources have been misrepresented, and address your oppose. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that is another story. If you have consulted a version, cite that version, preferably by the translator's title (therefore normally English, not Latin). When this represents what has actually been done, I'll have another look at it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I can now attest to having read everything cited in this article. I will trump up some bibliographic information for the translations I have used after dinner, to which I must now attend. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the disputed sentence, it's probably a case of rhetorical effusion and improper emphasis on the part of Frend. Since it can be removed without compromising the rest of the paragraph, I have done so. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Edict of Milan appears in quotes twice. The first time informs us that it wasn't called that in 313 (quite true; is it worth saying?); the second is On June 13, Licinius published the "Edict of Milan" in Nicomedia which are mere scare quotes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a worthless pedant: An edict is an edict, a letter is a letter, and by God, people should know the difference. I removed the quotation marks in the second instance, but I want to keep them in the first. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • All the Imperial edicta are letters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Philosophy from Orcales. If this is the Philosophia ex oraculis haurienda, it should be oracles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oops! Fixed. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• under the rule of Decius and Valerian. Did not reign together, although the interval was not long. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I was having trouble coming up with a felicitous way to separate the two. Now: "reigns". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

More quibbles

• To followers of the traditional cult, Christians were odd creatures: not quite Roman, but not quite barbarian either. Their practices were deeply threatening to traditional mores.
  • There probably should be a the before "followers", as a matter of idiom; "of traditional cults" or even "cultus" would be better: paganism was thousands of independent cults.
    • Done. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Christianity was also deeply threatening to Roman mechanisms of rule: the Romans preferred everyone to have a place, defer to their local oligarchs (who should be friends and allies of Rome, and defer to the Emperor), and follow their ancestral religions. The Emperors specifically disliked unauthorized social groups, and were slow to authorize groups (Trajan refused Nicomedia permission to have a fire department). Diocletian held the same views in exaggerated form (he required everybody to follow their father's profession, controlled prices, and increased ceremonial respect for the Emperor), presumably as a response to the Great Upheaval of the third century. I see you have a comment on the extent of Diocletian's reforms; one of the three books on Diocletian should make a comment on the direction of them (as a whole).
    • "Christianity was also deeply threatening to Roman mechanisms of rule": not an explanation I've yet seen. You might even tack this up on the "pro" side for Roman government: Once you've got the bishops in line, it's easier to coordinate religious uniformity than it would be with a mass of different cultists. They certainly cultivate a far more intensive patron-client relationship than the oracles of Asclepius and Apollo, which could be useful in mobilizing support. Of course, the doctrinal rigidity and heretical impulses in Christianity make it impossible to get the bishops in line—a lesson emperors of the fourth and fifth centuries would quickly discover. On first glance, however, bishops would just look like new oligarchs, stabilizing new social hierarchies and guaranteeing new cults. Why should they be any different? Grant them a few bequests, keep their established interests safe, and they'll fawn all over you, just like the old oligarchs. I'm not convinced. Still, I'd be interested to see the argument given a full workup. Do you have a source? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "make a comment on the direction of [Diocletian's reforms] (as a whole)": This is pretty much what I'm taking from Potter in the third paragraph of "Persecution and Tetrarchic ideology". "The Diocletianic regime's activist stance, however, and Diocletian's belief in the power of central government to effect major change in morals and society, make him peculiar.... Under his rule, coinage, taxation, architecture, law, and history were all radically reconstructed to reflect his authoritarian and conservative ideology." Unfortunately, I don't think I have any of "the three books on Diocletian" anymore, and I don't have access to interlibrary loan. What would such a sentence look like, by the by? "Diocletian re-established the edifice of government on the sturdy stone of meritocratic bureaucracy" or some similar Edwardian waffling? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • • Diocletian presented himself, like some earlier Emperors/Augustus, Trajan, and Aurelius, as the restorer of the world. As such, he intensified the long-standing Roman preference for ancient customs, and the Imperial opposition to independent societies....Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I took your wording. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Look at more sources before calling Diocletian (as in effect you do) more revolutionary than Augustus, Trajan, Septimius, or Aurelian. On the other hand, if Fergus Millar thinks so, it must be the new conventional wisdom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you tell me what Fergus Millar says about Diocletian? I don't have access to any of his works. Also: If you have suggestions on how to tone down the implicit hints that Diocletian was more revolutionary than his predecessors, I'd welcome them. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• I prefer Lyons and Izmir; follow your own dialect. But whatever you use, be consistent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

and again:

• Why is hostis humani generis not translated literally? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Because that's how W.H.C. Frend decided to translate it. Would you prefer "hatred of humankind" or something like? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I would prefer "hatred of the human race", as being what Tacitus said; Church and Broddribb use "hatred against mankind". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm? How would you "hate against" something? Is that like "hating on" something? Can't you just hate? I have taken your translation. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Diocletian's belief in the power of central government to effect major change in morals and society was commonplace; consider the jus trium liberorum, by which Augustus attempted to use the power of the central government to change demographics. I have toned the whole section down, but I suspect that you or your source is barking up the wrong tree. Again, more sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It would be, as I have said, "[my] source[s]", which drew constant contrast between the 'active' government of Diocletian and the 'passive' governments of his predecessors. Williams' biography, for example, begins with the accession of Marcus Aurelius, and paints a picture of a man entirely hamstrung, first by his army, and next by the Senatorial elite. Diocletian, Williams implies, moved with much more freedom. Most of my sources speak in awed tones of Diocletian's reforms. Take Alan Bowman, in the Cambridge Ancient History: "the accession of Diocletian has been more or less universally hailed by posterity as one of the most significant watersheds in the history of the Roman empire...there is no doubt at all that the institutions, the army, the bureaucracy and the fiscal regime (inter alia) were by A.D. 305 very different from what they had been twenty years earlier". I don't have Potter's book with me anymore—it was accessed with an ebook account I no longer have.
  • I really don't know what you seek to change here. As you say, much of this is "not surprising". But, for the untutored, the commonplace may explain the new. Moral reform + Decian and Valerian precedent + expansion of the Christian community = Great Persecution. We have to explain all those ingredients, not just the ones that seem particularly unusual.
  • "more sources"? Where; which ones; why. As a Wikipedian, I am a vessel of the sources for my subject; I am not a vessel of all sources, everywhere. I cannot make syntheses. I cannot add contrasting and enlightening data if my sources do not. Unless the sources you suggest are intimately connected to the events and material presented in this article, they would be unacceptable. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

• I wasn't sure because the citation style is unfamiliar to me, but refs 350, 351, and 355 do not appear to be in a consitent format as the others. Perhaps Ealdgyth is a better person to comment on this since I'm not the expert.

• The section entitled Prior Persecutions does not mention the most famous and first persecution by Nero. According to my sources, Nero blamed the Christians for the fire that destroyed Rome. Nero was also suspected of starting the fire. St. Peter is believed to have been put to death by Nero. This is the beginning of Roman persecution of Christians and should be mentioned in this section. NancyHeise ^talk 03:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nero is now mentioned. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks it looks great. NancyHeise ^talk 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I passed this article for GA, and did a pretty intense one, indeed.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the footnotes issue that PMAnderson brought up above, I'm agnostic. Its not how I would personally do the article (I prefer to exclusively use secondary sources as much as possible) but I do know that others prefer the approach taken here. In fact, Deacon attempted to get me to do much the same with Wilfrid, but we sorta-compromised on including a discussion of the sources available instead. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just checking in. PMAnderson asked me to take a look at this FAC as he's busy. I'm working through the article now. Andrew Dalby 13:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comments: Generally this is a very strong, well-documented article that fully deserves FA status. I have added some notes on the first 30 paras. I'm going to try to read on, but, like PMAnderson, I'm a bit busy! Congratulations, overall, on a fine piece of work.
  • Thank you for your kind words and extensive comments, Andrew! I hope you don't mind if I reply to your comments inline. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Perspective
    • • In all this section I respect your viewpoint and I don't press for mine. The text as now adjusted is acceptable!
  • Para 3. "Where Galerius and Diocletian were avid persecutors, Constantius was unenthusiastic". From what the article says later, I would suggest "Where Galerian and, increasingly, Diocletian were determined to pursue this policy, Constantius was unenthusiastic".
    • That seems like a lengthy circumlocution. If we accept your emendation to delay Diocletian's eagerness, "were determined persecutors" is still a good three words shorter than "were determined to pursue this policy". Does "persecutors" have too much stigma on it? I have not yet changed the wording of the article.
      • My real discomfort is that we don't know enough about the intentions of these people or about their real personal involvement. "Avid persecutor" sounds a bit too much like the stock villain in a saint's life (which they were, of course).
  • Note 3, citing de Ste-Croix, is important: I would consider working this information into the introduction, perhaps as an extension of the words "most Christians avoided punishment".
    • As a quotation, or just as bare information? I will have to familiarize myself with de Ste-Croix
      • I just thought of adding a couple of words more of information: avoided by what comportment? I think you could get it out of that quote.
  • Para 4. "The persecution was ultimately a failure". The section "Persecution and Tetrarchic ideology", especially para 14, gives important perspective here. I get from this that the persecution was an aspect of a policy of Imperial consolidation. This overall policy wasn't a failure, but, yes, the persecution part of it was dropped
    • Hmm. That's really more of a summary of Diocletian and the Tetrarchy's achievements, which I attempt to do in Diocletian; this is an article on the persecutions, however, not the whole policy package. We evaluate them on their stated and implicit aims as persecutions. As such, the failure to achieve their aims of bringing many Christians back to traditional worship (which Galerius admits in 311) means that the persecutions failed. I might note somewhere, in a brief aside, that the overall Diocletianic policy package was a moderate success, but I feel it's kind of tangential. Hmm. I'm still chewing on this one.
      • OK, I haven't studied Diocletian. I take your point.
  • Para 16 (ordinary people didn't support the persecution) seems to conflict with para 20 ("people began to assert that Christians were the cause of all evils"). I believe 16; maybe in 20 you put too much weight on one unknown pagan quoted by a Christian apologist.
    • Ah, but I just loved it so much! Shame that it is entirely rhetorical. Removed.
  • Para 21 "perhaps after a whipping". I haven't checked all the sources, but if this is a guess, as it sounds to be, I would leave it out.
    • I originally had "after a light whipping", because I wanted to prod the reader. The entire "whipping" bit has now been removed. The rest—the absence of bloodshed—although a guess, seems to me a quite reasonable guess, given the rhetorical aims of Lactantius and Eusebius. It's a good lead-in to the "without bloodshed" part of the edict, IMO.
  • Paras 27-29: some odd use of language here. "Diocletian's religious passion drove him to use violent and hateful language": "violent" is not true from what you quote; "hateful" is strongly POV (perhaps you meant "hate-filled", but that also is overstating it); "passion" is obsolete in the sense you intend. Maybe "Diocletian's championing of traditional Roman cults impelled him to use the language of religious fervour"?
    • Switched out my for your words.
  • Para 28 seems to me too detailed on one martyrdom: it's hard to believe this one turbulent priest had much influence on Diocletian's thinking. I'd give it a sentence.
    • I cut it down, but left most intact. Sourced instances of personal involvement are so rare—especially for emperors lacking much in the way of narrative history—that I feel that it should have a bit more space than it would otherwise merit.
      • His death a year later was maybe a distraction from the chronology. But, yes, fair enough.
  • Para 29: I have doubts about "extermination" and "universal persecution", but I still have to read on ...
    • This is "according to Lactantius", so it's going to be a bit dodgy in any case. Are there phrasings you'd prefer? I could go "elimination", "annihilation", whatever. Let me quote from the translated edition of Lactantius (no Latinity here!) nearest me: "...[the mother of Galerius] conceived hatred against the Christians, and by woman-like complaints instigated her son, no less superstitious than herself, to destroy them. ...Galerius would have had all persons burnt alive who refused sacrifice." How is "universal persecution" questionable?
      • It's questionable by the result. Had they even seriously tried to do that, and the great majority of Christians had gone for martyrdom, there would surely have been no Christianity as state religion a few years later? If, on the other hand, the great majority of Christians chose outward compliance or conversion, then "extermination" is no longer true. And if the great majority of Christians were never even touched, then "universal" is no longer true. But never mind for the moment: let me read on.

Links etc. I would have said that if place-names can be linked, it's distracting to add too much in the way of bracketed explanations. At the moment Turkey and Israel seem to be specially favoured!

• • • Ah! I like doing this! I wish it wasn't so distracting. I like reminding the reader that, yes, these places are real, living cities, and you can go there on holiday! Not that you'd want to go to Turkey or Israel any time soon, but still. I have removed the links you've suggested.
      • I'm sorry to have messed you up. But why locate Smyrna and not Lyon, for example? And then, why not places that truly no one has heard of, like Tebessa and the mines of Phaeno (an authentic redlink, I think [but no! disambiguation needed!])?
      • I think it really is good to add a link for modern cities (e.g. "Smyrna (İzmir)") as you have often done. I only suggested removing Caesarea because that's a scrappy place these days, simply named after the ancient city.
  • Para 7: "Smyrna (İzmir)" is enough without "Turkey"
    • Done.
  • Paras 22 and 26: again, no need for "Turkey"
    • When I was younger, I always thought Antioch was in Syria. It came as quite a shock to learn it was in Turkey. I don't know why it shocked me so much; I didn't know anything about the modern town. It just seemed like an especially Syrian place. Oh well. DONE.
  • Para 28: "Caesarea Maritima in Syria Palaestina" is fine: the added "Caesarea" doesn't help, being an ambiguous name anyway; the first line of the linked article shows that it's now in Israel
    • It's now disappeared along with most of the martyr's tale.
  • Para 5: The link for Pliny's province should be to Bithynia and Pontus
    • Done.
  • Primary sources. Would it help the reader if these authors' names were linked? I think so
    • Oh! I hate having blue in the bibliography. Done anyways.

Nit-picking

• • Para 2. The past tense of "forebode" is "foreboded", but it's a rare form. You might prefer "heralded".
    • I already used "herald" two sentences before! I will use foreboded.
  • Para 4. what do you mean by "dislocation"?
    • Like: migration/relocation/loss of home. Refugees avant la lettre. Is there a better term?
      • Yes, there was a lot of that in the ancient world! I thought you must mean that, but I've never seen "dislocation" used in this sense, literal but non-surgical. Still, the dictionary definition covers it, so, fine. Andrew Dalby 09:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Para 5: Lyons; para 7: Lyon. Prefer Lyon and put the link in para 5
    • Done.
  • Para 18: read "Jesus, whom he praised"
    • Done.
  • Para 18: Not "treasonously" but "treasonably"
    • Done.
  • Para 25: not "decried" but "denounced". I don't think you decry people
    • Fixed.
  • Para 30: read Terminalia
    • Fixed.
  • Notes, 2: read "Cyprian, Epistulae"
    • Done.

-- Andrew Dalby 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments on later paragraphs

• • I love the idea of an "underdeveloped prison system". Very Whiggish.
    • I am nothing if not a Whig!
  • "in the judgment of historian Roger Rees ..." I feel I'd like to understand this. The big difference between 1 and 2 as you describe them is that 2 includes the arrest of priests, is that right? So what is Rees's point?
    • Here is what Rees writes on the matter, in its entirety: "There is credible evidence that the first edict was applied with some success (if unevenly); the publication of a second edict, however, suggests that either Diocletian was not aware that the terms of the first edict were being applied, or, more credibly, that although he knew the first edict was being applied, he felt it was not achieving all his wishes as quickly as he wanted. The short time lag also suggests that imperial administration was functioning very efficiently." That's it.
    • Here is what I imagine Rees would say, if he elaborated: ministering priests could have been arrested under the terms of the first act—Christian assembly was forbidden, and the churches and scriptures should have been destroyed. In a world of perfect administrative control, this would have been enough: imperial agents could have shut down any church, anywhere, at any time. The Roman Empire, however, did not exert perfect administrative control, much though Diocletian may have wished otherwise.
    • Diocletian must have soon realized that a campaign against churches and scriptures alone would not be enough to eliminate Christianity. It could only drive it underground. Priests would minister to their congregations in less prominent spaces (like individual Christians' homes, as in the first two centuries), and would sequester scriptures in private residences. Imperial agents had better things to do than raid Christians' homes at random intervals for illegal congregations. Fourth century pagans just didn't care that much. Thus the need for a second edict, with better targets: Priests. Priests are not easily replaced.
    • On the other hand, it might just be a poorly thought out comment.
      • Your suggestion "ministering priests could have been arrested under the terms of the first act—Christian assembly was forbidden" makes perfect sense. I hadn't looked at it like that. What a pity that Rees himself didn't say anything so explicit.
      • I suggest you might replace "Diocletian should not have needed this second edict; that he issued one" with "there was no logical necessity for this second edict; that Diocletian issued it". He evidently thought he did need it, and it's not really Diocletain's personal judgment that Rees is questioning, as I understand it.
  • As I read on, I feel the need for a clear reminder of which emperor ruled which region. Possibly an introductory sentence at "Regional variation"?
    • Sure. I've included a little tag after each of the emperors' names, listing their domains.
  • Milevis seems to be the modern Mila, Algeria: is that right?
    • Uh, maybe? I'll link it.
  • "After the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian in 305, and Constantius became Augustus ..." Something wrong with this sentence. Maybe "After 305, the year when Diocletian and Maximian abdicated and Constantius became Augustus ..."
    • Done.
  • "Constantine, in his later reminisces": I suggest "Constantine, in a later reminiscence"
    • Done.
  • Procopius's reply is very good indeed.
    • Heh.
  • "thrown to the sea ... he sent to Phaeno": read "thrown into the sea ... he sent to the copper mines at Phaeno", I suggest. It's a long article, and not all readers will remember what there was at Phaeno. Ah, now I see it's explained in the next paragraph. Can you switch the explanation to this point?
    • I've switched the paragraphs.
  • "covered in libation" -- meaning what? sprinkled with sacrificial wine?
    • Yes? Or perhaps sacrificial olive oil, whatever was in stock at the time. If you're asking me what the distinction is between regular wine and sacrificial wine, I don't think my texts can tell me. I presume it was applied by a local temple priest.
  • "Acts of Pilate" ought to be linked. It can't be the same text as the Acts of Pilate, but the identity of what Eusebius calls the Acts of Pilate is mentioned in that article.
    • Does it? From Acts of Pilate: "[Eusebius] mentions an Acta Pilati referred to by Justin and Tertullian and other non-canonical Acts, shows no acquaintance with this work"—not much content here. I don't think that linking to that article would do much more than confuse the reader. It certainly confused me.
      • Yes, OK, I see what you mean. I was keeping my fingers crossed behind my back in saying that this is the text discussed in that curious sentence. But one wants to link such references in some way: if it isn't done now, someone will link it next week, as sure as eggs are eggs. OK, I have checked this in Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha (1963 ed., vol. 1 p. 445). It says exactly the same thing but adds a crucial detail: to summarise, Eusebius shows no acquaintance with Christian Acts of Pilate, though you would think he might have known such a text, but "he knows pagan Acts (anti-Christian), which were fabricated under the persecutor Maximin and which at his command had to be read in the schools and committed to memory" [nice example of government-prescribed school curriculum]. I think that point needs to be added to the Acts of Pilate article. OK. [added later: I've amended the Acts of Pilate article now, so you can make the link if you like.]
  • "Maximinus issued orders forbidding Christians to congregate in cemeteries in Autumn 311": read "Maximinus issued orders in Autumn 311 forbidding Christians to congregate in cemeteries"
    • Done.
  • "Like in his last letter": read "As in his earlier letter"?
    • Done.
  • "maidens": read "virgins"
    • Done.
  • Table "Martyrdoms in the East". So these are hagiographical martyrdoms, i.e. we're counting people who are the heroes of texts; and the emptiness of the column Oriens means that we're not including people mentioned in the Martyrs of Palestine. And surely we have no idea at all how representative the figures are: in fact, just about all we can know is that they aren't representative, expecially since under "Legacy" you throw doubt on how many of these texts are factual! The problem, to me, is that a table, looking factual, diverts attention from the text. Since the purpose of showing these numbers seems to be to discuss whether Davies's interpretation of them is justified, I would suggest either ensuring that the table title includes some warnings about their validity, or else just incorporating the numbers in the text.
    • "emptiness of the column Oriens": my goodness, I don't think that's right. I must have fudged the syntax somewhere. My Internet connection's on the fritz, so I can't establish a connection to Davies' paper to correct the blank spots. I'll do it sometime soon. As to the accuracy of the table, yes, I've added a "(dubious)" to the table title.
      • Fine.
        • Fixed! Davies does note that he excluded martyrs in Eusebius and Lactantius because they are "dealt with separately".
  • Obviously we have no clear idea at all of the numbers involved. Whether a ballpark figure of 3,000 is secure enough to put in the introduction I hardly know! I think, unless in fact other modern authors support it too, you might hint in the introduction that this is one modern author's figure.
    • So noted.
  • Back to the sentence from the introduction "The persecution was ultimately a failure". I remain unhappy with this because you haven't said what its purpose was: the link Persecution of Christians, which might be looked to for an explanation of what persecutions are, implies that the answer is to kill Christians. If that's the case, it had some success; 3,000 (or maybe many more) were killed. But I think that wasn't the purpose at all: I think the purpose was to restore the traditional Roman belief system. And, if that's so, yes, it failed. Anyway, if, before saying that it failed, you can say what its purpose was, no problem remains ...
  • I think this article deserves FA status. Andrew Dalby 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    • (So, does that mean you support it? ;) Ah! Many thanks for the thorough review, Andrew! I have replied to most of your comments. I'll try to clear up the remaining points when my Internet connection is stronger. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, yes, of course, one should use the correct words. I support it! Andrew Dalby 12:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - for the meticulous research , generally very good writing and except for the legacy section, reasonably balanced and comprehensive coverage. Two area's I think could be improved:

Web optimisation. To a degree the article reads more like an entry one would expect to find in a journal rather than an online encyclopaedia, albeit much more generously referenced and neutrally written than would be usual. Specifically Id suggest 1) More web references, fair enough if you want to keep the article consistent and not cite from them , but it would be good to have more in the external links section - so folk can readilly see how others have approached the topic. I've took the liberty of adding the best link I know. 2) More pics. OR restrictions are relaxed with pics, so you don't have to get from only from sources that talk specifically about the subject, as long as you can show the relevance with the caption. In addition to increasing the visuall appeal, and you can use the captions to mention points of human interest or different perspectives. On this subject Id suggest you replace the lede pic, perhaps with the pic I added to a later section. The current lede pic is emotinoally sterile and not even asethetically pleasing, Id have changed it only I felt that might be too major a change for me to still be a allowed a vote. 3) A see also section that could include Persecution of Christians , Martyr Edict of Milan etc - I see you've linked to these but its good to re - emphasize the key related articles.

Legacy section. For me there’s two very important POVs you've missed out and undue weight on the line that Christians made a meal out of killings. Firstly you don't mention the view that the "worst legacy of the persecution was the basis for schism and an early indicator of a possible divide between eastern and western Christendom" ( see external link I added to the article). Secondly there's little hint of the impoartant (IMO correct) view that the persecutions not only failed to check the rise of Christianity, but actually significantly contributed to the faith's growth. See my talk page if you're interested in the reasons why this strikes me as a particularly glaring omission. PS. pls revert any of my minor changes if you dont like them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, Feyd. I will respond to them in a more-or-less random order.

RE: Legacy. There are already paragraphs in the "Regional variation" and "Legacy" sections emphasizing the divisions the persecution wrought: "Because of the persecution, however, a number of Christian communities were riven between those who had complied with imperial authorities (traditores) and those who had refused. In Africa, the Donatists, who protested the election of the alleged traditor Caecilian to the bishopric of Carthage, continued to resist the authority of the central Church until after 411.[358] The Melitians in Egypt left the Egyptian Church similarly divided.[359]" As to your other complaint, I added a paragraph noting the shift in the attitudes of the mass population, and the relative impact of martyrs. Most of the information on martyrs does not focus on their contribution to one particular persecution; this made writing much about them difficult. Taking from an authors' comments about martyrs in the time of Pionius or Pliny and placing them, without comment, in a fourth-century context, might introduce subtle bias. In any case, I don't have many sources which focus much on the martyrs as martyrs. In any case, thanks for prodding me to say something about martyrs and public attitudes.

RE: Web sources. I couldn't find anything good. In general, print sources published in peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses are the gold standard of reliability. It's rare that something on the Internet challenges them in this. If readers wanted to find them, there's always Google.

RE: "See also" section. I politely disagree with your interpretation of the purpose of the "See also". If the reader wanted to read about martyrs, they'd type "martyr" into the text box on the left-hand side of the screen. If they wanted to read about the Edict of Milan, they'd click on it when it appears in the text. In my opinion, See Also sections are for articles that do not appear in the body of the text (Wikipedia style guidelines are on my side here), but which are nonetheless useful to the enterprising reader. None of your suggestions meet those criteria.

RE: Pictures. I prefer to have my pictures be of things that are within the time period in question. So sixteenth-century icons or nineteenth-century paintings are not much to my taste. I did not choose the top photograph; it's a rare leftover from this page as it stood before my contributions.

Thank you for your support and comments! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome Geuiwogbil. Ive added some more thoughts about the legacy and lede sections to the articles talk page . All intended as suggestions not complaints - you might have guessed I dont agree with much of the article, but given the balance of opinion recently expressed by ungodly and unintuitive scholars Id say you've succeeded in capturing NPOV very well.

Cant agree with you on web sources. Many readers will appreciate us pointing them to the more reliable online sources, a job we should be able to do much more efficiently than a google ranking. Still i take your point that the web isnt overflowing with great pages on this subject, so I guess the two we have are enough.

I guess my other suggestions were misplaced , thanks for explaining Im glad to learn more about community norms. Btw i didn't say before I really like how you've structured the article in terms of heading , in a logical way that helps the reader understand the whole topic. Hope this passes for you! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(Copied from WT:FAC): File:Strdubmainaltar.jpg does not have licencing information about the 3D work it is derived from, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think I'd be able to obtain the licensing information about the altar, so I replaced the image. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not happy with the use of the word "pagan" which occurs twice in the intro, and elswhere in the article. The Romans would not have referred to their own practices as "pagan" (which meant crude and rustic). "Pagan" with a capital "P" was not the name of their religion. Moreover, although it was frequently used in the 19th century to refer to the religion of ancient Rome, it is generally used nowdays for something different. I think that "perform pagan rituals" (with a small "p") ought to be replaced with "comply with Roman religious practices". The word needs replacing throughout the article.

Amandajm (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Does it? The word is in widespread use amongst all the scholarship on the matter. There simply isn't a good alternative. We cannot say "Roman", because, for the most part, we aren't in Rome anymore; we cannot say "traditional", because Christians would also have their "traditions", and because there was much in the third-century Mediterranean religion that was new; we can't call it "polytheist", because there were strong monotheizing tendencies among pagan intellectuals, and because one could, by rhetorical jujitsu, assert that Christians were also polytheistic (they pray to a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit: three persons, right?). That the "Romans" would not refer to themselves by that name does not mean much. They did not have any term for themselves. If pressed, they'd probably call themselves "the pious" or "followers of our fathers' religion". For obvious reasons, we cannot use those terms. We should follow standard practice as much as possible.

"Pagan" was replaced in its first instance, but I cannot replace it everywhere. It is simply too convenient to avoid. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• No, the changes don't work. "Traditional" is not good, unless it is stated what tradition is being referred to.
• Your statement We cannot say "Roman", because, for the most part, we aren't in Rome anymore is inappropriate since we are talking about the "Roman Empire" as stated in the first paragraph, and "Roman Emperors", as listed. The accepted religion was the religion of Rome. (Terms Like "Roman" Catholicism and "Anglican" Church are still in use, without regard for where the church is actually located.).
• I am still of the opinion that "comply with Roman religious practices" is the best solution.
• The use of the word "pagan" in literature is like the use of the words "infidel" and "kafir". It is strongly coloured by the writer's POV. Any 19th century, early 20th century or very conservatively Christian source is likely to use the term "pagan" in a way that nowadays would be considered discriminatory, unless the person referred to was a self-professed "Pagan" with a capital P and followed "Neopaganism". In other words, the writer who referred to Roman religious practices as "pagan rituals" would probably use it as a blanket term that encompassed all non-Christian religious practice with the exception of Judaism and possibly Islam.
• Later sources sometimes use the word "Paganism" to refer to the religion of the Roman Empire, but it has a capital "P". If you are going to use it, then some explanation for its use is necessary.

Amandajm (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• No, your suggestions don't work. "Roman" is not good, because it is wrong.
• The religious tradition of Gallia and Lydia were no more "Roman" than the religious tradition of Sudan and India were "British". Hence the "Empire": A polity containing many different nations. Terms like "Roman" Catholicism and "Anglican" Church are in use because their institutions point to the Bishop of Rome and the Archbishop of Canterbury as spiritual and ecclesiastic heads. It is important to note that these are from among very few examples of regional names available in the Christian tradition, and for good reason. Methodists do not point to the religious tradition of "Methodos", nor do Baptists pay homage to the Archduke of Baptisery in Baptistland, because their specific theo-doctrinal emphases run orthogonally to terrestrial geography. Not so the Anglicans and the Roman Catholics, whose temporal and spiritual heads live in very particular places.
• I am still of the opinion that "pagan" is the best solution.
• The use of the word "pagan" in the literature is no longer like the use of "infidel" and "kafir". "Discrimination" in the sense of "discriminating", or noting a difference between two things, is a very good process to pick up. I am quite proud to be of "discriminating" taste in film and literature; for the same reason, I am quite proud of my ability to "discriminate" between people of different ethnic and religious types. It is indeed a good thing that those writers took the time to sift through the masses of humanity, putting heathens on one side and the Children of God on the other. In any case, we are not writing a Nineteenth, early Twentieth, or very conservatively Christian source, and, as such, are not bound by their stylistic types, nor are our writings necessarily colored by that massive encumbrance of History. We are not using pagan as a "blanket term" to incorporate all non-Christian religious practice; we are focusing on the common religious practices of the Mediterranean littoral (save Judaism, Gnosticism, Christianity, Manicheanism, and certain progressive strands of Epicureanism), for which there is no term but pagan.
• Later sources, my sources, toss around pagan like it is the only term available. Why? Because it is. Hence Robin Lane Fox, no great fan of Christians by any metric, titles his book Pagans and Christians. Whenever anyone needs to describe, in a single word, the religious leanings of a man with a predilection for the old cults, they say "pagan", and when they say it, they do not say it with a capital "P". Because "paganism" is not a Church, does not have a Doctrine, does not have a liturgy informed by anything but custom, and that custom does not come with a capital "C". There is no "religion of the Roman Empire". There are only religions of the Roman Empire. I am not going to say "Paganism", nor am I going to explain myself when I say "paganism", because it is common term in common use requiring no delineation or disquisition.

Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Support clearly comprehensive, engaging, with excellent citations, and on the whole superbly written. Can you help me with a few troublesome phrases?

• Something seems missing here, Its members were always suspect, a "secret society" whose members communicated with a private code, who shied away from the public sphere.
  • Now: Christians were always suspect, members of a "secret society" whose members communicated with a private code, who shied away from the public sphere.
• I didn't like "for turning Christian". How about "for becoming Christians"?
  • Done.
• This sentence is cumbersome, I had to read it three times, Even when Emperor Nero executed Christians for their alleged involvement in the fire of 64, becoming the "very first of the Imperial Persecutors", it was a purely local affair; it did not spread beyond the city limits of Rome. I am still not sure what it means.
  • Uh, let's remove some of the content. Now: When Emperor Nero executed Christians for their alleged involvement in the fire of 64 it was a purely local affair; it did not spread beyond the city limits of Rome. It means: Nero's persecution didn't extend beyond Rome. It's in response to a previous sentence, which said that persecutions were limited in extent and carried out by local officials. At first glance, a "Neronian persecution" might seem to contradict this fact. On closer examination, however, it fits the general scheme.
• And this sentence, Diocletian's favored gods did tend to be those that provided for the safety of the whole empire, however, instead of local deities in the provinces is difficult to understand.
  • Now: Diocletian favored gods who provided for the safety of the whole empire, instead of the local deities of the provinces.
• There are occasional problems with tenses: The same pattern of favoritism appears in Egypt as well - appeared? make him unusual - made? I know this is how historians write, but this usage seems out of place here. Graham Colm ^Talk 12:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Thank you for your support, Graham! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 08:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support I thought I had already supported this, but it seems not (maybe I added it to some video game or battleship by mistake...) Anyway, meets FAC standards. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

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 23:40, 11 July 2009 [61].

---

2009 Orange Bowl

Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article in verse,
and you probably haven't heard an idea that is worse.

I stole the idea from Jappalang,
and for that I probably should hang.

This article is well-written and complete,
and for prose quality it can't be beat.

Its citations have been checked,
and its grammar has been pecked.

I'd like to thank Ealdgyth, Strikehold, Giants2008, and Maralia;
Their suggestions certainly didn't cause melancholia.

Any comments, concerns, or questions would be worth more than a particle,
but if you're wondering why I didn't use the name of the article ...

It's because nothing rhymes with orange. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Like JKBrooks said, I gave the article a pre-FAC review, and all my comments were resolved. I think it looks good, so despite being subjected to the above, I'm still going to support : ) Strikehold (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I know my verse / can be a curse, / but I'm sure you've seen worse. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the second link check. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - meets FA requirements. Dincher (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: two appropriately licensed photos and one logo, which I think meets the lowest bar for non-free identification of the main subject (stricter standards would disagree). Preferably, a photo of the most significant moment of the match (if any) should be it, but as pointed out, if there is none, any shot becomes a non-descript photo of play that fails to differentiate the match from any other... Jappalang (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Just wanted to add that the logo used in the article is for this, and only this, particular game, the 2009 edition of the Orange Bowl. It's my belief that even the most stringent interpretation of our policies allows for the fair use of the logo that represents the subject of the article itself. And it meets the guideline specifically for logos. Strikehold (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment:
Now sir, what ye sayeth is not true,
It can rhyme through and through.
Once young, I came upon an orange,
Which has been squeezed into a haliborange. Jappalang (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

Still recovering from fatigue after attending last night's/this morning's New York Yankees game,
but not reviewing another Virginia Tech bowl article would be such a shame.

On the talk page, I gave a partial review pre-FAC,
how much it helped, we shall soon see.

• Game summary: Non-breaking spaces needed for dollar amounts. And add one more in Post-game effects.
• Can we find the first names of the officials? I would be surprised if they couldn't be found in a box score somewhere. If not, put a space in the middle of J.Quinn.

• I was actually kind of surprised that I wasn't able to find the first names of the officials. Both schools' copies of the box scores had just the initial, and the game broadcast (which I have a copy of and consulted) didn't mention them, either.

• On a brief search, I couldn't find them anywhere. Not a big deal, even though it leaves the initials bare. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Third quarter: This game summary is not easy for me to find fault with (of course, I'm useless for spotting jargon), but I found some close repetition here: "The ball was fumbled by returner Danny Milligan, but Milligan recovered the loose ball and returned it to the Cincinnati 20-yard line." Change the second Milligan to "he"?
• Fourth quarter: Either remove Tony Pike's first name from the second paragraph, or place it earlier.
• "With the clock continuing to tick down" → "As the clock continued to tick down"
• "to wind down the game clock and bring the game to an end." Second part is repetitive with the first. Perhaps use "contest" near the end of the sentence.
• Statistical summary: Would prefer if three straight sentences didn't start with "He".
• "giving him 23 field goals and breaking the Tech single-season record for successful field goals." "field goals" repeats itself here.

The article looks great,
and I'm glad I got to read the rest before it was too late.

I'll keep an eye on this, but may need some time,
as I must think of more words that rhyme. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The changes have been made, and I hope your attention does not fade. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• With the changes done, I'm supporting this page. Have to run, before my bad rhymes cause outrage. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, see below Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) to help this article reach FAC heaven:

• "EST" should be spelled out and defined on the first appearance just like the other abbreviations.
• "after the game, players from each team entered the National Football League (NFL) via the 2009 NFL Draft." The exact number (of players from each team) would be nice; it's always better to be precise.
• Use "Before" instead of "Prior to", why use two words when one will do? (multiple occurences)
• "The Cincinnati Bearcats ended the 2007 college football season with a 10–2 final record" "ended ... final" redundancy.
• "the game in order to better simulate the feel"
• "moved up the team's departure." moved up the date, I assume.
• "Various travel agencies offered"
• I know 'tis like a curse, but we must follow MOS for better or for worse. Comparable quantities should be written the same, and there are inconsistencies you must tame. (ex: "2,168 yards, 18 touchdowns, and seven interceptions")
• "He also scored 10 touchdowns"
• "Evans became just the sixth freshman in the history"
• "The ceremonial performance of the national anthem was played by Arturo Sandoval" Performed on trumpet, I assume? Please clarify.
• "Frank Beamer ordered kicker Dustin Keys" "sent" seems like a better work than "ordered".
• "With time running out in the first half"-->While time was running out in the first half
• "Cincinnati's offense sputtered and could not gain another first down" Imprecise subject; It was Cincinnati, not their offense that could not gain a first down.

• But it was their offense that did not gain a first down.

• Very true, good sir / it is to your knowlege that I will defer. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I quite like this rhyming thing; I'm watching this page, so no need to ping. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm glad you're paying attention; getting reviews sometimes feels like detention. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Do not fear, for the time when I shall re-review is near. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• FAC can't be rushed. My anticipation will be hushed. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The Hokies had time for just one play"
• "as Pike completed three consecutive passes: a 16-yard throw to Gilyard, a three-yard toss to Goodman, and a 14-yard pass to Gilyard"-->as Pike completed three consecutive passes: a 16-yarder to Gilyard, a 3-yarder to Goodman, and a 14-yarder to to Gilyard
• "began to run out the clock" section link this to Running out the clock#American football.
• "Taylor began kneeling on the ball to wind down the game clock" In football kneeling down is not a continuous action, it's a set play. How many times did he kneel it?
• "recording 97 yards in that department." "department" isn't that encyclopedic, how about "category"?
• "Each team found some success on special teams as well"
• "but he successfully converted "
• "boost due to visitors arriving to watch the two games" noun + -ing is awkward.
• Do any of the notes need references? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• More changes have been made. As to the last item, you tell me. I don't think they do. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here is my humble opinion:

• Note 1 is a statistic, surely not common knowledge. I think it should be cited.
• Note 2 is easily found. No need for a cite.
• Note 3 is not common knowledge, and is about a living person. This definitely should be cited.
• Note 4, not really, although a link to redshirt would be nice.
• Note 5, I think the second sentence might be cited.
• Note 6, I think a cite would be nice.
• Obviously not Note 7. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• All changed except for the redshirt one. The wikilink is at the originating point of the footnote. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see any citations added, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Now that's embarrassing ... I guess I didn't save my changes. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've tried to get them in place, but it doesn't look as though it worked ... is there anyone who could clean up the mess I've made? JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• See this; you need to use the #tag trick. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

*The #tag trick doesn't seem to work within infoboxes. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The two Sun Sentinel links have gone dead. I know I supported already, but pointing them out was in my head. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Damn. Replaced by offline citations. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Support I gave this a thorough review for prose and MOS just before FAC. As I said there, I find it eminently understandable even for the football-challenged (i.e. me), and I'm confident that it meets the criteria. Maralia (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Images need alt text (discussion). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Neat idea! I can see how that'd help folks with screen readers use Wikipedia. Alt text has been added. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Support A joy to review, a pleasure to read;
I'll leave you with a support and this tweak to the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

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 23:40, 11 July 2009 [62].

---

Mariano Rivera

Nominator(s): Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... all of the concerns brought up during the first FAC have been addressed and an attempt to generalize the article topic has been made. I would like the article to reach Featured Article status by the time Rivera saves his 500th game - hopefully, if that happens, the article would be used as a timely Featured Article on the Main Page. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This article has come a long way and is in really good shape. I made a few changes to improve the flow of certain paragrahps and feel there are a couple of other places where flow could still be improved, but it is good enough that I would not oppose on those grounds. There is just one minor change I would like to see before I actually support: the account of Rivera's blown save in Game 7 of the 2001 World Series should really include his throwing error to second base, which was a crucial moment in the final outcome. Indrian (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Generally well-written and comprehensive. Indrian (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - the last FAC for this article was just closed on 14 June 2009, generally it's a good idea to wait more than 5 days to renominate. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• The guidelines say you should wait a few weeks to resolve the issues before renominating, but the FAC was closed right after I had just addressed several issues that had been brought up, and up to that point, I had promptly resolved everything that came up. I'm not sure what waiting a few weeks would really do for the article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you check with the previous opposers to see if their issues were resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the previous opposers who commented on the nomination page changed to "support" the article. The one's that did not reply to my attempts at addressing their issues have been contacted on their talk pages. Many of these items that I have been fixing never came up in the Good Article review or the peer review, so this is the first time I've had them pointed out to me - and it's good they are being pointed out now. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There were actually two opposers at the first FAC, including Laser brain; his had been there for almost two weeks. The second opposer wasn't nearly as persuasive to me, though he did have a few pertinent points. On balance I think the article has improved from when it first came to FAC, but I do wish the second nomination had come 2-3 weeks later, as the instructions recommend. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Both opposers were contacted before I contacted anyone who supported the article. I would have waited on this nomination, but I felt like the first was closed prematurely just as constructive feedback was being made, I (seemingly) fixed all concerns that were addressed, and I would like to have this article become a FA before Rivera reaches 500 saves. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I'm slightly embarrassed, I added this to my watchlist ages ago as Mo is my favorite player, intending to one day sit down and fix this article. Someone beat me to the punch though! :) Author fixed a massive list of notes in the previous FAC, really looks like he fixed everything, not sure why it didn't draw more support. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger's first thoughts

• I find the current opening sentence unidiomatic. See other FAs such as Sandy Koufax, J. R. Richard, and Orval Grove.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It is better now, but it should mention that he has spent his whole career with the Yankees like the other articles I mentioned above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Why did you separate one-sentence one-line paragraph? Do you intend to expand it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to have it mirror the other baseball player FA's. I'll connect it with the 2nd paragraph instead. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Pitching mostly in relief, he allowed an average of 0.17 earned runs per nine innings (see earned run average, or ERA)" seems odd in an article about baseball. All you need to say is "Pitching mostly in relief, he posted a 0.17 earned runs average (henceforth E.R.A.)," with the word linked. It is not unlike any other baseball statistic. Just link it and use it in proper and normal context.
• I think "As a 25-year-old rookie with major arm surgery in his past," would better as ""As a 25-year-old rookie with prior (or previous) major arm surgery,"
• Can you add current dollars to the "US$3,000 signing bonus on February 17, 1990". See the conversion function in use at Fountain of Time. It will help to conceptualize a generation of inflation in the US to international readers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• "number of home runs he allowed across the entire previous season" - across seems unidiomatic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean (e.g. unidiomatic?). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe across is an ungrammatical preposition in its current use.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed - I replaced it with "in". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Support-My issues are now resolved. The article is even better than the prior FAC, which I believe I supported.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Images reviewed in previous FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks like a great article. Wikipediarules2221 22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support Look like all major issues have been resolved. BUC (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks perfect. Adam Penale (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Good detail, well written and sourced. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support. Looks pretty good overall, but a few points.
• I would avoid introducing acronyms and abbreviations in the lead section unless they're used again in the lead. Some percentage of readers just look at the lead and nothing else, and thus don't need to know about MLB, AL, and ERA. (I'd rewrite the second 'MLB' as 'major leaguer'.) You can then introduce the acronyms and abbreviations the first time they're used in the body.

I would disagree - readers are going to see the lead first and foremost, so it stands that important terms and concepts should be introduced there. Furthermore, they may jump around the article without reading it from the start, meaning they could miss the initial mention of the unabbreviated term. I don't think it hurts to show the abbreviation in the lead. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• The sentence "Raybourn was surprised that scouts had shown interest in Rivera a year later as a pitcher.[9]" doesn't seem to connect well - why the surprise?

Raybourn didn't think Rivera had a future in the MLB, nor did he expect Rivera to have changed positions. I've rephrased it as "shown interest in Rivera as a pitcher a year later". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Any explanation for why Rivera gained speed on his fastball in his mid-20s? Seems kind of unusual.

There isn't an explanation - just one of the great mysteries about Rivera. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a source that says that, it would be a good addition. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Will add when I find a reference. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Was 1998 really the beginning of his cutter? What was his 'out' pitch before then?

He developed it in 1997, but only really featured it as a pitcher in 1998. He didn't have a specific out pitch, per se, before then. He mostly relied on variations of a fastball. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Up where the cutter is introduced, I'd add something somewhere about how many batters get their bats broken trying to hit him - that's another one of his trademarks. I know it's mentioned in a section at the end, but it's worth being in twice, as it graphically illustrates how tough he is to hit.

Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant 'penchant' not 'pension', but I'm not sure a penchant is something you earn. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased to say "earned a reputation for breaking hitter's bats". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a cite for 2001 and "Rivera's year ended with one of his most disappointing moments" - it seems to contradict the later ""I am glad we lost the World Series," Rivera told Wilson, "because it means that I still have a friend."[101]"

How would you rephrase this moment then to signify it was the low point in his career? He did feel better about the loss when he realized the consequences it had in the bigger picture, but in the perspective of his career, it was his worst moment. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would phrase it as observers believing it was the low point in his career, with a cite. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased to say "infamous" instead of "disappointing". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking of trademarks, you could add that Rivera became so associated with "Enter Sandman" that when Billy Wagner came to the Mets with the same entrance song, there was quite a fan/press hullabaloo that Wagner should switch to something else.

That is a good point, but I'm not sure how to seamlessly weave it into the 2006 season summary - and it seems to me that the "controversy" was invented by the New York press because they had no familiarity with Billy Wagner or his entrance music. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I talked with Yankees fans who were genuinely upset, because they felt Wagner was barging in on Rivera's special association, even if he had used the song before. You might also add that Rivera had/has no clue who Metallica are. Material like this is good for the article because it adds a human interest element into what otherwise inevitably becomes a dry recitation of reliever statistics. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned in the 2006 season summary. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think "bloop single" needs to be quoted.

Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Before talking about his 3 innings in relief in the 2003 ALCS, you should mention that his normal usage pattern was just the ninth, with occasionally entrances in the eighth, usually with two outs.

I tried to cover this by explaining in the 1997 season summary that he was installed as closer to pitch the 9th innings. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You now say there "to traditionally pitch the ninth innings of games", but as you point out elsewhere, that practice is recent, not old. I'd use a different word. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Rephrased to say "typically" instead of "traditionally". Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the 2004 ACS coverage, I'd add that the Red Sox went on to win the WS and break the curse, etc - to show how important the Rivera blown saves were.

Fixed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• How does the DHL Delivery Man of the Year Award or the This Year in Baseball's Closer of the Year Award relate to the Rolaids Award previously mentioned? It's kind of confusing. If the point is that there's no one agreed-upon top award for relievers, that should be stated briefly somewhere.

I'm not sure if this is something that is within the scope of the article, but I've prefaced each award with a brief explanation of how the winner is chosen. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I like the use of more sophisticates stats in the "Legacy" section; what about adding WHIP and oppo BA to the career stats section?

There is some debate at Wikipedia:Baseball whether or not a stats table is necessary at all, so I think any additions would be pushing it. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't read that many WP sports articles, so if some of these points are ruled out by WP project guidelines, I will stand corrected. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Some more comments I thought of today:

• Might be worth mentioning that he's seen in all the 'Yankees win the World Series' photos because he's always on the field for the last out (would be really good if there were a usable image of one of these for the article)

This doesn't really seem necessary - it's already mentioned that he closed out 3 consecutive World Series. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Should mention his demeanor is placid, unlike many 'wildman' closers over the years who have unusual appearances, weird mannerisms, over-the-top celebrations after key outs, etc

Done. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• How popular is he with the fans? A good metric might be how his jersey sales compare to those of other star Yanks like Jeter or A-Rod.

I've never come across rankings of baseball jersey sales before. This only seems relevant to basketball or football, where the jersey always has a number printed on it. Otherwise, I think it's hard to classify Rivera's popularity. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Yankee jerseys do have a number on them - maybe you mean that not all of them have a name on them? I found content.com/article/1560495/mlb_baseball_jerseys_finding_the_best.html?cat=14 this blacklisted site that says that Jeter and A-Rod are in the top five nationally (piece together the url); if a better source were found, you could say that Rivera has never risen to their level of fan following. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that baseball jersey sales aren't as widely published as basketball or football jerseys because you have to buy a football/basketball jersey with a number on it. You can buy a blank baseball jersey without a name/number on it, making it difficult to quantify in sales when you can just get a name/number added aftermarket. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• You mention he originally spoke no English, when/where did he learn and how well does he speak it now?

I know he learned it throughout minor/major league baseball, but I haven't come across specific mentions of how he learned it. He just did. He's now an advocate for Hispanic players learning English, and vice versa. I'll make mention of this in the personal life section. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• What commercial endorsements does he have, if any?

As far as I know, Nike is the only endorsement he is involved in, and it is rare to see him in any advertisements for them. I will try to find a reference to this. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He did that ad for Nike where everyone wore masks representing how their personality/style was viewed, and he was wearing that weird surgical/optometrist thing to represent his accuracy and precision. Beyond that I agree, I can't think of another appearance. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And there was the TV ad where all the athletes wer saying things that Lance Armstrong can't do, but at the end, he appears and says no one can ride a bike like him. But yeah, that seems like it's it. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Any justification to a screenshot of that Nike-mask ad? It was just so odd... Though I suppose without a bigger discussion of advertising it's not really notable. BTW, with his new salary does Mo crack the Forbes top 100 highest paid athletes list? I think they break it down paycheck + endorsement money, also. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Forbes has a list of highest paid athletes, but they only seem to follow those who made at least $30 million/year, which Rivera does not. If the article is need of any images, it's one of him from the 90s and maybe one of him celebrating a World Series title. The Nike ad was weird, but weirdness isn't enough for us to claim fair use of the ads. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Are there any good quotes from him about how it feels to win championships? Or how to come back from blown save?

I added a quote about his reaction to blowing a save and trying to turn the page - placed it in the "Legacy" section. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I know Rivera's not the most colorful player around, but I'm looking for angles the article can explore beyond just his on-field accomplishments ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• One uncited statement I just noticed. I still support vigorously, but do you have a cite for the bit under personal life about his glove being inscribed with the Bible verse? That's a very factual and direct statement to be left uncited. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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 23:40, 11 July 2009 [63].

---

The Time Traveler's Wife

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A book about time travel! What isn't fun about that? For those of you who would rather see the movie, it is coming out in August. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I've never reviewed a book FAC, but I do have one question: What was the book's effect on the publishing house? From the page devoted to it and the description in this article, it appears to be a small publisher. I'd imagine that a big hit like this would have a large effect, but I didn't see anything in the article about it. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would imagine that as well, but I didn't find any details on that. I see from your userpage that you work for a newspaper. Do you have any further ideas on where to look for sources about MacAdam/Cage? I actually had a hard time finding sources for that article. Perhaps if we put our heads together, we could find some more material that would answer that question. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't know much about the book publishing industry. I'm sure there has to be some sort of trade publication out there, but I haven't the slightest idea about which might mention MacAdam/Cage. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Publishers Weekly is the only one I am aware of, which I why I relied on it so heavily on the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's this New York Times article, which might have a little something (it suggests that, in the long run, the success of the book didn't have a big effect on the publisher).—DCGeist (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't actually see that statement in the article - what sentences are you referring to specifically? Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't make that statement. The conclusion is suggested by the statement that MacAdam/Cage "has lately been struggling financially and, in the end, Mr. Regal said [in apparent reference to the auction bids], 'It was just too big a gulf.'”—DCGeist (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we can draw that conclusion, though. The firm could have done well as a result of the book and subsequently been hit by hard times. Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quite true. In that regard, the source might be useful in combination with any others that might emerge...or it might not have much to offer beside support for the existing New Zealand–based citation on the new novel's auction.—DCGeist (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Leaning to supportSupport, with a slight reservation about the captions point discussed below. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, excellent work. The plot summary is particularly engaging and will make people want to buy the book (Abebooks, £1.00 or £1.65) I have a few queries, mostly small quibble but one or two on which I'd like to get your reactions before switching.

• "classified as both science fiction and romance" – classified formally, or just by readers?

• By reviewers. I don't think it is necessary to include this detail in the lead, though. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Save a word: "scheduled to be released" → "scheduled for release"

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• This sentence reads awkwardly: "She wrote the last scene, in which Clare is waiting for Henry as an old woman, first, because it is the focal point of the novel." This is a case where the passive voice might actually improve the prose. Also the old woman description should be aligned with Clare not Henry. I suggest: "The last scene, in which Clare as an old woman is waiting for Henry, was written first, because it is the focal point of the novel." This would also avoid having three succesive sentences starting with "She..."

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Image caption: "Audrey Niffenegger dyed her hair Clare-red to say "goodbye" to the novel after she had finished writing it." This information is not reflected anywhere in the text of the article. Without such a mention in the text, I wonder about the relevance of the image to this section.

• The idea was not to repeat information from the article. Also, at the end of the first paragraph there is a sentence that says: Despite the analogies to her own life in the book, Niffenegger has forcefully stated that Clare is not a self-portrait: "She's radically different. I am much more wilful and headstrong. ... I don't think I could go through a lifetime waiting for someone to appear, no matter how fascinating he was. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Next image caption: "Clare has been compared to Penelope waiting for her Odysseus". Again, there is no reference in the text to this comparison, nor any indication who made it, nor any obvous relation to the "genre" section in which it is located.

• Again, the idea was that the caption information was new. This is one of the many literary allusions in the text and the one mentioned most frequently in the reviews. I thought this was excellent place to put it, because it is just an isolated factoid. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I'm not so sure. If in a book I'm reading I see an illustration with an intriguing caption, I look in the text to find out a bit more. If I find nothing in the text that expands on or even refers to the information in the caption, then I feel a bit aggrieved. My view is that images and their attendant captions should illustrate and inform the text, rather than functioning independently. If the Penelope comparison is mentioned frequently in the reviews, why not say this in the article? Then there is a direct connection to the image and the text. Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are differing views on this. See DCGeist below, for example. Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Noted, but still not entirely convinced. However, it is not a critical issue for me. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Don't know why, I find this phrasing a little twee: "...whose wife is friends with Niffenegger,..." I think "whose wife is a friend of Niffenegger's" sound slightly more encyclopedic

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Michelle Griffin of The Age, for example,..." The "for example" is a bit intrusive, and not really necessary.

• Removed. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Given the success of the book, I was somewhat unprepared for the critical emphasis in the last paragraph of the Reception section, where terms like "pedestrian", "contrived", "overall clumsiness", "ham-fisted", "long-winded" and "eruption of cliche" crowd in on each other and tend to squeeze out the positive comments. The impression is given of a rather poorly written book that succeeded because of its interesting premise. Is this intentional? Or might it be desirable to aim for a slightly different mix of comment from reviewers?

• The problem is that the negative reviewers are more specific in their criticisms. Positive reviewers tend to say something like "I was up all night reading the book" or "You should run out and buy this book" - comments that do not really explain what about the book was so good. However, even the good reviews tended to have something negative to say about Niffenegger's style. Even so, I have added another sentence praising the character delineation from a source someone was kind enough to send me yesterday. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is good that you are bringing modern novel articles to Wikipdia. May you long continue to do so. Brianboulton (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I wish I knew why The Times websites are returning false positives for being link dead with the link checker tool..) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work, Ealdgyth! Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Looks in good shape overall. Needs one more thorough ce pass, which I can do over the next few days. On the question raised above concerning caption text—it is perfectly good style to present certain information exclusively in caption text and avoid repeating it in the running text. Caption text is in no way less significant than other text; it is simply framed differently. I think Awadewit has made very good (and certainly defensible) structural choices in this regard.—DCGeist (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent copyediting you have already done! Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Query: Ordinary style would be to lowercase the term chrono-displacement. Is it capitalized consistently throughout the book?—DCGeist (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes - it is capitalized in the novel. Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think {{Infobox Book}} would be a great addition to this article. Contributions/98.166.139.216 (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are optional. Personally, I don't see a need, as they just repeat information from the lead. Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But normally a useful way of consistently gathering key information and presenting it in a "tidy" fashion. "Personally" is a key word in what you say. Infoboxes are used extensively throughout wikipedia. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Except there is no "standard" information about a novel. There is no requirement for an infobox at FAC and many FAs don't have them. Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Query: The Plot summary is very well written—indeed, I found nothing that unquestionably demands a copyedit. But I want to make sure I'm understanding something correctly. Per the summary...

• Fact: "When 20-year-old Clare meets 28-year-old Henry at the Newberry Library in 1991 at the opening of the novel, he has never seen her before, although she has known him most of her life."
• Fact: "Henry begins time traveling at the age of five."
• Fact: "Henry frequently travels to Clare's childhood and adolescence in South Haven, Michigan, beginning in 1977 when she is six years old."

Now, if all of these facts are presented correctly, we must reach this

• Conclusion: Henry does not travel to Clare's childhood and adolescence during his first 23 years of time traveling. He only starts traveling to her youth after they meet in "natural" time, that is, after he is 28 years old.

Is that correct? If it is, there's no problem, though the kernel of the conclusion (Henry begins traveling to Clare's youth once they meet in "natural" time) might be stated explictly. (Just to be clear, the more one thinks about the conclusion, the more logical and emotional sense it makes, but the conclusion is by no means immediately obvious. Stating it explicitly might be a big <<cough>> time saver for readers...like me.)—DCGeist (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. What do you think is the most elegant way to introduce this in the plot summary? Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've taken a stab at it. See what you think.—DCGeist (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think that works well. Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I have a concern about the representation of the book's critical reception that bears on a few different passages in the article:

• I think the lede suggests that the general critical reception was largely positive, when it seems to me that (aside from the response to the handling of time travel itself) it was rather mixed. I think the current phrasing (which I did ce, but did so to retain its existing meaning)—"Many reviewers were impressed with Niffenegger's unique perspective on time travel and praised her characterization of the couple, applauding their emotional depth; her writing style was criticized by some who found it melodramatic"—might be adjusted a bit for accuracy: ""Many reviewers were impressed with Niffenegger's unique perspective on time travel. Some praised her characterization of the couple, applauding their emotional depth; others criticized her writing style as melodramatic and the plot as emotionally trite."
  • The characterization of "emotionally trite" was specifically inspired by a reading of Natasha Walter's review in the Guardian, which is referenced in the Themes section, but might also stand to be quoted in the Reception section. The phrase (or something similar) also seems to capture the opinion of some of the other reviewers who are currently quoted.
    • This is fine with me. Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• In the Reception section, Heidi Darroch's review in the National Post is cited, anonymously, in support of this claim: "Reviewers praised Niffenegger's characterization of Henry and Clare, particularly their emotional depth." But then she is quoted by name in this passage: "While Griffin praised the plot and concept as 'clever', she complained that Niffenegger's writing is usually 'pedestrian' and the story at times contrived. Heidi Darroch of the National Post agreed, contending that the story has an excess of overwrought emotional moments 'which never quite add up to a fully developed plot.'" Should she really be cited in support of the first claim? It strikes me that she should not and that the claim should be tempered (e.g., "Some reviewers...").
  • She is cited as an example. We can add more cites (but this is really unnecessary, IMO). We can say "some reviewers", but this seems to emphasize a small number and a lot of reviewers emphasized this point - that was a unifying point among the reviews. I would prefer something such as "many" or "most".Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • What concerns me here is the apparent contradiction. How can Darroch be cited as an example of reviewers who praised the "emotional depth" of Henry and Clare when she is characterized as "contending that the story has an excess of overwrought emotional moments"? I suppose its not impossible for one person to hold such apparently contradictory opinions, but it seems highly implausible.—DCGeist (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I can send you the source over email. I think it does support both of these statements. (I've sent you an email through your userpage. If you respond, I can send you the attachment.) Awadewit (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • OK. Having read it, while I might have chosen a different set of words, I agree that your position and phrasing are completely defensible. However, the review does point up another issue—apparently the comparison between Clare and Penelope wasn't originally made by a critic (as the caption in the article's image currently suggests), but is introduced in the novel itself. Through the good services of Amazon Look Inside! I found the reference. Page 284: "Every day I work, but nothing ever materializes. I feel like Penelope, weaving and unweaving." Either the caption should be recast, or the original source of the comparison should be introduced in the running text.—DCGeist (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
          • • How about adding a footnote with the novel's reference, although I think this whole endeavor is bordering on OR. This is not the only moment in the novel which is a reference to Penelope. It is just an explicit one that can be found with a keyword search. We don't know which moment in the novel the reviewers were thinking of. Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
              • The point is not necessarily to cite that specific reference, but to properly address the fact that the comparison with Penelope did not originate with critics, but is part of the novel's content itself. A footnote does not adequately address the matter. The text of the article currently suggests that the Penelope comparison originated with critics, which is incorrect. We need to have something along the lines of this: "Clare compares herself to Penelope, waiting for her Odysseus, a kinship reiterated by several reviewers."—DCGeist (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                • Ah. Since the text was in the passive and had no agent, I didn't think it really suggested that the critics originated the comparison - I thought the reference did. That's why I suggested the additional reference, but we could also change the caption. How about "Clare compares herself to Penelope, waiting for Odysseus, a literary allusion highlighted by several reviewers." Awadewit (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • That's great. I made the change...highlighting another issue. With the brevity of the Genre section and the now slightly longer caption, it strikes me that the Penelope image on the left almost invariably squeezes the following Themes header out of left alignment, whatever the user's browser window configuration and image preferences. (This had struck me even before the editing of the caption.) I've restaggered the images to address this. (I do, in general, prefer the right-left-right arrangement you had, but the slight loss in attractiveness of the left-right-left is better than displacing the section header.) See what you think.—DCGeist (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                    • There is no really great image placement scheme for this article. This if fine. Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• In another passage that, again, I lightly ce'd, but retained the original meaning, I again find the original meaning a bit dubious. It is claimed that the Library Journal's description of the novel—"skillfully written with a blend of distinct characters and heartfelt emotions"—is "[r]epresentative of the bulk of reviews". (The original phrasing, before my ce, was "Like the bulk of reviews".) Are we so sure that it is? I would simply eliminate the claim.—DCGeist (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• After having read so many of the reviews, I can say that it is. Such phrases help the reader out and connect together an otherwise disparate paragraph. It is difficult to write these paragraphs, since there are no "meta-reviews". :) Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful reading. I've interspersed my responses. Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not comfortable with citing only one reviewer to support a claim such as this: "Several reviewers compared Henry to Billy Pilgrim of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five (1969)." "Several" is an indefinite number greater than two—I'd say two references at a minimum are necessary to support the claim. Three, of course, would remove all doubt. The lack of sourcing is more tolerable but still not ideal for a general claim such as this: "Several reviewers noted that time travel represents relationships in which couples cannot quite communicate with each other." Only one apparent example—Natasha Walter—is provided. No one else need be quoted, but the sentence should be followed with a citation referencing one or more additional reviewers. (This issue applies to the Penelope discussion, as well.)—DCGeist (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is tending towards overcitation, I think. Note that none of these claims is even remotely controversial, yet they still have citations (above and beyond what is required by WP:V). I don't think we need to start adding multiple citations (this isn't intelligent design!). Awadewit (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree, especially about the very specific claim that "several reviewers compared Henry to Billy Pilgrim of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five (1969)." There is evidence that just one reviewer made this very specific comparison, while the language of the article claims three or more. The claim is thus subject to serious challenge. Either the language needs to be changed or the citation expanded.—DCGeist (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How do others feel about this? I have rarely seen this kind of citation requirement asked for, except at extremely controversial articles, where each and every claim is disputed. Considering, again, that such comparisons are obvious to readers of both books (the reviewers did not have to be particularly astute), I'm not sure we need three citations just to demonstrate the "several" point. Awadewit (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with DCGeist that we could err on the side of caution here. But it depends on what specifically the source says (since it's behind a paywall I can't tell). Does the source specifically say that others have made this comparison, or is it just one example of a person making the comparison?

Even if it's the latter, we could circumvent this discussion by changing the sentence to say "Henry has been compared to Billy Pilgrim of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five (1969)". It might also be a bit weasely, but then there's no concern about verifiability/factuality/truthiness. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm even close to a hardliner in terms of disputing "each and every claim". However, I do believe that if we claim that "several" people have made a specific observation, we are obligated to evidence (at least) that more than one person has made that observation. (The presumed obviousness or lack thereof of the observation is completely irrelevant.) Why? Because, if we can only evidence that one (WP:V worthy!) person has made the observation, there is no problem whatsoever in saying just that. And if we can indeed evidence that more than person has made the observation, it is both absolutely practical and quite desirable to do so. If additional sources for the comparison cannot—or will not—be adduced, rʨanaɢ has offered an elegant solution, which I endorse. I am ready to support the article's promotion if it is applied, or—of course—if additional sourcing is provided to support the claim of "several."—DCGeist (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence to Rjanag's suggested rewording. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support (caveat: I was one of the editors who did the PR for this article last month). Well-researched and well-written article, very informative. The only thing that still bugs me is that we never found out which publisher outbid MacAdam/Cage, but it seems that none of the sources say that so our hands are tied, and it's a pretty minor thing anyway. (caveat II: my girlfriend loves this book, and I haven't read it yet, so I paid extra-close attention when reading the article.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I heard a rumor that the film is changing the ending. More than likely it will be happy. Hollywood. Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Lean Support after a cursory read through, I did not notice any problems. I intended to read it when I have some more time and see if anything needs to be fixed. In essence, there was nothing major that drew my attention and anything that would be a problem would most likely be insignificant or minor. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I've asked DCGeist to revisit. Awadewit (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Every concern I raised has been addressed. This is a fine article, giving a well-rounded, balanced look at an enormously popular novel.—DCGeist (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

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 23:40, 11 July 2009 [64].

---

Tropical Storm Hermine (1998)

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't quite think of a clever nomination statement, but I'll just say this: if you didn't know that Tropical Storm Hermine was the eighth tropical cyclone of the 1998 Atlantic hurricane season, you need to read this article! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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. (I noticed USA Today, but there may be others)
• Please spell out abbreviations in the references. I noted NOAA and USGS

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly, my life was a dull and dreary place before I learned that Hermine was the eighth tropic cyclone of the hurricane season (Hermine? what kind of name is that?)
  • Images: check out, all free and such. (yawn)
  • Sources: Shoot me an email, I have a handful of stuff I found of LexisNexis that may or may not be useful for some minor additions (conflicting sources on highest winds, some comments about market impact, some more impact tidbits.)
  • More when I feel like it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support looks up to stuff for me. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support the additions have done a lot for the article. I believe it meets comprehensiveness, image, ref, and style criterion (I will run through and do my best to correct any flaws I can see in regards to prose). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've copyedited the length of the article, mostly cleaning up commas and excising some redundancy. I also left some inline comments about certain areas where it was unclear to me, a storm neophyte (diff). One question: not really due to WP:BLP concerns, since the man is dead, but out of privacy should we excise the name of the shrimper who was killed? It's not like he's notable for anything else or his name is essential to the article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done, and addressed the inline queries. Thanks for the copyedit and support! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments It's pretty good. Could use some fit and finish, particularly in the following areas:
  • I've noticed this in other tropical storm articles, but why the propensity for using phrases like "towards the south" instead of the simpler "southward"? I suggest this make its way into your WikiProject style guide, if you have one.
  • Likewise, phrases like "to the northeast of the center" and "to the east of the center" can lose "to the" without changing the meaning.
  • "Initially, it was believed that Hermine's remnants contributed to the development of Hurricane Karl; however, this was not confirmed." I'm more curious than anything else, but how did you extract this information from the source given? I don't see Karl mentioned in this bulletin. Also, change to "this belief was not confirmed" to avoid the ambiguity.
    • Tropical Depression 11 was the precursor to Karl. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "On Grand Isle, a mandatory evacuation order was declared ..." Which Grand Isle are you referring to? You're linking to a disambig page. If it's the same one as earlier in the para, remove the link.
  • There's some overlinking present. Please don't link place names such as New Orleans multiple times. Also.. "oxygen", "mosquito", maybe others.
  • "said that the storm 'obviously...played a part' in the man's death" MoS problem.. check WP:ELLIPSES.

--Laser brain (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the review! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The inro. conflicts with the final section. The intro says otherwise, the effects from Hermine were minor., But the final section tells me that the effect of Hermine was to compound the problems caused by Frances and other storms and that the combined effect was disastrous to a loss of millions of dollars to farmers. This fact needs to be reflected in the first paragraph in a statement such as "While hermine was not of itself a severe and damaging storm, the effects combined with thos of other storms that season....etc" Amandajm (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Wow, 28 days and the FAC is not closed yet. Well anyway, to me, it meets all criteria. Great Article to read. Darren23 (Contribs) 22:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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 23:40, 11 July 2009 [65].

---

Albert Kesselring

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe that it is an important military history article, about one of the most famous field marshals of World War II. It has passed Good Article and A-class article reviews. An Australian-German-Italian collaborative effort. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is a very interesting and comprehensive article which meets the FA criteria. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 153 (Royal Warrante of ...) needs a publisher
  • Done.
• What makes Bitner, Teddy Kesselring at Anzio a reliable source? Lulu Press is a self-publishing company.
  • It is not used as a source... Bitner added it to the bibliography himself a couple of days ago. I have removed it.
• Plochner ref needs a publisher listed.
  • Done.
• A note for other reviewers, note that Kesselring's memoirs are used as a source (not very extensively, mind you) so that should be watched out for. (From a glance at the number of times referenced, I'm not thinking it's gong to be a problem, but best to point this out now.)
  • They are mainly used for biographical details. There is the occasional reference to personal reactions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I wasnt' particularly worried, but better to point it out for others ... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support–I performed the GAR on this biography and all pertinent issues were addressed. Apart from possibly a handful of serial commas (which I leave for the grammar experts to review), it remains in fine condition. Thus I support this page for FA promotion.—RJH (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concern needs clarification:

• File:KesselringDetentionReport.jpg: are we certain the detention reports are handled by the US forces? If the Museums' Reports are on courtesy loan from the UK archives, it would then fall under Crown Copyright, which expires in 1996, just nicely complying with the URAA. Of course, the reports could be jointly done by US and British forces. The document is in public domain, US or not, but we must make sure the license is correct.
  • Kesselring was a prisoner of and processed by the Americans. There was no joint processing of prisoners. He was later formally handed over to the British. The form is an American one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

All other images are verifiably in the public domain or free for use. Jappalang (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you crop the images used the article to rid of the German archive side panel? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Kesselring was one of the most frequently listed German soldiers in the Wehrmachtbericht, an honour that was not bestowed frequently. I have the Wehrmachtbericht in front of me and he is listed 13 times surpassing even Werner Mölders. I think this needs to be added somewhere to the article. Secondly, I would like to see the footnotes separated from the citations. I gladly address both the topic if you find this valuable to the article. Kesselring also received numerous other awards like the "Order of the Crown of Italy", why doesn't the article mention any of those? Personally I would expect that a GA article lists all of them. my 2 cents MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Another comment, all German nouns must be capitalized. There is one instance of Generalmajor in lower case.MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This looks to be generally OK, but I have a few comments:

• The prose is rather staccato in places, with quite a few sentences beginning "He did ... He was ... He qualified ... He helped ..." very close together. Doesn't really make the prose flow as well as it could.

• "From Early life: "The regiment was based at Metz, and was responsible for maintaining its forts." Err, yes, so what?
  • FWIW, I don't see the prob with this - not fascinating info but at least we know something they did... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• From Between the wars: "As chief of administration, he had to create his new staff from scratch". He created his staff?
  • Yes he did... so? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Heh, I'm guessing the point is that some could read this as creating the staff members, Frankenstein-like. No prob for the initiated but might look odd to others... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, okay. I changed it to "assemble". Thanks for that one Igor Ian Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• From Between the wars: "Like many ex-Army officers, he tended to see air power in the tactical role". The tactical role?
  • Yes... so? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• From World War II: ".. considered himself under Bock's orders" doesn't sound right. Perhaps something like "deferred to Bock in all matters relating to the ground war"?
  • No, that doesn't mean the same thing at all! Obviously, the air component commander will have to defer to the ground component commander in ground matters. What it is saying here is that when the ground component commander wanted something done, the air component commander (Kesselring) did what he was told. Not told him that he was not under his command. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Several instances of the awkward use of "would", such as in "Air and ground operations, however, were to commence simultaneously, so there would be no time to suppress the defending Royal Netherlands Air Force". "Suppress" also seems a little unidiomatic here, might something like "overcome" be better?
  • "Suppress is a technical term. It means to reducing the ability to attack or defend itself. It falls short of neutralisation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Although earmarked for operations against the Soviet Union, Luftflotte 2 remained in the west until May 1941." "Arriving in the West, Kesselring found Luftflotte 2 operating in support of von Bock's Army Group B." So which is it to be? "West" or "west"?
  • Changed to lower case Hawkeye7 (talk)

These are of course just a few examples of the kind of tidying up I think still remains to be done to this article.

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• The link to "Officer cadet": it goes through the anglophone countries in detail, but not a mention of Germany, let alone Nazi Germany. Is it misleading? And it's linked again to the same place 20 seconds later (and I'd rather have the German word first time—is it done to link to the German WP article on fahnenjunker instead?) Is a piped section-link possible instead to the article on "Germany Army" or "History of the G A"? In any case, why the A for "army", especially when in isolation ("remained in the Army")?
  • A good rule of thumb is the capital letter is required when "the" is used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A better idea would be to upgrade the officer cadet article to include details about Germany; or write a new article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• A wasteful link to "World War I": this is surely linked from the "Western" and "Eastern" fronts articles: WWI is just too vague to be useful, especially when specific related links are within half a second's read. I see "Western front" linked again in the lead. The text is on the high side of link-density, so opportunities for focussing the readers on the high-value links should be taken, if there are any. In fact, rationalising would pay for a slight expansion of blue for "Poland" (and by implication the succeeding link to "France"): pipe "invasion of Poland", and the reader will be more likely to click. (You've done this already for North Africa—good.) Linking is almost as skill-bound as writing prose!
• I'm trying to think how to make this sentence less clunky: "Albert Kesselring was born in Marktsteft, Bavaria, on 30 November 1885,[Notes 2] the son of Carl Adolf Kesselring, a schoolmaster and town councillor, and his wife Rosina,[3] who was born a Kesselring, being Carl's second cousin.[1] "
  • It could be split in two... I use this form for every biography. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Why is "honeymooned" linked? "Apocathery" I can just cope with as a link.
  • Apocathery was linked because I had to look it up! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Italy"—I'd remove that link. There are so many high-value ones already, and the article on Italy is rather vague in relation to this topic.
• "He was also involved in secret military manoeuvres"—Better without "also"?
• Unhappy about linking "Colonel", an article that deals with the term in so many countries, but not Germany (although oddly there's an icon in the gallery there). Does it, did it, mean the same thing as in an anglophone army? Again, is it acceptable to link to the German WP, or to remove the link from the main text and insert in "See also"?
  • Yes. Oberst means "Colonel" in both the sense of the rank and the position (ie "honorary colonel" in the British Army). So the translation is a very good one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You can't link to a foreign-language WP. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to apply WP:Bold here and change all instances of lieutenant colonel and above to the german corresponding rank. I previously changed all field marshal ranks in German field marshals articles to generalfeldmarschall Gsmgm (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Good! I'm quite happy with that. There was a bit of debate earlier as to whether using German would make the article harder for the general reade to follow. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Was 6000 RM a lot of money?
  • Yes. The linked article on Rieichmarks says (without source) that there were 4.2 RM to the US dollar = USD $1,400. This online calculator says that was worth between USD $18,000 and $22,000 today. However, many other generals got much, much more: Milch, von Rundstedt and von Kluge each got RM 250,000; von Kleist received RM 480,000; and Keitel asked for and received a tract of confiscated land worth RM 730,000. Added a note to this effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the rest, but this suggests that a link audit and prose polish are desirable. It's still much better than the German WP equivalent: just out of interest, was it useful in the preparation of this nomination? Tony (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Originally the article contained a section translated from the German wiki which was based on a review of von Lingen's book. From there I found the German edition of her book. I contacted von Lingen and she told me that an English translation was in the works, so I waited until it was available, then replaced the footnotes with ones referring to the English edition. In the editing process, the original section was subsumed into the text.Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Gave it the tick at MILHIST ACR, believe it deserves the bronze star as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I believe that this article is well written, well cited and illustrated and meets the FA criteria. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - On the whole, this is a very well-written article. I just saw a one minor thing as I was scanning through the article and realized it was currently at FAC.
  • "Kesselring's evacuation of Sicily, which began a week earlier on 10 August, was perhaps the most brilliant action of the campaign. In spite of the Allies' superiority on land, at sea, and in the air, Kesselring was able to evacuate not only 40,000 men, but also 96,605 vehicles, 94 guns, 47 tanks, 1,100 tons of ammunition, 970 tons of fuel, and 15,000 tons of stores. He was successful because he was able to achieve near-perfect coordination between the three services under his command while his opponent, Eisenhower, could not." – The phrase "he was successful because" seems a bit unnecessary; is there any way that you could eliminate that?
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't support this yet. The intro is not clear enough. It is perfectly clear to anyone who understands the history of the Wars, but it is not, to someone that doesn't.

It states that he was in WWII, in the first paragraph. Then talks about enlisting and WWI in the second parag. Then it talks about his role in 1936, but says he resigned.

Then suddenly he is invading Poland etc. There needs to be a clear statement that this invasion took place in WWII, and it needs a date. It needs to be clear that the events of this paragraph are events in the war that is discussed in paragraph one. This may seem obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to high school kids.

Amandajm (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• How about now? It says: "During World War II he commanded air forces in the invasions of Poland and France..." This should make it clear enough. Some dates have also been added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ha! Ha! I do like those changes, Hawkeye7! I made them myself. Thanks for tidying-up. Amandajm (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well done! A fine example of WP:Bold! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Amandajm (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Has Malleus been asked to revisit and see if his concerns have been addressed? Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall ask. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)\

• See below. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The images should all have alt text, as per WP:ALT and WP:FACR #3. I added alt text to the lead image, as an example. The remaining images still lack alt text. Eubulides (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Fixed; thanks. Eubulides (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this has improved sufficiently for me to withdraw my oppose, but I still see problems with the prose, although not serious enough to persuade me to maintain my opposition. For instance:

• "He attempted to cut the Polish communications through air attacks against Warsaw ...". So the Polish were communicating through air attacks against Warsaw?
  • This interpretation had never occurred to me. Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Like other generals of Nazi Germany, he received personal payments from Adolf Hitler; in Kesselring's case, RM 6,000, a considerable sub at the time." Should that really be sub?
  • Corrected to "sum". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The bad weather that hampered ground operations from October on hampered air operations even more." Awkward repetion of "hampered".
  • Changed second one to "impeded". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• "... taking personal command of the mobile units which he led around the southern flank ...". Should be "that he led around".
  • No, I wanted to say that he took all the mobile units, not just ones that he led around the southern flank. Re-phased. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [66].

---

Bedřich Smetana

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside the Czech Republic, Smetana is thought of as a minor composer; in his homeland he is regarded as a giant. His life's struggles are reflected in the troubled visage that watches us from the pages of the article. Fascinating music, fascinating man; I hope I've done him justice. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: Remarkably good, given the huge number of images. I was hoping (well, not really hoping) to trip you up with File:Göteborg.jpg, on the basis that the copyright status of the statue isn't addressed on the page, but Sweden's freedom of panorama laws seem to make this unnecessary. The only issue that I could actually find was with File:Praha Barricades 1848.jpg, which claims to be in the public domain on the basis that the author has been dead for at least 70 years, but which does not seem to include any author information. In any event, it was published before 1923, so it's in the public domain in the United States on that basis; might you consider either changing the tag or recording author information? Mind you, the 1848 publication date makes it virtually certain that the author has been deceased for at least 70 years. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1848 date is the basis for the assertion that the author has been dead for at least 70 years. If it was from 1880 onwards, the 70 year pma might come into dispute, but publishing in 1840s is a certainty for PD by age. Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's reasonable. Do we have that 1880 rule codified somewhere (or is that in "real" law, instead of Wikipedia policy?)? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify: "1880" is not a rule or law. It is a general "guideline" (more of common sense), inspired from somewhere in one of the Commons talk pages. Basically the assumption is that a 20-year old created the work at the date of creation and he died at the age of 70—an allowance of 120 years since creation is likely enough for such a young creator to have passed away more than 70 years ago. A stricter allowance is 140 years (which I tend to follow in my search for images); hence, any image created earlier than 1860–70 could qualify for PD-Old, anything later than that would deserve some investigation. Jappalang (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Image comment - Images look good, file:Praha_Barricades_1848.jpg contains a lot of detail in a very small space, and none of it is clear as displayed, it may be better to choose a single frame, as a single image Fasach Nua (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If a single panel is used, the lower right corner appears to be on the Charles Bridge, where Smetana was during 1848. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have switched to the Charles Bridge panel; thanks to both of you for the suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(in Czech) added appropriately. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. This was already a fine article when I read it for peer review. Since then it has become even better, with many small gaps in knowledge filled and the writing improved still further. This article offeres a very full portrait of Smetana as both artist and person, highlighting much about his importance that I had not known beforehand while remaining very reader-friendly overall as a document. One point: this a long article but needs to be to include everything covered here, since Smetana lived such a rich life and did as much for his country as he did; however, the article reads much shorter than it actually is because it has been paced extraordinarily well, and I do not know how it could be shortened without doing harm to it. Overall, this is an excellent job and does represent the finest Wikipedia has to offer—well done. Jonyungk (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for those comments and for your help during the PR process. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Support I also peer reviewed this and found one of the images on Flickr (and cropped it to the version used here). I think this fully meets all of the FA criteria and is an interesting and informative read too. Is there any sort of convention on how to name musical works? My only quibble is that some works use the Czech name with English translation following (i.e. Ma Vlast), others only the English translation (i.e. Triumphal symphony, The Bartered Bride). My guess is that the most common name in English is used in each case. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support. I have indeed used the names by which the compositions are best-known in the English-speaking world. This includes Ma vlast, which is never to my knowledge performed as "My Fatherland"; I included the translation to give its meaning, not to indicate a title in use. There is a link to a list of Smetana's compositions, and this gives Czech titles for each work. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Works for me - thanks for explaining that, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comments Is there a relevant infobox that could be included? Also, I'm not sure if this is required or not for FAC, but could {{Persondata}} be added? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Usually infoboxes are not recommended for classical composers. Jonyungk (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article follows the practice adopted on all the major classical composer biographies - see those for Bach, Beethoven, Handel, Mozart, Tchaikowsky, Wagner etc. There is no FAC requirement for infoboxes. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why classical composers are the exception to all other biographies (from what I've seen) for not requiring an infobox? I'm just curious as to why one type of group doesn't need an infobox when the vast majority of biographies do. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is zero requirement in the MOS (or FAC) for an infobox. Joseph Priestley and John Knox are non-composer biography FAs without infoboxes, for example. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For further clarification, see WP:Wikiproject Composers: "Current consensus among project participants holds that the use of currently-available biographical infoboxes is often counterproductive on composer biographies. They should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page. This position is in line with that reached by the participants at the Classical Music Project and the Opera Project." I suggest that further discussion of this topic be taken there. Brianboulton (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just curious, thanks for the clarification. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: it would be bad form if I did not support after subjecting Brian through much hassles at the peer review. He has admirably resolved many concerns and polished the article from this to its current state, keeping in mind every criteria a Featured Article is supposed to be. I believe the article deserves the bronze star. Jappalang (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. For the record, your so-called "hassles were part of an exemplary peer review, and if this article is eventually promoted, much of the credit should go to you. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Support: It was a great surprise when I saw Smetana as a FAC. I fixed the spelling of few Czech names and I think it meets the criteria. Before I support, I would like one issue to be fixed: The "naming" of Smetana's ancestry. "Bohemia" is a region in today's Czech Republic and at the time of Smetana's life (before the official formation of Czech Rep.), it was part of the Czech lands (the historical name of Czech Republic - the same territory). This could be compared to Bavaria (or any other region) in Germany - Bavaria existed in its form even before Germany itself was formed. The article uses frequently the word "Czech" (in association with the culture etc.), says that Smetana was "Bohemian", but does not explain the relation. "Bohemia(n)" is mentioned only in the lead and in the first paragraph of the first section. I think that it is a bit confusing and therefore should be fixed. There are two possibilities:

• In the lead section and in the "Family background and childhood" section, we add "(today's Czech Republic)" behind the "Bohemia(n)", or
• We change the first sentence to "Bedřich Smetana was a Czech composer...". A reason for this possibility is that Bohemia was a region in the actual Czech lands. For example Goethe was born in the region Hesse, but is still called a German polymath. He was born in Holy Roman Empire and died in German Confederation (Deutscher Bund), a loose league of 39 sovereign states. The second reason is that the nationalities of today's states are usually used for historical persons (even if the name of the region was different). Examples are even Renaissance Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci, who lived in Roman Empire, but are called Italian. On the top of this, in the Czech language, there is no difference between (/only one word for both) "Bohemian" and "Czech".--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope the surprise at finding Smetana at FAC was a pleasant one. Thank you for correcting several Czech spellings; some of these errors were my own carelessness, others were due to some inconsistencies in the English language sources. On your point about Bohemian/Czech, I have adopted the second of your suggestions above - does this satisfy? Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The article seems to be solid now.

...Of course it was a pleasant surprise! The article is excellent. Enjoyable to read, informative, balanced and neutral.

Although compared to, lets say Beethoven's symphony no.9, Smetana's works may seem a bit "subtle", I really enjoy some of them :) Cheers--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [67].

---

Matthew Boulton

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... this is an article I'm bringing along quickly in the hopes of having it be TFA for the celebrations of Boulton on the 200th anniversary of his death, and I think it meets the criteria, based on my experience. I am nomming it quickly (not my usual practice) in the hopes of having time to regroup if there's a problem. However, I think it meets the criteria and should pass once I vacuum up all the sawdust!Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• File:Anglesey 1790 Rev 400 (1).jpg - This needs to go through OTRS. Chris Leather's letter needs to be sent to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org and a ticket number established for the image, etc.

• File:Cartwheelrev.jpg - This needs to go through OTRS. Chris Leather's letter needs to be sent to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org and a ticket number established for the image, etc.

• File:Swordvanda.jpg - I don't see any evidence for this being released under GFDL or CC on the V&A website. Since this is a 3D object, the copyright is owned by the photographer.

Hopefully these can be resolved soon. I look forward to reading the article! Awadewit (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Chris sent the letter yesterday. How does the ticket get established? I will delete the sword image, we can make do without it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he sent it to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org. That is what it said to do in the instructions, which we followed to the letter ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added the "OTRS pending" tag. OTRS sets up the ticket number. All should be set in motion now. We just wait. Awadewit (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How long does it usually take? And how do we know when OTRS sets up the ticket number? And I imagine we can proceed with the FAC otherwise in the interim?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Around a week or so. Or you could find a nice OTRS volunteer who will jump the queue for you. The number will appear on the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do they take credit cards?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Cash only. Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User:Cirt to look at it. He's got so much experience doing FAC's, I'm hoping he'll give me a trade discount.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Another volunteer took care of it, so the photo issues should be resolved. Note that I added a photo to the article and asked your opinion on another, details on your talk page, Awadewit, and then added another one, File:Wilkinsontoken.jpg, which is OTRS pending. Since it is a "twofer", both a Boulton work and shows someone discussed in the article, it's worth the delay. My thanks to Chris Leather of sohomint.info for his images and his careful reading of what I wrote about Boulton's mint and its works to make sure they are accurate (general sources tend to make technical mistakes as we all know)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at my talk page. Awadewit (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The OTRS issues are now resolved for all three images, and I've asked Awadewit to strike the oppose, which I'm sure she will, at least on image grounds.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Basically good. However, I did spot (and correct) a couple of silly copy-editing errors, which makes me wonder if there aren't some more that I missed. The science is accurate, and in the correct proportion for the length and subject of the article: non-specialist readers might appreciate a few more glosses and wikilinks. I can't see a reason to oppose, but I'd like more eyes on the article before I can fully support. Physchim62 (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support after passage of the vacuum cleaner(s). Physchim62 (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Mattisse if she is willing to copyedit, and also requested help from the Wikiprojects. You are correct, I did misspell "or moulu" as "or muolo", and I apologize. But otherwise I think the many eyes that will look this article over during the FAC will be sufficient to the day. C'est l'vie.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I've gone through it with a spell-checker and made some minor corrections. Is "inspring" in the block quote at the end of this section a sic, or should it be "inspiring"? I'll look through the rest later before supporting, but think this woiuld make a good TFA for August. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it is my typo. My bad. I corrected it. By the way, Mattisse has copyedited quite a bit now. I think most of the sawdust is gone now.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - the lead scetion has "Boulton expanded the business" twice in successive sentences. Can this be re-written in some way? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Much improved. Still haven't got through it in full detail, but Support on what I've seen so far. Incidentally, if you need any photos taken in the Birmingham area to help improve this article, let me know. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I am naturally pleased to see an article about Boulton. I haven't read it properly, yet, but I stumbled over the second paragraph of the lead. I like reading my name, but...six repeats in close proximity is a bit of an overdose. In fact, I thought this whole paragraph could be written more smoothly, cutting the repeats and avoiding the slightly awkward reference to "the manufacturer". Would you consider this, as an alternative:-

Boulton was born in 1728, the son of a Birmingham manufacturer of small metal products who died when Boulton was 31. By then the younger Boulton had managed the business for several years, and had expanded it considerably, consolidating operations at the Soho Manufactory, which he built near Birmingham. At Soho, Boulton adopted the latest techniques, branching into silver plate, ormolu and other decorative arts. He became associated with James Watt when Watt's business partner, John Roebuck, was unable pay a debt to Boulton, who accepted Roebuck's share of Watt's patent as settlement. He then successfully lobbied Parliament to extend Watt's patent for an additional seventeen years, which enabled the firm to develop the steam engine, hundreds of which were installed in Britain and abroad.

Am reading on and will comment further. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll insert that. I figured you'd be interested but feared letting you know might be considered canvassing and figured you'd find it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Agree with Brianboulton that use of "the manufacturer" for Boulton is a "slightly awkward reference". I think I spied its use elsewhere and suggest replacing it.

• Also suggest rewording of too many "which"s eg "which enabled the firm to develop the steam engine, hundreds of which were installed in Britain and abroad."

—Mattisse (Talk) 12:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll look at the which's (Eastwick?). As for the manufacturer, if I simply call him "Boulton" all the time, I'll get a complaint about the monotony. Any ideas for an alternate term besides "manufacturer"?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not specifically. Just skillful use of wording, such as Brianboulton used in his sample paragraph above. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. The article no longer uses "manufacturer" in the place of the word "Boulton". From now on, I'm sticking to people whose professions are at most two syllables, and whose towns of residence make for easy adjectives, unlike this Brummy. I got rid of about half the "which"'s by the way, not including those in quotes. I think the remaining ones are the best usages.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Further comments: I have ploughed on to the end of the "Expansion of the business" section and have found numerous prose glitches, none of them in themselves particularly serious but all needing attention or consideration – and there are rather a lot of them.

• Background
  • Suggest an appropriste link on "coke", to distinguish the fuel from illegal substances or fizzy drinks.
  • Some brief description of the role of "Chancellor of Lichfield" would be useful.
• Early and family life
  • "The elder Boulton's business continued to prosper after young Matthew's birth,..." We have not established that it was prospering previously. Suggest: "The elder Boulton's business prospered after young Matthew's birth,..."
  • "...on the other side of the city from Snow Hill." Last three words redundant.
  • A bit of information missing? He left school at 15 and at 17 invented an inlaying technique. So, where did he get the technical know-how to do this? Did he go to work in his father's workshops? Was he trained by his father, was he self-taught? Was this the first inkling of inventiveness on his part? It could be an interesting part of the story.
  • "Though his son signed business letters "from father and self", he was effectively running the business by the mid-1750s;" I would suggest a slight rewording and reordering: "Though the son signed business letters "from father and self", by the mid-1750s he was effectively running the business;"
• Expansion of the business
  • The thumbnail image is so small as to lose most of its presentational value. I think that this is a case where it would be OK to force to a size consistent with most other images in the article.
  • "came into full control" - save words, use active voice: "...assumed full control..."
  • "He spent much of his time travelling and away in London to promote his wares." Doesn't read smoothly. My suggestion: "He spent much of his time in London and elsewhere, promoting his wares." or: "He spent much of his time promoting his wares in London and elsewhere."
  • More awkwardness: "He arranged to have a friend present Prince Edward with a sword." This form of words leads to an "a sword. The sword..." combination which is avoidable. "He arranged for a friend to present a sword to Prince Edward. This sword..."
  • It will not be known by everyone, especially non-Brits, that George, Prince of Wales was the future King George III. All I can suggest, and it's a bit clumsy, I know, is: "The sword so interested the Prince's older brother, George, Prince of Wales (later King George III) that the future king ordered one for himself."
  • I have divided the first paragraph at the change of topic "With capital accumulated..."
  • "From 1766 until his 1809 death, Matthew Boulton lived at Soho House; in 1783, his wife Anne was stricken suddenly with an apparent stroke and died there." The first part of the sentence has over-repetition from the previous sentence. The second part has "stricken ... with a stroke" How about: "Matthew Boulton lived there until his death in 1809; in 1783 his wife Anne suffered a sudden stroke and died there."
  • "13 acres" and "thirteen acres" both used. Consistency is required.
  • Non-breaking spaces required (13 acres, 19 wide bays, etc – probably others through the article).
  • "The manufactory was advanced for its time and came with a large price tag." This whole sentence seems unnecessary. The previous sentence has told us that the manufactory was advanced, and the following sentence tells us the size of the price tag.
  • "The total costs were not equal to the partners' means" I think it's the other way round - the partners' means were not equal to the total cost.
  • "He wrote in 1771..." Need to clarify that "he" was Boulton (long time since last mention)
  • "...in 1780, he would have nearly a half million silver items hallmarked." Should this be "by 1780", or was half-a-million the year's total?
  • I think this sentence needs to be redrafted to make it more comprehensible to the ordinary reader: "The silver business proved not to be profitable due to the opportunity cost of keeping capital tied up in the inventory." Thus: "The silver business proved to be unprofitable, due to the extent of capital tied up in slow-moving stock." (or some such)
  • "entrusted ... trusted" - avoidable repetition (consigned, made over, etc instead of "entrusted"?)
  • Next line: "sell items ... sell items" - rephrase to avoid repetition.
  • Use of the noun "quality" to describe the nobility is a little archaic, and could be misunderstood. Suggest use an alternative term
  • "...the Empress described them..." "Them" is inappropriate here, since in this sentence you are referring to "it", namely the unsold stock. Thus it should be "...the Empress described the vases..."
  • "poor or orphaned boys who he felt he could train..." "Who" or "whom"? God knows.
  • "to mechanically reproduce" - split infinitives are frowned on in Brit Eng; in this instance we would probably say "in the mechanical reproduction of..." I'll leave that one for you.

Would it help if, instead of continuing to go through the article in this way, I copyedited the rest of it? That would I am sure produce a much shorter list of points, and would probably save a lot of time. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free For quality, perhaps "upper class"? I've implemented your proposed changes, though I changed some of the wording. Thanks for the help! --Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Further comment: I have copyedited up to the "Later life, death and memorials" section, and I think the prose is improved, but perhaps others should judge that. The first paragraph of the "Later life..." section I find a bit confusing, what with retirements, semi-retirements, and sons with the same names as their fathers. I have redrafted it (see below). Do you agree this wording is clearer (refs not included)?

With the expiry of the patent in 1800, both Boulton and Watt retired from the partnership, turning over their roles to their respective sons. The younger Boulton and Watt pairing made changes, quickly ending public tours of the Soho Manufactory in which the elder Boulton had taken pride throughout his time in Soho. In retirement, Matthew Boulton remained active, continuing to run the Soho Mint; when a new Royal Mint was built on Tower Hill in 1805, Boulton was awarded the contract to equip it with modern machinery, despite his increasing age and infirmity. His level activity distress his former partner Watt, who had entirely retired from Soho, and who had written to Boulton in 1804, "[Y]our friends fear much that your necessary attention to the operation of the coinage may injure your health".

Other than this, I think the article is looking solid. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented that suggestion, somewhat modified because the language about the sons is rather clunky. Fortuitously, it was Watt's only surviving son as well, and thus shorter language is possible without ambiguity or confusion. I assume "level activity distress" is a typo and not a Britishism I'm unfamiliar with, I rephrased that, and also changed "had written" to "wrote", since all these things are really happening more or less simultaneously. If it looks solid, between you, Mattisse, and Amandajm, I think all the sawdust is gone and this article is in excellent condition, and I'm hoping to pick up some support votes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Support: OK, you've got mine. Boulton for the main page! Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Chancellor of Lichfield: I've piped to Chancellor (ecclesiastical)
• Enamel buckles: Both Uglow and Smiles tell the same story, without explanation. Real solid information about Boulton premarriage seems to be a bit thin on the ground. Smiles says that Boulton left school early to go into his father's business. Honestly, I have no doubt that his father took his only surviving son into the workshops from toddler age, and that the kid got few options in the career choice area!
• Silver production: Deleted. It looks like Uglow was combining figures for silver, and for Sheffield plate. It did seem rather high for a business he was losing interest in...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've just had a little go at the first paragraph, to summarise the considerable importance of this key figure of the Industrial Revolution, a term which needed to be mentioned, but wasn't. I hope that it meets with your approval. Amandajm (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite good, I made a slight change, I said "began the transformation" of British industry to fit with the discussion in the Lunar Society section and the quote from Uglow.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the current state of the first paragraph is a good summary. Amandajm (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch, totally overlooked that. I just struck that ref, there is no need for a cite for Boulton's date of death for the lede (it is cited later in the article, though).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wedgwood association. I've just added a couple of sentences. These little steel mounts that he made were one of the most enduring products, and are signiificant in showing a successful commercial link between two important companies. Can you please determine whether I have put the info where you want it? It was a bit difficult but I thought that it linked well to the idea of producing goods for the "not so rich" (like Sheffield plate, before the intro to the next section about the wealthy market. Amandajm (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I think those would have been OK there were it not for the fact that it's a very long paragraph, so I moved your language two paragraphs later, actually to a more prominent spot. I also expanded your bare reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's great. Love the quote. But I think it's now badly placed. I agree that tagging it on the very long parag. is too much. But I think that the products need to be kept together, and the paragraph about employment put after them. Amandajm (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've played around with it. Hope you now feel the article is FA worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - This article has come around nicely with the copy editing help above. Quite interesting to read. Well done! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Four supports at least one of which was a thorough review (two, really I think, Mattisse did her usual great copyedit job on this), no opposes, image check done, technical check done, all in order. It's looking good. Should it be promoted, I suggest the category "Business, economics, and finance" though it would certainly fit in "Engineering and technology".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - after my long association with a certain well-known engine, I'm really happy that you have done such a good job here. Amandajm (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment make that five supports. It was a situation where the work had to be done, and someone had to do it. But since I am not a technical person, and although I have numismatic interests, they do not fall in the area of Boulton's work, I couldn't have done it to a high standard without your help on the engines and Chris' on the coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment In "Expansion of the business": The sales succeeded in introducing his works to the quality, but were not successful financially, with many works left unsold or sold below cost. doesn't make sense to me. Can it be clarified? --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the sales were heavily attended, both by the wealthy (who were given a day to come unhindered by the hoi polloi), and by the public. They simply didn't sell very much, though Boulton was highly praised for his work. I will rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand it much better now - I didn't make the connection of "the quality" as a synonym for "the wealthy". A very small stylistic point: the text now has three "the sales" in two sentences - why not retain the former formulation "but were not successful financially" since the subject is inferred from the first half of the sentence? --RexxS (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to get "the quality" out of there. It is really not the best phrase. But I'll rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made a good improvement. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support

• Images: Checked above. It would be nice to have more images of items that Boulton made. I've tried to find someone who can go to Birmingham and obtain such images (see Talk:Matthew Boulton). We'll see if that works out.

• Sources: Sources are reliable and the article appears to cover the major works on Boulton's life. I did some searching around for more Boulton biographies and these appear to be the major ones. Interestingly, Boulton is often mentioned in passing in a lot of books about the industrial revolution. There are fewer individual books devoted to him, which brings me to my next point.

• Comprehensiveness: His partnership, formed in 1775, with the engineer James Watt began the transformation of British industry through the installation of hundreds of Boulton & Watt steam engines, a driving force behind the Industrial Revolution. - This sentence appears in the lead, however it was not entirely clear to me in the article how pivotal Boulton was in the industrial revolution while reading the article. I think that a bit more needs to be added, perhaps to the end of the article, about Boulton's contribution to the industrial revolution.

• Prose: The organization and transitions between paragraphs in "Scientific studies and Lunar Society" and "Other activities" was not effective. The Lunar Society is mentioned several times before it is explained in the article. More serious, however, is that each new paragraph, particularly in the "Other activities" section, is a startlingly new topic. The paragraphs need to flow together better. Finally, the paragraph about Boulton's children seems a bit tacked on. Is there any way to integrate information about his family into the article a bit better? Does it really have to be part of "Other activities"?

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article and I look forward to being able to support it soon. Awadewit (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The language in the lede had been added by Amandajm in the course of this FAC. I feel a bit pinned between reviewers, but in view of the Uglow quote, I'm going to tone it back. I'll work on your other points. I should note we do have photos of Boulton made objects, the coins and tokens, as well as the steam engine. But yes, it would be nice to have photos of decorative arts. Hopefully, you'll agree with me that this need not hold up promotion. Check back shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

While Boulton is not responsible for the industrial revolution, he did help "drive" it - that is accurate according to the industrial revolution scholarship I've read. I think that to address this point, you will need to consult materials about the industrial revolution rather than materials about Boulton. I don't think that the missing decorative arts images should hold up the FAC, but I do think that we should attempt to obtain these images - that's why I was looking for someone to help out. I see that someone volunteered above as well. Awadewit (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear whether he "drove" the industrial revolution as a scientist or as a businessman. I would say the latter. Although he was clearly an intellectually sophisicated man and an "innovator", his scientific interests seem to be other than mechanical engineering: "Electricity and astronomy were at one time among his favourite amusements". However, he made excellent business decisions that may have resulted in furthering the industrial revolution. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not include language saying he, or his machines, drove the Industrial Revolution. Certainly there is no problem about finding sources saying that the Boulton & Watt engine set off the Industrial Revolution, but there are others that don't take that view. Such a debate has no place in the article, and I think it is suffient to say, as I do, that it made possible large scale factories. To say that it set off the Industrial Revolution is rather conclusory language, and I think that Mattisse's argument (both here and on her talk page) is strong.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Boulton, using Watt's machine, "set off the Industrial Revolution" alone, or were he and Watt's steam engine part of a complex of many of persons, factors and historical circumstances? And if so, did he do it primarily through his business skills that enabled the innovations of others to be spread more widely, or was he a significant engineering innovator in his own right? —Mattisse (Talk) 12:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just the thing, there's historical debate on this point, and I can't include all that in this article. Maybe in the article on the partnership, or on the engine. I put in some language at the end of the partnership with watt section that I think is about as far as I can go.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like something way more toned down, wording to the effect that he was part of the initiation of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Or even better, just describe what he actually did, without drawing meta conclusions. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with how it is now?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is fine now. I think it speaks generally of the influence of the Lunar Society and Boulton's role in it, without specifying Boulton as a "driver" of the Industrial Revolution. Further, I don't see the need for images of his decorated vases, broaches, Wedgewood plates or whatever, as they do not seem significant to his innovativeness or business acumen taken in the context of his work as a whole, being a business venture that fizzled out rather than work that was artistically valued because of Boulton's personal artistic creativity. At least, that is what I glean from the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Still nice to have, though. Hopefully Awadewit will revisit the comments soon, I left Awadewit a note and this article will be, I hope, promoted next run through.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [68].

---

Maiden Castle, Dorset

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think the article accurately respesents current understanding of the largest Iron Age hill fort in Britain and its context. A wide range of sources is used, giving background, and the main authority on Maiden Castle is the article's main reference regarding the actual hill fort. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes time to review the article, Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I think that this meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• File:Sign_at_Maiden_Castle.jpg appears to be a derived work of a 2D copyrighed artwork, FA criteria 4 Fasach Nua (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I thought this was allowed under freedom of panorama? Also, images relate to criterion 3, criterion 4 is about the length of the article and staying on topic; do you object to the amount of detail or did you mean criterion 3? Nev1 (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, UK's FoP on artistic works is restricted to 3D arts. 2D arts are a no-go. Jappalang (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well that sucks. I've removed the image no I have to work out how to request a deletion on commons... Nev1 (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Jappalang, I'm going to take the unprecedented step of saying that you're wrong about a copyright issue (albeit right in this case). Section 62 of CDPA88 says that it is not an infringement of copyright in the UK to photograph "buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public" (my emphasis). There's no obligation for said work of artistic craftsmanship to be 3D. I agree that you're right in this particular instance, as there's no indication that the creator of the sign had the conscious purpose of creating a work of art (and hence it's a "graphic work", not a "work of artistic craftsmanship"), but it's absolutely untrue that s62 doesn't apply to any 2D work; murals, mosaics, hand-painted tiles, stained glass etc all fall into "works of artistic craftsmanship" as opposed to "graphic works", and hence are covered by s62 and exempt from copyright. More on this here for anyone trying to understand the very confusing CDPA88. – iridescent 15:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I refer you to Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom, which states "The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works (which will typically be two-dimensional) such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place." Jappalang (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I thought you were disclaiming the 2D art portion. You are correct that there is a discernment between just 2D art and "works of artistic craftsmanship". I was overly generalising and apologise if that brought some misunderstanding. (Sidenote: I thought stained glass do not fall under "works of artistic craftsmanship"? I seem to recall a deletion that stated that effect... Going to look it up as it is obstructing a desired image upload of mine... ) Jappalang (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I quite like the panorama, but could it possibly be shopped a little so it's less obviously several photos. The levels of brightness unfortunately make it look rather amateur and it's kind of distracting. Majorly talk 16:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've filed a request at the graphics lab as the necessary changes are beyond the capability of me and my software. Nev1 (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Irunongames (talk · contribs) an Tango22 (talk · contribs) have stepped up and between them improved the image and produced this. Thanks very much to both of them. Nev1 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is a well-written, well-referenced and comprehensive article which I consider fully meets the criteria for a FA. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Support for the moment. This is largely because, although comprehensive and well-referenced, there are some significant flaws:
  • The lead. This is where my most serious concerns lie. Largely it fails to adequately summarise the information buried in the article, and concisely tell the reader what hill forts are. The first paragraph reads;

Maiden Castle is a hill fort in the civil parish of Winterborne Monkton, 2.5 km (1.6 mi) south of Dorchester, in the English county of Dorset (grid reference SY66938848). It occupies the site of a Neolithic causewayed enclosure and bank barrow used for growing crops in about 1800 BC, during the Bronze Age, before being abandoned.

There is nothing here to tell the reader without prior knowledge, what hill forts are and what their purpose was. There is a link to Hill fort, but a good article should be comprehensible on its own. The text at "Hill fort" states "A hill fort is type of fortified refuge or defended settlement, located to exploit a rise in elevation for defensive advantage. They are typically European and of the Bronze and Iron Ages. The fortification usually follows the contours of the hill, consisting of one or more lines of earthworks, with stockades or defensive walls, and external ditches." This article, in the main text describes hill forts as "town-like settlements". readers would not gain this impression from the Lead as currently written. Not all of the quoted information needs to appear, but a cut-down version of some of it does need to appear in the lead of this article.

The first sentence might better start "Maiden Castle is an iron age hill fort..."

Agreed, and added. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: the explanation of hill forts, I've made this change. The description from the main hill fort article isn't great, so I've kept mine simple (there's more explanation in the main body of the article). In fact, the main hill fort article is a disgrace, but I'm damned if I'd know where to start. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Better. I've made a small clarification to one sentence, adding "hill-top" - on the basis that the article should not assume knowledge. You might think it obvious that a "hill-fort" is built on a hill top, but that is not necessarily the case. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The last part of the second sentence above is poorly constructed. It might read better as "..and bank barrow used during the Bronze Age for growing crops, before being abandoned at some time after 1800 BC."

Fair enough, I've changed the sentence. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Other problems include:

• The section headed Early History is confusingly titled, since the article is about the castle, built around 600 BC, not the site. It might be better renamed Early history of the site, to avoid readers assuming the castle was begun in 4,000 BC.

• The section title has been changed to before the fort. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the section "Developed hill fort", the following sentence appears:

In the Middle Iron Age, Maiden Castle underwent an expansion that ensured it was the largest hill fort in Britain and one of the largest in Europe, although according to archaeologist Niall Sharples it is, by some definitions, the largest in western Europe.

The word "although" implies opposition here between the two statements. It might be better replaced with "and" or make two separate sentences.

Agreed, it has been changed to "and". Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. dealt with. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The words "widely spaced" and "equally spaced" jar as used in this section, since they are capable of at least two meanings. Are we talking about the area of the forts, or their separation? It might be better to put "were built equal distances apart"

I disagree, it's talking about spacing rather than space; widely spaced is different to the hill forts being large and I don't think there's any ambiguity that "widely spaced" and "equally spaced" refers to the separation of the forts rather than the size. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Although this would not be a reason for failing FA, I have to say that I found this ambiguous, and was brought up short reading the passage. To say that "Dorset's three developed hill forts (Badbury Rings, Flowers Barrow, and Weatherby Castle) were widely spaced," is at best ugly, at worst confusing. Better phrasing should be found. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added "apart" a couple of times to make things clearer and the sentence now reads "The developed hill forts in Dorset were Badbury Rings, Flowers Barrow, Maiden Castle, and Weatherby Castle and were widely spaced apart". Nev1 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's a clumsy wording, but.... Xandar 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• The section headed Roman activity and abandonment begins:

In AD 43, the Roman conquest of Britain began. Based on the "war cemetery", Mortimer Wheeler created a vivid story of the fall of Maiden Castle to Roman forces.

Since this is a new section in a long article, this sentence should briefly state what the "war cemetery" is. Mortimer Wheeler should also be identified. I presume he is a historian or archaeologist.

• I don't think so, the war cemetery is explained just a few lines above and explaining again what it is would lead to unnecessary repetition. Wheeler is already mentioned twice earlier, once in the lead where it's explained that he's an archaeologist who excavated the site, and again in the decline section where it's mentioned that he undertook excavations at Maiden Castle so I don't think explaining again is necessary. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia policy allows repetitions in long articles. where they aid user understanding. Much as you might dislike it, many readers are not going to read through the entire article. They will go straight to the section they want. (That's why there is a wikilinked menu in longer articles.) As such, in a new section you need to briefly explain important terms like these. The explanation of "war cemetery" is hidden at the end of the previous section. The identification of Wheeler is elsewhere. Why not simply reword to something like: "Based on his discovery of multiple burials of victims of violent assault dating from this period, archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler created a vivid story of the fall of Maiden Castle to Roman forces." Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it now reads "Based on the discovery of a group of bodies in the Late Iron Age formal cemetery that had met a violet death, archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler created a vivid story of the fall of Maiden Castle to Roman forces". Nev1 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Measurements. the size of the fort is always described with reference to hectares and acres. A lot of people have difficulty visualising these measures. Could the linear measurements of the fort (feet/metres) not also be included somewhere?

• This is a slight problem, even if I thought that people didn't understand the areas used the sources are concerned about areas, not distances along the main axes. Which is a shame as it would give the reader some other measurements for an idea of the size of the place. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a major problem. More a suggested improvement. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of hectares and acres, the article now uses square metres and square feet which should be more widely understood. Nev1 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Name. The origin of the name "Maiden Castle" does not seem to be mentioned. This would seem to be of interest, given the unusual name.

Xandar 22:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• The name is already explained in the later history section and it's not really that unusual as there are at least three other places in England with the same name. Nev1 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Again. This is quite important information, and should be more prominent. Naming is considered quite important in Wikipedia and some mention of the origin of the name should either be in the lead or, as many articles do, have a separate short section just after the lead. Xandar 11:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the name isn't actually that important: it's either a modern construction or a name developed in the post-Roman period, neither of which bear much relevance to the site's most important phase (ie: the Iron Age). The name wouldn't have affected the site, so it's not that important. The name is only important as an afterthought IMO, as reflected in the works produced on the site where it's not even mentioned (the name mentioned by Ptolemy is given more prominence). Where the information is in the body of the article is where it is most relevant, but I have added something to the lead as the reader will probably wonder why the site is called "Maiden". Nev1 (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think my main concerns have been satisfied. I can now support. Xandar 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments As you know I looked at this before submission to FAC. A number of things I would otherwise have pointed out have been resolved. I'm still going to be picky however and point out a few issues I have. From the lead:

'[...] and was similar to many other hill forts'. Many other hill forts where? Britain? Dorset? Personally I found it a bit ambiguous, but maybe it's just me.

Fair enough, I've added "in Britain". Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

'[...] making it the largest hill fort in Britain'. I'm sure it is still the largest Iron-age hill fort in Britain, I think a mention of this should be included somewhere; even perhaps at the very end of the lead.

I've added another sentence to the lead to make it clearer that it's still the largest: "...making it the largest hill fort in Britain. As well as being the largest in Britain, it is by some definitions also the largest in Europe". Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

'Later history' concerns me. I've seen it used before a number of times in this way, but it always bothers me. My interpretation of 'later' is 'at or toward an end or late period or stage of development', but this section also arrives at the present towards the very end. I'm not quite sure what to suggest though in its place.

Hmm, I'm really sure what else the section could be called. It's not exclusively about the archaeological investigations, and there's not enough information about the post-Roman and pre-modern activity to split the section. The investigations and the later use are still part of the history of the site. One alternative is "after the hill fort", but that doesn't feel quite right as it's still there and that's what the excavations in the 20th century were looking at. Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

'In 1921, composer John Ireland (1879–1962) wrote Mai-Dun, a symphonic rhapsody'. I consider this to need a bit more detail. As you previously describe, the name 'Mai-Dun' is ' is not unique to the site and occurs in several other places in Britain', so is John Ireland actually writing specifcally about Maiden Castle? If its general then it's of no real value, but if it is then it just needs the briefest of mentions about it being specific (it's quite a short statement anyway).

A good point. It was the Maiden Castle in Dorset Ireland was writing about so I've clarified that in the article. Nev1 (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's all I've got so far. With or without making the above suggestions it's a fantastically well-written article and a pleasure to read. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Almost Support interesting subject, well worth reading, just a few minor concerns,
  • I'm a little surprised as to what is and is not in the lead. Grid references and the village are minor details, but the Durotriges are not mentioned until quite late in the article.
    • The academics seem to be a little shy about the Durotriges and only refer to them in the immediate period before the Roman invasion. I think it derives from uncertainty about who they are. Without Ptolemy referring to them, we probably wouldn't know they exist. As a result, it's virtually impossible to say when Maiden Castle was in the territory of the Durotriges apart from immediately before the Romans arrived and it's been suggested that tribal identities only emerged in the Late Iron Age. Nev1 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Nicely handled, I think we simply don't know what the tribal structure of Southern England was apart from a little bit of information as to what it was at the time of the Roman conquest. Perhaps safest to refer to the era as Celtic as one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that the hill fort era is Celtic. However I still think the first paragraph emphasises some trivial stuff as opposed to this being "the largest Hill fort in Britain at the time of the Roman invasions." Grid references and parishes are worthy detail but I don't think they belong in the lead.
        • Even something as generalised as saying something is "Celtic" is problematic as academics have recently begun questioning whether this is a modern imposition on ancient societies and whether there was actually a "Celtic" culture. It's a complicated issue, so you won't see me editing many "Celtic" articles! As for the unimportant details, I've moved the information about the civil parish and the grid reference to the end of the later history section. I think mentioning Dorchester in the lead is fair as people need some point of reference to locate the place; as for the other stuff, civil parish isn't hugely important and the location is still in the infobox. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 43AD was the date of the Roman invasion, but would you mind checking when Vespasian reached this far west, as I thought it was in his campaign of 44-48.
    • I thought the legions had to wait a season after Claudius left in 43, but according to Mattingly (based on Seutonius' life of Vespasian) the campagins in the southwest took place in 43–47. This has been added to the article. Nev1 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • the references to "one of over 100 hill forts of similar size built in Dorset and Wessex" is misleading in that Wessex only existed in an era after the hill forts had fallen into disuse, when it did it was a kingdom of fluctuating area but Dorset was a core part of it.
    • Hmm, good point. How's this: "it was one of over 100 hill forts of similar size built in Wessex (of which Dorset was later a part) around the same time"? Nev1 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • What does the source say about the area that the 100 were in? I think Wessex is misleading due to the chronology and imprecise as an area, so I'd prefer something along the lines of "it was one of over 100 similarly sized hill forts built around the same time in the area that now forms the modern counties of Dorset, Hants, ......" ϢereSpielChequers 16:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The source says "In the first two or three hundred years of its existence the hillfort of Maiden Castle was closely similar to other hillforts in Dorset. Likewise the situation in Dorset can be paralleled throughout Wessex with probably over a hundred hillforts of comparable form and size constructed at this time". Wessex is defined in the glossary as "An area of central southern England which can be defined in a number of ways... For the purpose of this book it loosely refers to the area covered by the counties of Dorset, Wiltshire, Berkshire, and Hampshire but can also include parts of Oxfordshire and West Sussex". I've replaced Weesex in the article with these counties. Nev1 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If available; prominence, current ecotype and underlying geology are all details worth including in the article - see Hod Hill for a hill fort that covers those issues.
    • It's mentioned that the underlying rock is chalk, but I've not come across the prominence as opposed to height above sea level or the current ecotype. Hod Hill doesn't seem to have the relevant sources, any ideas where to find this information? Nev1 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I would have thought the sources would give some mention as to the prominence - you can calculate it from the contour map so I'd be surprised if one of the writers covering the topic hadn't mentioned the height above the village - it has repercussions both in the views and the defensibility of the site. ϢereSpielChequers 16:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The English Heritage Book of Maiden Castle doesn't have anything on the prominence or any contour maps to work it out from. I'll take a look at Maiden Castle: Excavations and Field Survey 1985–86 and see if there's anything there... but that will have to wait until tomorrow. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also I've made a few tweaks, hope you don't mind them. ϢereSpielChequers 14:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • Found it. Nev1 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Thanks for indulging me, I was sure there would be some coverage of that aspect. ϢereSpielChequers 20:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and comprehensive article. Ruslik_Zero 08:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose (for the time being) Badly organised and not well enough written. The problems with the article begin with its muddly, badly-constructed introduction. All the info is there, but none of it is well organised. I have made suggestions that could remedy this, on the discussion page. Every new section needs to start with a clear statement so that the reader knows exactly what the section is about eg. If the section is about the Neolithic period, then do not begin the whole section with the phrase "Excavations show....." The section needs to begin "In the Neolithic period....." This is about clarity of language, and writing it is quite easy, if you adopt that sort of formula. Amandajm (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have replied to your comments on the talk page (although it would have helped to keep the discussion centralised here), and while you raise some valid points I can't say I agree with all of them. For example, as I've explained on the talk page, I think your suggestion of adding a title "History of site" is completely superfluous. As for you taking issue with the start of each section, the opening paragraph puts the section in context, with dates. Nev1 (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Now that the first paragraph has been improved, and the other introductory paragraphs slightly better orgainsed, I am happy to support this article as FA. Amandajm (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• When changing an oppose to support, pls strike the old oppose !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments just beginning a read-through now and might make some straightforward changes to improve prose, but please revert if you feel I have inadvertently changed meaning. I will note any queries below - Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a deal-breaker, but I do feel prose flows better when one decribes who obscure people are - e.g. Augustus Pitt Rivers (an adjective or two on who he is (a bit like the persons immediately following).

In around 100 BC the hill fort shrank, and settlement became focused at the eastern end of the site. - the hill fort actually shrank? Or better to just reduce this to "In around 100 BC, the settlement within the hill fort shrank to the eastern end of the site." (??)

it would have been visible from miles away - "several" miles away? or "many" miles away? "miles away" on its own sounds weird.

To sum up, the prose was repetitive in places, but I was able to trim a fair few redundancies readily as I liked the subject matter and the topic was a pleasure to read. The above quibbles are pretty straightforward and not enough to oppose at this juncture. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edit. I have added an explanation of who Sharples and Wheeler are on a few occasions, although I am wary of making it repetitious. I've changed the sentence about "shrinking" to "In around 100 BC habitation at the hill fort shrank went into decline and became focused at the eastern end of the site", which I think is clearer. As for "miles away", I've added "several" although the source is vague. Most importantly, I'm glad you liked the subject :-) Nev1 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [69].

---

Ostend Manifesto

Nominator(s): Recognizance (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I was hesitant to go straight to FAC with this recently passed GAN, but the positive feedback I've gotten from people who specialise in the subject has encouraged me to nominate it. Recognizance (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments/Support

Recon, this is a splendid article, and one you should be proud of. It is beautifully written and well-documented. VERY good quality work! --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on criterion 3 - File:PSoule.jpg - We need a date, source, and author for the image. Note that the license claims it is in the PD because 70 years plus the life of the author has expired, but there is no author. I checked the website for the bioguide from which this particular copy was taken and it states that not everything is in the PD, so we have to do our own research on this one. Hopefully this will be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's old enough to be in the public domain in any case. The man lived long enough ago that it's pretty obvious what the licensing is on the image. If it's an official Senate portrait or something, it's US government ineligible, if not it's just plain old. :) Recognizance (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• We must provide the precise information, though. So, for example, if we do not know the name of the photographer, we have to use a different license, such as PD-1923. In that case, we would need to track down just when it was published. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well [WEBsearch_No.HTM a search for Pierre Soule] at the Historic New Orleans Collection gives neither the author nor the image to make sure it's the right one, but there are two possibilities for this image's origin. Assuming this is "Hon. Pierre Soule, U.S. Minister of Spain" the date given is February 18, 1854. Recognizance (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are other images that it could be, though, such as the ones title "Pierre Soule". I think the best thing to do would be to send an email to the Historic New Orleans Collection and ask them for the specific details. They will hopefully have more and know for sure which image it is! Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I e-mailed them earlier. Hopefully there's a prompt response, but in the worst case scenario, I guess the image can be replaced. It seems silly since it's obviously pre-1923 and over 70 years, but I understand you don't make the rules.
• Since we're on the topic, the article originally had {{Events leading to US Civil War}} in the historical context section. I had considered a map showing geographical proximity of the US and Cuba or something along those lines if you have any thoughts there. Recognizance (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I think a map might be a good idea. The other idea I had was a timeline, if you think that would help. Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question I just finished reading the article, which was very clear. I did some research on JSTOR and found that there were quite a few articles that mention the Ostend Manifesto. Did you look through any of these? Many of them were published more recently than many of the sources used here. I'm wondering if there are new historical interpretations of these events. Awadewit (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think anything new has come to light, although I admittedly only did a cursory glance through there. I did run the article by the author of one of the books used and was going to make a few small changes today (see last section of the talk page). Unfortunately his book was checked out. I'm making a trip tomorrow to another library that has it. Recognizance (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I did look through JSTOR when I initially read this article for copy editing purposes, and found little that dealt specifically with the Ostend manifesto, although there were indeed many references to it. It is, after all, an important document that reflects an historical concept, and one that shaped political debate for several decades before the CW. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The accession number has been verified by the Reference Assistant at The Historic New Orleans Collection. The response was prompt - however, an automated response requesting my address and phone number (which obviously weren't needed here) got stuck in my spam folder. I changed the licence tag to pre-1923 as you stated. Recognizance (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have added a bit more info. Awadewit (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support This article is organized well and clearly written. Before reading it, I did not know about the Ostend Manifesto, but now I have very clear idea of what it is and its historical context. I'm satisfied with the depth of research. I've suggested a map or a timeline above, which I think would only improve the article still further. Thanks for contributing such a wonderful article! Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Before I did the GA review, I too had never heard of this document. I was and am completely satisfied with the article, references and prose, so the article has my full support. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [70].

---

Australian Magpie

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets criteria. The images are appropriately licenced, the text comprehensive and I feel it really came together a lot better than some other bird articles I have nominated. The last piece of the jigsaw puzzle was the map which took a bit of time (and many thanks to the v. talented creator User:ChrisDHDR :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the range map in the taxobox should possibly have a caption to the effect of "natural range", as opposed to global range which would include Fiji and New Zealand. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Will do when I get a run of a few minutes to edit uninterrupted :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the organisation is suffering for having two sections, in different parts of the article, with information on distribution. There is the distribution nformation in the taxonomy section which is a great deal more detailed than that in the section on distribution. Its a bit odd. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem with any bird which has subspecies as to where the information goes. The alternative is listing subspecies' range in distribution, which would be odd as we'd then have two sections itemising the nine subspecies. Although not ideal, the way done so far seemed the simplest way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment fascinating bird. A couple of comments while giving a first reading. Shyamal (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "is a medium-sized black and white passerine bird of the family Artamidae native to Australia and southern New Guinea" - can give the impression that the family is native to Australia ... (how 'bout now?) - yes, fine now.
  • "Juveniles' plumage contains lighter ..." - can be simpler - have gone ahead and made a change, hope it is ok.
  • "Juvenile magpies begin foraging on their own three weeks after leaving the nest, and mostly feeding themselves by six months old." - does this mean that they separate from the family group after six months perhaps ?

not necessarily, they will remain with the group after this point, it just means they can hunt grubs and insects etc. Just made me realise I didn't add anything about dispersal as birds age. Will see what I can find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case it appears a bit contradictory - foraging after 3 weeks and feeding themselves after 6 months.

I take as beginning to learn (3 weeks) but still being fed up to 6 months less and less until mostly feeding themselves (at 6 months). I can try and rephrase if that isn't clear (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "have become accustomed to coexisting with people" - redundancy ?
  • "... signal for sunrise, frightening them awake with its call." - frightening sounds a bit odd

I know, it is an aboriginal dreamtime legend so 'frightening' is what it means for some reason. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

ok

• • the "carolling" behaviour could do with some explanation. How different from a duet or a chorus ?

The term in the main reference texts is specifically used for the call. I have changed "Pairs of magpies often take up a loud carolling call" to "Pairs of magpies often take up a loud musical calling known as carolling to advertise or defend their territory" - though I am in two minds as to whether "carolling" should be italicized or not. As far as calling it a duet, I will double check to see if more than two birds may do it (which I think they do sometimes) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

addendum - rechecked ref - now "one bird initiates the call with the second (and sometimes more) joining in." (sometimes more than two birds) i.e. not necessarily a duet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is very nicely written—it shows flair in places. However, I've nit-picked through the top:

• Is "varied" necessary after "omnivorous"?

I take it you mean the "various" in "eating various items located at or near ground level..." - tricky, I feel it helps emphasise that the bird is a highly opportunistic feeder, eating all sorts of things, but I do concede that "omnivorous" sort of has the same connotation as well. Happy either way really, and I can live with its removal though I do like the flow with it in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• "It is generally sedentary and territorial throughout its range." I did a double-take, since defending territory and being sedentary seem at odds. Another issue is: Are the last three words necessary?

yes, as many birds in Oz exhibit some migratory or nomadic behaviour in some areas Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Other names used include ...".
• "Murray Magpie is a name which refers to the similarly-plumaged Magpie-lark." No hyphen after an "-ly" adverb; but either way, "similarly plumaged" is kind of clunky. You might reverse it; unsure: "One Magpie-lark with a similar plumage is called the Murray Magpie. Oops, but then the very next sentence, across a para boundary, talks of another similarity, does it? Tony (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 24 .. the link appears to be to the abstract of a journal article? I'd expect to see the journal article title somewhere...

oops, added journal article title to ref 24 (Emu) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 69 (Beruldsen, G..) what makes the author an expert in their field, to satisfy WP:SPS? I note from its World Cat entry that a number of big name libraries have it (UCDavis, Oxford, and the National Agriculture Library..) so it probably just needs a bit more information to make it clearly reliable.

I know what you mean - but I am not sure what I can add to the reference itself to highlight this but the book is widely referenced and seemingly regarded as authoritative - as it is used in this Australian Museum webpage, this Australian Gov't recovery plan and is used in the HANZAB book Higgins et al. which is itself used in this article and is a weighty tome. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Great work; a very useful resource you've produced here. I almost feel knowledgeable on the subject now. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support moral or otherwise Possible COI - I made a few minor copyedits on 22 April, and I'm a member of WP:BIRDS. I couldn't see much wrong in April and it's better now. Two unactionable comments
  • is there anything in Oz which isn't dangerous?
    • Some of the sheep are alright. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I know, they were whippersnippering the nearby railway tracks the other day and I saw one of these in my garden, which is to Sydney CBD like, say, Shepherd's Bush is to London CBD - I did a fair double take and rubbed my eyes....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I love the psychedelic map - takes me back to the sixties....

jimfbleak (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I tidied up (capitalised) the image captions, surprised it hadn't been done before. Otherwise great article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concern as follows:

• File:MagpieWarningSign2008.jpg: Australia's copyrights are automatically granted (no need for registration) on creation of works. While the text here is certainly instructive (matter of fact) and unlikely copyrightable, the little caricature on the right might be of concern.

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what can we d about it? A short 'fair use' explanation on the image page? Not sure here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the article suffers with its removal. I thought perhaps Australia's freedom of panorama might help, but it does not apply for drawings. I am not certain we can "mosaic" or erase the caricature, and delete the original version... As it is, I tagged it for copyvio. Jappalang (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed the pic from the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment A great article on a fascinating bird. One point, however; the categorisation seems strange. The map shows a range covering every state and territory of Australia but the categories listed show only the states of South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia. Further, the bird is fairly ubiquitous in NZ. While it was introduced and not native, should it be included in Category:Birds of New Zealand? It is included in List of birds of New Zealand (as Gymnorhina tibicen). For comparison's sake, the Polynesian Rat is a non-native mammal included in Mammals of New Zealand. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. good idea. and now done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

On a quick scan, I saw citation cleanup needs, missing publisher:

• ^ "www.legislation.sa.gov.au" (PDF). Retrieved on 2009-04-14. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

addressed Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support

• Images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses.
• Sources (except for concern listed below) satisfy RS policy

• Sources

• Current ref 69 (Beruldsen, G..): The nest is a bowl-shaped structure made of sticks and lined with softer material such as grass and bark. Near human habitation, synthetic material may be incorporated. - This is the information sourced to Beruldsen, a self-published book. Is there really no other source that states these facts? This makes me nervous. These are fundamental facts about the building of the bird's nest. Surely they must be referenced elsewhere?

(As I pointed out above, this book is referenced all over the place - by goverment papers on bird species, and by the huge HANZAB series on all Australian and NZ birds. It is an anomaly with the self-published bit but not much I can do about it. I really need to hit the sack now and get some sleep but will see what I can dig up tomorrow) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What is going on with this? It could be this is the best source on the bird's nest - I just want to be sure. Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I discovered the book was published by Rigby at one stage, but have no idea why he subsequently self-published it. I still feel it is the best way to reference this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will trust your judgment on this. Awadewit (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would suggest a copyedit of the first half of the article by an uninvolved editor. I kept getting tripped up by awkward sentences. Here are some examples:

• although some authorities place it in its own genus Gymnorhina based on its adaptation to ground-dwelling - "based on its adaptation to ground-dwelling" is awkward and wordy - would "based on its habit of living on the ground" be acceptable?

ground-dwelling --> living on the ground. 'adaptation' necessary as it has anatomically changed, with longer legs and walking gait. agree it is tricky, especially in the lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Its robust wedge-shaped bill bears a hook at the end, and is a bluish-white colour bordered with black. - slightly awkward
• Much blame on the Magpie as a predator in the past has been anecdotal only - awkward
• The first paragraph of "Vocalisations" is particularly awkward and the entire section overuses the word "complex" - try to be use more specific diction.
• I found the many one-sentence paragraphs to be inelegant. (agreed. combined and played with)

• Has the first half of the article been copyedited? Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Circeus did some copyediting and posted some questions and clarifications on the talk page here. I have also done some Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Clarifications and organization:

• At one stage, the Australian Magpie was considered to be three separate species - When?

Sometimes cases like these aren't as exact as we'd like - eg. bird guidebooks would list as 3 species until the mid 1970s, although some key peer-reviewed publications more and more treated them as one species. I will see if I can fine-tune it a bit. The issue is there is no source saying guidebooks did this as such, just those for the literature. There is a date 2 sentences further on.Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is a tendency for birds to become larger with increasing latitude - Could a short explanation be added? Well here's the thing. This is clearly Bergmann's rule and insular dwarfism, yet the source (frustratingly) does not use either of those terms or align observations with either of those phenomena, even though it is pretty obvious - I was wonating to avoid any semblance of OR. I have searched for somewhere linking the terms with the magpie but with no success to date. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• The Channel-billed Cuckoo (Scythrops novaehollandiae) is a notable brood parasite in eastern Australia; magpies will raise cuckoo young, which eventually outcompete the magpie nestlings - This seemed kind of tacked on at the end of the "Breeding" section. I tried this Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• The call has been portrayed in Denis Glover's poem The Magpies, with the refrain Quardle oodle ardle wardle doodle—one of the most famous lines in New Zealand poetry—and in the children's book Waddle Giggle Gargle by Pamela Allen. - Is it necessary to repeat this bit about the poem? If so, can we find a way to repeat it more elegantly and less obviously? (yes, done)

• Could we get a recording of the singing? I see that there are some in the external links. Those don't seem to have compatible licenses with Wikipedia, though. Any chance of obtaining a recording that does?

Love to. I have absolutely no experience in the area of chasing and adding sounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried a university in Australia or bird-watching societies? Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked around for recordings, but no luck as yet - did' get a Pied Currawong call though... Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• A 13-year-old boy died from tetanus, apparently from a magpie injury, in northern New South Wales in 1946. - Might this be WP:UNDUE?

I mused on this, but magpie attacks are a serious problem in springtime Australia, and the event was mentioned in a couple of places as an answer to how dangerous they could be, so I veered on leaving it in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to give the article my full support. Awadewit (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I rue not having any recording equipment as the dumb birds are everywhere around my house...(well, they're not dumb really actually quite smart)..but hopefully I will get some help at some stage as there are a few Australian songbirds to work up yet..Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This needs rewording- based on its adaptation to living on the ground. What adaptation? There needs to be a mention in the intro that the bird is well adapted to living on the ground. It doesn't actually state that.

Semi-colons. I hate them. They are nearly always used inappropriately. I'm going to be sexist and say it's a bloke thing. Men use them to join sentences together like nuts and bolt, Selleys adhesive and "she'll be right, Mate!" Sentences that actually do relate to each other are better connected if part is turned into a phrase or a clause. If they don't relate to each other in a very direct way (I don't mean simply "follow on") then they need full stops and capital letters. I'm having a blitz. You have one short paragraph there where six sentences have been turned into three by semi colons. Amandajm (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(shuffles feet and looks at floor)...but I like them...oh well, I tried the lead like this per above, but then the genus is mentioned at the end and not with other classification notes. Still, it flows I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [71].

---

Halo Wars

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all criteria. Some introductory explanations:

• Regarding Lady Ealdgyth's source comments at Talk:Halo Wars#Sources_pre_FAC:
• WorthPlaying.com: besides being an interview; the author is Rainier Van Autrijve, the content manager/editor of the site. Autrijve has also written extensively for GameSpy (e.g., [72]). For the site itself, it is listed as a good source by Cool Careers Without College for People Who Love Video Games (Rosen Publishing: 2007), not sure how much that counts for. They are also referenced by other sites, I could find [73] for example.
• Kotaku: I figured why defend the authors, and so replaced them with references from TeamXbox.

Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments-
• I'm on the fence about the worth playing. I'd like to see more from mainstream press (not gaming press) about them (The cool careers thing isn't worth much). It's borderline enough with the author/interviewer that I can say "leave it out for other reviewers to decide" if nothing else comes up.
• You've got a deadlink (the timesonline one isn't dead, but an IGN one's gone dead).

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the IGN deadlink (just a bad cut and paste, was missing the "l" in html. I have not been able to dig up anything else on Worthplaying, I will try but I find it unlikely that MSM will have much on them. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave that out for other reviewers to decide for themselves then. Ping me if anything new pops up. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there any need to give IGN three times the exposure on the reviews table? - hahnchen 11:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

They are three different reviews from three different IGN sites. Considering the wide range of opinions found in all three, I considered it important to list them all. It's hardly undue weight. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's just that IGN AU is not used at all but noted in the table, yet OXM US or Eurogamer Portugal (also not used) isn't there. The Total Video Games review is cited 5 times in total, yet does not appear in the table. This is a minor point, I'm not opposing, but it just looks like you shoved the IGN reviews in there just because they were on IGN; and had they written 4 reviews, that would have been in there too. - hahnchen 20:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose: From a content perspective, it looks fairly complete. However, the prose needs work before it can be called "FA quality". Here are a few examples:

• "In 2009, Halo Wars was released in Japan and Australia on February 26, in PAL territories on February 27, and in North America on March 3." Disjointed; crams too much information into a single sentence.
• "The game features a story-based campaign that can be played alone or cooperatively and a multiplayer option, called "skirmish mode". In skirmish mode, players may ally with humans to defeat computer-controlled units or battle each other." Try, "The game features a story-based campaign that can be played alone or cooperatively. A multiplayer option, called "skirmish mode", allows players to compete against human or computer-controlled opponents." Still not perfect, but probably an improvement.
• "Players can find and claim some supplies on the battlefield, but generate more by building special structures at bases. Income increases with the number of UNSC supply pads or Covenant warehouses." "Some" is needlessly vague. Also, referring to "UNSC supply pads or Covenant warehouses" is confusing to someone who hasn't played the game before, since you don't introduce them as supply buildings. Why not just cut it down to "... but generate more by building supply structures at bases. Income increases with the number of these structures." Something like that, although you'll have to find a word besides "structures".
• "Broadly speaking, ground vehicles are powerful against infantry, infantry do well against aircraft, and aircraft are the counter to vehicles." Not sure what could be done to this sentence, but repetition would probably be preferable to the constant change of terms.
• "The Spirit of Fire is run with help from Serina, a super-intelligent and highly sarcastic artificial intelligence (AI) with a dry and sardonic sense of humor;[14] she demonstrates a level of contempt for the humans she assists.[15]" This sentence contains redundancies. Try, "The Spirit of Fire is overseen by Serina, an artificial intelligence (AI) with a dry and sardonic sense of humor; she demonstrates contempt for the humans on board." Not having played the game, I don't know if this edit is factual. It's just an idea of how it could be improved.
• "The character design of the Spartans was meant to emphasize their relative inexperience and the setting of the game decades before the events of the main trilogy." This sentence is extremely disjointed, but I couldn't say how it could be improved.
• "Hoping players would become attached to individual Spartans in the campaign, the designers left the skirmish units nameless." The second part is seemingly unconnected to the first. If there is a connection, it needs to be made clearer. If not, split the sentence in two.

• These are just a few examples. I recommend finding a copyeditor to go over the entire article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've modified all the above, save the ground v infantry v aircraft bit. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I was referring to the way the wording changes each time; repetitive wording would probably improve the sentence. For example, "infantry counter aircraft, vehicles counter infantry, and aircraft counter vehicles". Not in those exact words, but something like that. Changing the wording each time is unnecessarily jarring. Anyway, as I said, those were a few random examples I picked out of the article. There are plenty of others, which is why I recommended a copyeditor. Until the prose receives polish, I can't support. I'd work on it myself, but I don't have enough free time; sorry. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I fixed the above example. I asked TKD to run through it, and I've done another pass. I've asked the esteemed Laser if he might be able to help out, but I know he's often swamped. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I just went through part of the article to fix redundancies and flow errors. As a result of the work Laserbrain and I have done, the prose has drastically improved. Unfortunately, it still isn't FA quality. You'll have to find another copyeditor, though, because I don't have any more free time to use on this article. The sections of the article beyond where I worked will need more attention; it also wouldn't hurt for another copyeditor to look over the sections that have already been worked on. On another note, I'd missed the lack of plot citations until bridies brought it up, but I have to agree with him on that. While you've added a few, there need to be more. In closing, I don't mean to be a pain, but I can't support it until further improvements are made.JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the prose, in too many parts, is opaque to readers like me, who do not play these games. OK, you might ask, why am I reading the article? My answer is that FAs should represent our best work; this does not. What are "two playable sides"? How many non-playable sides are there? What on earth does "allocate to upgrades" mean? Oh my, there are so many more. I too suggest you ask Laser if he will help with this. Having said that, FAC is not WP:Peer review Graham Colm ^Talk 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• And a peer review didn't garner any substantial comments, so hey, I blame the system. I have adjusted the two examples above. Could you care to list others that are opaque for a non-gamer? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, my problems are mainly in the Gameplay section and I think it would help a great deal if the Synopsis section came first. This at least would give a basic idea of what is going-on as the game is played. In Gameplay familiar words seem to have esoteric meanings in this context: "upgrading technologies", "campaign mode", "base", "tech", "tech upgrading", "tech level", "hero unit", "radial menu", "console" as an adjective, "income increases" are some examples of where I get stuck. Some of the linked words do not help much either; clicking on technology tree leads me to a definition that has its own links, only when I click on these secondary links do I eventually begin to understand the parent sentence in this article. If we could make Gameplay more non-gamer friendly, I would consider withdrawing my opposition. To be frank, and I am sure this is not true, when reading the section I feel that the contributors have been lazy. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started working on the examples above; take a look and see if I'm heading in the right direction. As to the arrangement, why in particular would moving the Synopsis section aid in comprehension? The only elements carried over from one to another are the UNSC/Covenant dynamic. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...and that helps. To be honest, doing so would make me, and perhaps others, more inclined to read the rest of the article—it's a more engaging read. No big deal though.Graham Colm ^Talk 16:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about it. Video games articles generally have gameplay first, and I valid arguments for putting either first. I guess if others chime in that it would help I'd be glad to change it, right now that would be a change from all the other Halo games. The only term I'm having big issues with are "bases" and "campaign". What part of the bases explanation do you find lacking? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If "base" and "campaign" are being used in the military sense and do not have an esoteric meaning in this context, they are fine. Although I understand now, I still don't like "story-based campaign mode" and "skirmish mode". Aren't these modes just versions of the same game? Graham Colm ^Talk 16:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's what the modes are called and while I suppose you could consider them "versions" of the same game there are significant differences. In the "old days", as it were it would be easier to draw the distinction because campaigns were essentially the single-player mode, and then multiplayer was also offered, but no most games allow for cooperative play in the campaigns as well so they are more social. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have withdrawn my oppose. I would like see further reviews from readers who know what they are talking about, (unlike me), before adding my support. Thanks for being so patient. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) It has been standard practice for quite awhile to place the gameplay section before plot details. I think it should stay that way, in this case. However, you do bring up a valid point about non-gamers trying to read the article. As it is now, I doubt you'll be the only person who has trouble understanding it. I should have some free time later, so I'll go over the gameplay section and see what still needs clarification. I'll also see if the prose needs any more work; Laserbrain already went through it, but the more eyes, the better. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed some things around. I think it's an improvement, but it might still need work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm embarking on a copyedit of this article today. --Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Additional comments. I've concluded a general copyedit that hopefully has cleared up some issues people are seeing. Some additional concerns:
  • I feel there is a general overuse of quotations in the article. We seem to rely on them, especially in the Reception section, to convey the thoughts of critics and involved personnel. However, I think that unless they've said something profound, we should be paraphrasing. A few quotations are great, but we should remove and paraphrase at least 1/3 of what's there.
  • "According to Microsoft, the game set a one-day record for most downloads" This is far too nebulous and requires qualification. One-day record for what? For all games ever? For all downloadable content ever? For just Xbox games?
  • "two thousand GameStop stores held midnight releases for the game" Not confident that many readers are going to be familiar with the "midnight release" phenomenon prevalent in the US. Does any retailer do this in the UK or other places? Can we reword to somewhat explain what and why?

--Laser brain (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • I've tried to eliminate or shorten a batch of quotes in the reception section. I've also reworded the downloads mention, is it clearer now? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, I think everything has been addressed now. --Laser brain (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I had a list of things to complain about in the gameplay section, but they have been cleared up. That section is looking much better now, IMO.
• I'm not keen on the lack of citations in the plot section. I would like to see some more of this sourced to secondary articles and/or dialogue from the game, if at all possible.
• RE: Laser Brain's comment about midnight releases, UK retailers do them on occasion; as a British reader I'm familiar with the term, at least. bridies (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Adding citations now. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • ...and citations added. --16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Another issue I have with the plot section is it seems to be almost all in-universe. It could really use some more "signposting" to give an indication that this is a fictional narrative, such as is seen in the setting paragraph (i.e. "Halo Wars takes place in the science fictional universe..." and "The game takes place...") and again in the last paragraph (i.e. "If the game is completed..."). bridies (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the parts that have to be noted from out-of-universe perspective are already marked as such. (It is also from a continuing present tense.) Aside from maybe adding "the story begins" to plot, I'm not seeing any areas that would benefit from extra words. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I note there have been two calls for citations in the Plot section, which I think to be wholly unnecessary. The Plot section is not interpretive—it is merely an synopsis. Therefore, it should be assumed the primary source is used (the game) and citations should not be needed. I would ask Bridies and JimmyBlackwing to reconsider their position on this issue. --Laser brain (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why should this article be exempt from standard procedure? I can't remember the last time I saw a plot section without citations in a VG FA. Consider that, if there are no citations, there is no way for the average reader to verify the statements made without playing the game. Also, why should we assume that the plot details are correct? Without citations, it's perfectly possible that the writer made a mistake, or that a misinformed editor inserted incorrect details. There's no reason not to have citations, and plenty of reasons why not having them would be a bad idea. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it's more the standard procedure that Plot sections do not require citations. However, I was looking more at novels and films. Looking at some video game FAs, I can see that quotes and such are cited, and I can see the value in that. I don't think we should require secondary sources though. --Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I am fairly unfamiliar with the FA standards of novels and films, as I've mostly stuck with editing video game articles. But for video game FA plot sections, primary citations are basically the accepted procedure. I don't know about bridies, but I wasn't asking for secondary sources. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The Video Game Project's sources page recommends using secondary sources where possible, and this should be possible to some extent because reviews will provide a small amount of plot information. Citing the primary source is usually necessary as well (as reviewers won't give away the ending, for example), but as the sources page notes transcripts should be provided where possible. Citations are necessary IMO because inaccurate details do get added in sometimes. The section looks mostly fine now, but there is still a fact tag that needs addressing one way or another. bridies (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC Revisted - The article is much improved since my earlier comments, but I am still not convinced that some parts of the writing are of FA standard. It might be just my tastes, and although I do not like redundancy, I think some sentences such as "Multiplayer was generally judged well" are just a little too skinny, and, a few remain cumbersome, e.g "In January 2009, the soundtrack was announced to be released on February 17". There were boring repetitions of critics who constantly "felt that", which I WP:Bold changed to "said". I still think the article would benefit from a final polish before being promoted. I don't think definite articles are considered redundant—yet. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. What are "first-person shooters"? Graham Colm ^Talk 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

linky. Any issue in the article? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

linky is good, thanks. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, clearly I know bugger-all about video games. But I have done some homework; I have shown this article to the younger members of my laboratory who were impressed by it. I prefer a more traditional prose style and am still finding perceived "faults" with the prose. But I am happy to add my support now, but reserve the right, which we all enjoy, to tweak the prose later. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Por supuesto. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Graham Colm ^Talk 21:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there any need to have both GameRankings and Metacritic scores? - hahnchen 12:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please don't take your crusade against non-MC aggregate scores here, please. It's being hashed out on WT:VG. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a FAC, you should be justifying your editorial decisions. Same for your inclusion of every IGN score as mentioned above. - hahnchen 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Aggregate scores are useful as an overall metric and snapshot for critical consensus. Contrasting two different metrics is useful, akin to using Metacritic and Rottentomatoes together in a film article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
        • To chime in her as someone passing by, over half the reviews contributing to GR's aggregate score are not shared with Metacritic, and David's point on contrasting the two scores is a valid point when both use an extensive amount of reviews.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• AGF Support - AGF because I assume you will fix this: In "Design", the paragraph beginning with "Because of the Master Chief's large role" has a quote that does not have a citation directly following it. If it is the same citation later in the paragraph, use the ref name and duplicate the citation immediately after the quote so it does not go without a direct citation following it. The same thing happens with the partial quote in the paragraph beginning "Ensemble expanded the". This occurs again in Audio with the sentence "Rippy started work on Halo Wars by listening to previous". As a side note, the quotes from the game (I assume they are from the game) don't really help in the reference section. I believe you could put them in a separate section but I have never done it myself so someone else would have to help you with it. The AGF is simply about the citations following the quotes above. You can ignore the video game quote comment as being a personal response and not part of this FAC comment. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Quotes have been sourced immediately afterward. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The prose is more-or-less fine until Audio. That section and those below it clearly do not display "compelling, even brilliant" prose. The writing isn't horrible, but it is rough. But aside from the handful of corrections I made, I don't have time to copyedit it. Despite your comment on my talk page, I notice that TKD hasn't actually gone through the article. If he does, I suspect that any issues I have with the prose will be ironed out. Until he or another similarly skilled copyeditor polishes the article, though, I'm afraid I can't support. I think the fact that I've found something to fix every time I've looked through the article is proof enough that it needs work. If it sounds like I'm being unreasonable, I apologize. However, I believe that "Wikipedia's best work" should display professional-level prose, which this article currently does not. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • TKD has gone through the article; he was the first to do so. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support: Oh, I see. I looked at the edit history and didn't see any recent edits by him. I guess I just didn't go back far enough. My mistake. Anyway, I found time to do a light follow-up copyedit for Laserbrain; it looks a lot better than it did yesterday. I'm not Tony1, but as far as I can see, the prose is hitch-free enough to be called FA quality. Sorry it took so long for me to support, but I think I can now do so in good conscience. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I've gone through it again from Audio down. I did find some problems, and a few artifacts that may have been introduced in the recent flurry of editing. I'm not seeing anything else, but I may be too close to the text to find additional problems. --Laser brain (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: In the Gameplay section, the part about "tech" is very confusing and vague. I'm a quite experienced gamer, and even I cannot figure out what this mysterious "tech" is (is it something like "supplies" that has to be collected? What are "tech levels" or "tech upgrades" - are they the same thing?), let alone would a non-gamer. Korodzik (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Tech is tech, not really any good way to describe it. It's not a resource, and it's not collected, rather its more an inhibiting factor to gameplay (can't build X until you have Y tech.) Is there some signal phrases, et al. that might make this clearer to you? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • If I understand correctly: to build some structures, you have to achieve a certain "tech level", which can be done by building reactors, each of which provides a tech level upgrade (UNSC) or by building a temple, with which you can increase the tech level (Covenant). Is it like this? Korodzik (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes indeed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [74].

---

Luton Town F.C.

Nominator(s): Cliftonian • talk 08:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has had a successful peer review, and a lot of work has gone into it, both by me and by others. I believe it is now on a par with other featured articles on football clubs, and am therefore nominating it. Cliftonian • talk 08:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Random comment: "The club have been looking for a new site since 1955." Should "have" be "has"? Mm40 (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No. In English English the common usage on sports teams is that even in the singular they are referred to in the plural. Look at this article from the BBC for an example. Cliftonian • talk 12:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was only for proper nouns; i.e., "Luton Town F.C. are" but "the club is". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not according to the BBC, evidently… ("The club are serious") Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I much prefer the Americans' use of the formal agreement in cases like this; I'm British, and even I hate "Luton F.C. are". Unfortunately, I don't make the rules, so we're stuck with it. But for "club", it depends on whether the emphasis is on the club itself, or its members; with this example it can go either way. I'd go for the singular. :) Steve ^{T • C} 14:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I, too, prefer the American practice. I've even heard British and Australian speakers refer to corporations with this dissonant plural verb; that is going too far, I think, and "the club are" is, too—why not "the members are", if you want to stress the plurality of the subject? It's hard to take a strict line on it, though, and my opinion here is only a personal one. Tony (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it just comes down to what you're used to — having grown up with the usage, hearing anything other than it is very jarring to me. The BBC and other British media use it — for example The Times (an example from them here), The Independent (example here) and The Guardian (example here). Surely an English football article should use native grammar? Cliftonian • talk 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess so, but it pains me every time I see it. Maybe it's tolerable for proper nouns that can't be plurals, but I find it rediculous for common nouns. "The club is", "the clubs are". Upon a quick run-through, my only concern is that the managers section is somewhat redundant to List of Luton Town F.C. managers. I would cut some of that section. Reywas92^Talk 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of the managers section, it is already cut down to only include managers in charge for 50 games. The reason for this is the precedent set by other FA football club articles such as York City F.C.. I personally think that the best solution is to keep it as it is, but I'm open to debate about it. The feelings you have about the "club are" usage are replicated on my part whenever I see "club is" — as I said above, I find it very jarring indeed. I appreciate that it's the correct American English usage, and I can put up with it — I just don't see why any article should use anything other than the native dialect. Cliftonian • talk 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it; I'd be very surprised if anyone even considered opposing based on regional inconsistencies in collective noun use. (Aside: you might find this discussion useful). Steve ^{T • C} 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers fella. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I have been mulling over this, I must say, saying it in singular sounds nicer, anyway, now to do a bit of prose massage...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.englandstats.com

The same site is cited by List of Sunderland A.F.C. players, a featured article. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Luton_Town/Luton_Town.htm

The same site is cited by York City F.C., a featured article. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://bygonederbyshire.co.uk/articles/Payne,_Joe_-_Brimington_Footballer_Played_For_England (see http://bygonederbyshire.co.uk/articles/Bygone_Derbyshire:About)

Point taken, I've removed it. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.englandfootballonline.com/index.html

The same site is cited by Bobby Robson, a featured article. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/lutt.htm (also has a bare url in the ref)

Agreed. Replaced with reference to Bailey. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/main/s120/st44186.htm

Removed. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.footballfanscensus.com/issueresults/Club_Rivalries_Uncovered_Results.pdf

The same site is cited by York City F.C., a featured article. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• FYI - link checker tool shows one dead link but it works when you click through.

I had noticed, thanks anyway. Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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 noticed Herald & Post, WHen Saturday Comes, and Luton Times)

Ok, sorted. I believe that When Saturday Comes is self-published — do you think it's necessary to mention them twice in each reference? Cliftonian • talk 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's not. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If the sources are cited by other featured articles, then surely their reliability has already been established? Cliftonian • talk 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. Prior to the middle of 2008, source checking at FAC was more haphazard, so it's not a given that the source was checked. And one above is a featured list, not a featured article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok… Historical Kits is maintained by Dave and Matt Moor, who cite their sources as can be seen for example on their Luton Town page (the little letters by the kits, and the sources at the bottom). England Stats is confirmed as reliable by The Guardian here, and England Football Online is cited by The Independent here. The Football Fans Census reliability I think can be confirmed here. Cliftonian • talk 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The football fans census bit only shows that they provide a grant for studies, not that they are considered reliable by other sources (like the englandstats site being used in the Guardian). The England Football Online is borderline with what you're using, the Independent isn't actually citing them, they are referring readers to them, I'll leave that out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Likewise, I'll leave the kit site out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, it's not exactly contentious information after all. With that, the three sites are up to other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

England Football Online is generally solid, but if the ref to it is an issue, RSSSF provides an alternative [75]. Football Fans Census reports usually make it into the media (e.g. [76], [77], and as one of three cites for a single sentence I see no problem. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose – Early into the article, I'm finding a lot of problems with the prose. These are just examples of problems; I don't claim to have caught everything. Please consider finding someone to copy-edit the article, because it needs some attention.

• "with financial difficulties causing the club..." is one of these awkward sentences that uses "with" as a connector. To fix this, use "as financial difficulties caused" or "; financial difficulties caused". It's worth checking for sentences with this structure throughout, as taking care of them will make a big difference in the writing.

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• History: Watch for redundant wording, such as this: "brought on by the club's isolated location crippled the club financially. The club were far from the northern heartlands of the Football League, and so it was too expensive for the club to even compete." See how many clubs there are? Change a couple of them and this part will be much better.

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• "and were founder members of the Southern Football League in 1894." Is "founder member" used commonly in Britain? I'd have thought "founding member" was more typical.

Please see above. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why is Italy linked? Who doesn't know what that is?

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• In this section, I sense an overuse of "only"; for example, it isn't necessary in "but the club managed to win back promotion after only two years".

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I see a couple of spaced em dashes, which go against the Manual of Style. Either make them unspaced or change them to smaller en dashes.

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• "and the spine of the team was sold on." What does this mean? Sounds quite informal, to be honest.

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• "This team finally reached the top flight in 1955–56". Some here would consider "finally" to be slightly POV.

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• "However, they were relegated the following season, and had fallen to the Fourth Division by 1965." The "had fallen" part does not work at all with the rest of the sentence.

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• More informal language: "Two years later Malcolm Macdonald fired them to another promotion".

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Club Identity: Second word should be decapitalized per MoS, because it is not a proper noun.

OK, sorted. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the references, all of the page ranges should have en dashes, not hyphens.

OK, sorted. Cheers for all your comments. Cliftonian • talk 07:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Giants2008 (17-14) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The nominator told me on my talk page that he asked for a copy-edit from Casliber. I'm waiting on that before re-reviewing. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that Dweller has been copy-editing here recently. Please post here when he's done so I can offer a re-review. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Copy-edit is finished, you want to have a read through now? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Much, much happier with the prose now. Before coming here, I fixed a few minor things, which weren't worth posting here. Good work all around in polishing the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, pending the promised copyedit, which is sorely needed IMO. Just a couple of additional points:
  • The discussion above does not get directly to the heart of the sloppiness in this and far too many other sports articles. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that "club" is singular. Period. No if, no buts. The only possible exception would be if the subject were the members of the club, rather than the club itself, which is not the case in this article. "Luton Town", on the other hand is often conventionally consider plural, as in "Luton Town play their games at ...". But this article is not even consistent in its mistaken belief that "club" is plural, as in "The club produces an official match programme ..."

OK. That's what we'll use for it. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 13:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • There are other signs of sloppy prose as well, such as "Luton first adopted their white and black colours for the 1920–21 season, the same year they rejoined the Football League." The "1920–21 season" is of course not a year.

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit: I'll give it a whizz. Not sure how quickly I'll be able to turn it around. I'll go with the nominator's (NB not my) preference and try to make consistent all references to the team and the club as plural. --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I misunderstood; the club is singular, but the team, i.e., Luton Town, is plural. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How we're doing it is that the CLUB (i.e. Luton Town Football Club; for example "Luton Town Football Club was founded in 1885") is singular and the TEAM (i.e. the players; "Luton Town play in white, orange and blue") is plural. That's my perception of it in any case. As I said before, I don't really mind that much, although I find the singular usage quite strange.

• Comments From a football point of view (i.e. 1b and 1c), following changes made after peer review I have no major concerns.
  • On my monitor the image of Harford causes a large gap between header and table. Is there another place the image could go?

I've made it a bit smaller, and moved it right to the top of the section – does this solve the problem? Cliftonian (Talk •Contibs) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, at 1024x768, the list takes up about 90% of the screen width, so there isn't really room for it to go inline. Oldelpaso

(talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case I think Micky's going to have to go. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 14:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "The club has been looking for a new site since 1955" is a bit jarring, and implies a constant search rather than several different initiatives.

OK, I've re-written it as "The club has made several attempts to relocate, and first stated their intent to do so in 1955." Better? Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Why was the 1921 fire mysterious?

Because nobody knows what caused it. Still, I agree that it doesn't really sound very encyclopaedic so I've removed it. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 19:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oldelpaso (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to support if the prose opposers are satisfied. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Have the opposers been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No. I'll wait until the copy-edit's done and then I'll get them to come back. Yes. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Provisional support okay, I have chipped in here and there to buff this up, and I think it is over the line prose-wise at the moment, nd nothing jumps out at me to fix. Consider this provisional until the opposers speak up. If they still note material needing fixing I will try to address. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this now well on the way to FA after all the copyediting that's been done, but I do still have a concern about the flag icons used in the Current squad and Managers sections. Another current FAC candidate has been criticised because of its failure to conform to the MoS guidelines on flags, and this article seems to have the same problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. With all the work that's been done I think this article now meets the FA criteria. I do though still have one small issue that I'd like to see resolved. The flag key for Current squad list nationalities as "English", "Irish", and so on, but the key for Managers gives "England", "Ireland", etc. I think it would be preferable for them to be consistent. That's obviously just a minor point though. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made them consistent now, as "English", "Irish", "Scottish", etc. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 17:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose "Division Four" - odd, I don't think I've ever heard an Englishman use this terminology for the Fourth Division... "... the club to fall in just three years from..." could use some commas here I reckon, like "... the club to fall, in just three years, from..." spell is used twice in the last para of the lead, a touch repetitive. "formed on Sunday, 11 April 1885" is Sunday really necessary here? "and won its championship" - odd phrasing. Perhaps - "won the title" or something? "... when war broke ..." that war is linked to WWI, as is World War One a sentence or so later. Overlinking. Is there a good reason we're linking sock in this article? "fourth in their division" just "the division" would suffice I think. "were sold on" - "on" is a little redundant - also, do you have details of to whom these players were sold? "to the Second Division, then the second tier of English football" could be misconstrued as two consecutive promotions. Perhaps remove "then". "had scored 10 in one match" against whom? "as well as Irish internationals" at this point you could link to the 1950+ Ireland national football team. "Luton bounced back" a touch journalistic for my taste. "Division Four championship" again, I could be wrong but most of us would say "Fourth Division championship" " .... two years later Malcolm Macdonald's goals helped them to another promotion,[34] and comedian Eric Morecambe became a director of the club" - did Morecambe become director because of the promotion? The sentence could read that way. "Luton Town staff" - I think it's players and technical staff actually. "A respite was found in the" -> "A respite came in the" I'm confused how you contract "Straw-plaiters" to Hatter. Sounds more like rhyming slang... "Luton suddenly changed" - suddenly? They just changed. I suppose you mean the change was a big one. I think it should be rephrased. Avoid squashing text between images per WP:MOS#Images "season.[60]." spare full stop. "10,226[1][2]" - I know it's a good idea to cite things as close as possible but (1) why two cites for one fact and (2) you could move this a couple of words to the right, after the comma. "World War II " previous war you referred to as "World War One" - be consistent. And if I had a preference for articles on English subjects, I'd use "First World War" and "Second World War", but I may be in the minority. "it quickly became unpopular" I seem to recall it also became considered an unfair advantage for Luton playing at home, controversial in fact. Anything available on that? I know it's chronologically correct but "Work began a year later on converting the ground to an all-seater." seems squeezed in between the sentences about away fans. Can we reorganise this? "to an all-seater was " - "to an all-seater ground was..." perhaps. Graph - worth explaining the huge dip (early 60s) then the huge rise (late 60s) in the caption if you can do it succinctly? "Even then the ground was ..." reinforce where we are - "Even then Kenilworth Road was...".. then "... and its location..." "following the club's takeover in 2008" I didn't see this explicitly mentioned in the history section. "its current peers" - are these clubs that are local or clubs in the same league? 138443 needs a comma, as does any other value over 999. "have dwindled since the installation of seats and the club's fall from grace" - the capacity didn't dwindle from all-seater introduction, it was step-change reduced. As for "fall from grace", another journalistic phrase. "Industrial and provident Society" our own article capitalises Provident - Industrial and Provident Society. "as either Happy Harry or Harry the Hatter" well I guess he's known as both then or is it pre-determined which one he's called on a given occasion? "Luton holds the superior record in the fixture" - you haven't mentioned a fixture yet. Perhaps "in the fixture between the clubs" "There is also animosity between Luton Town fans and those of west London club Queens Park Rangers" why? It may seem an impertinent question but there is animosity between supporters of most clubs to one degree or other - what makes this QPR-hatred significant and why does it exist? "the most Football League appearances," - ensure you state this is "for the club" unless he made more Football League appearances than anyone else in history? "with 276, 162, 154, 122 and 103 respectively" not sure this is required, it's certainly inelegant for the prose. Link cap appropriately. Bailey, Collings and Hayes books - I don't think you need to continually repeat the title in the specific references. Sport in Luton is a supercat and can be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC) All sorted. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Club identity section is still squashing text between images, against WP:MOS recommendations. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Better? – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Well, on my display (1280 pixels wide) it's still squashed, and we need to deal with people who have 800 pixels-wide screens. Also, no mention of the QPR thing either. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I've moved it a bit further down. On QPR, I can't find anything on the reasons behind it. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Okay for that section but now (on my display) the crests flood into the following section, push the stadium image down and then squash text between that image and the graph... As for QPR, you have a source to back you up, perhaps you should state that a "recent survey" or something similar has shown this rivalry to be significant. After all, that's what's important, verifiable notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Sorted the pictures and the QPR thing. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC) All that's left is references I think - 17 should be p not pp, 29 has a hyphen which should be an en-dash, ref 74 should be p not pp. Most BBC references should have a date field, e.g. 53 was published on 13 April 2009. Ref 93 should link FIFA (since you've linked BBC). Ref 104 has a different date format from others. Check 63 and 64 too. Plus you could link New Scientist. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC) OK, all done. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Except for ref 73... needs a date. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Done. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I know this is picking the nits off the nits but I'm still niggled by the inconsistency on when you link and when you don't link publisher and work in the {{cite web}} template. You seem to link BBC always, but not Football Association or Football League. You link The Independent but not When Saturday Comes. Is there a method? Otherwise I'm happy. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC) They are all now linked. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on image grounds as follow:

• File:Luton Town.svg: is this a copyrighted image? If yes, it is definitely not low in resolution (hence preventing possible commercial misuse) by any means. If no, by what means is it not copyrighted?
• File:Luton Town 1919.jpg: no proof that this was published in 1920. It could have been just as easily first published in 1935 as the club's 50th anniversary year book.
• File:LutonTownFCBadge1973-1987.png: "because it represents the subject of this article.", so what? Is that not what File:Luton Town.svg supposed to be for? What aspects of this logo cannot be described by words alone, and what significance does it have to the subject (this significance should be in the text of the article)?
• File:LutonTown19942005.png: very thin commentary on this old logo. The commentary is plain description; there is not a feel of historical significance to require a knowledge of this design. While File:LutonTownFCBadge1973-1987.png is different enough from the current logo (and is the very first club badge to boot), this 1994 badge has elements already shown in the current logo and need not illustration to have readers envisage what it could look like.
• File:LutonTownFCLeaguePositions.png: where did the data for this chart come from?

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain on appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I am not certain why the nationalities of the players/managers have to be emphasized with flags. Are they fighting out an international competition within the club? Is there some controversy within the club over the nationalities of the players? Why are we displaying nationalities of players in a club that is not representing a country? Jappalang (talk)

• On your first point, I did not make the SVG (I do not know how) and therefore have no control over it. If you feel so strongly about it, then we'll have to get somebody else to look into making it smaller.
  • Arteyu has very helpfully made it smaller. Does it now meet your satisfaction? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 09:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• I've changed the image to one published in 1909, if it makes you happier.
• On the badges, I've removed the second one, but kept the first. In my eyes this badge is significant to the club's history and therefore should be kept.
• I'd added my source to the chart's description page.
• On the flags, see here. It is MoS that for a sportsperson should have their sporting nationality illustrated.

Cheers, – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 06:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• If it is copyrighted, then we should not allow possible high resolution exploitation of the image for us to claim fair use. SVGs do not lose details when resized; hence they would come into conflict with policies. It is better to use a PNG in this case (File:Luton Town.png, which I have done so.

I've changed the logo back to SVG, please refer to Manchester City F.C. & Everton F.C., just want to show you some example of many Featured Article football club that uses SVGified logo Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 11:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is not a sufficient argument I'm afraid. I've switched it back. You're well intentioned mate, but I think that for copyrighted stuff PNG is the way to go – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• For File:LutonTownFCBadge1973-1987.png, you would have to rewrite the fair-use rationale in the image's page. "because it represents the subject of this article." is no longer correct since the new badge is representing the subject. The FUR should stress the significance of this badge and what aspects cannot be accurately represented with words.
• File:LutonTown190910.jpg: yes, the caption ("Luton Town were ninth in the Southern League last season.") does imply this image was published in 1910. However, we need a source from where this image was obtained. Judging from its quality, it is a scan. From which publication is this from? At the very least, supply the website this is obtained from. Unfortunately, this is a British work. To store items on Commons, the works must be public domain in US, and in the work's country of origin (UK in this case). As no proof is given that Cox died more than 70 years ago, this image is not public domain in UK. In fact, if this Cox from Luton is William Harold Cox, then he was still alive 50 years ago.[78][79][80] Move this image to Wikipedia and use {{PD-1923}} and {{Do not move to Commons}}.

Awaiting feedback and actions. Jappalang (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• On the SVG/PNG, ok.
• OK, I've done as you asked.
• OK, I've done as you asked.

– Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• File:LutonTown1909-10.jpg: point the source to the page (html) that displays the image; do not point directly to the image's link. In this case, historykits has disabled direct linking, so we cannot verify the image's presence. Jappalang (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed?

– Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• To be clearer, the source is currently "http://historicalkits.co.uk/Luton_Town/photos/luton-town-1909-10.jpg". It should not be that. It should be the html page that hosts that image. Jappalang (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed?

– Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support and comment Luton Town was a founder member of the Southern Football League in 1894, and, after finishing as runners-up in its first two seasons, the team left to help form the United League. - seems clunky to me. Would Luton Town was a founder member of the Southern Football League in 1894, although, after finishing as runners-up in its first two seasons, the club transferred to the United League. be better. Otherwise the article is much better than their football (: jimfbleak (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No. It should be emphasised that the club was a founder member of the United League as well as the Southern. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Fantastic work, I've noticed a few bits and bobs.
  • I think it would flow better if the brackets in "(the Conference National)" were replaced with commas.
  • The "south of England" link needs changing to Southern England.
  • "...record for most league..." --> "...record for the most league..."?
  • For most of the article, the "First Division" (as opposed to "Division One") format is used, but this consistency is disrupted in footnote B.
• Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorted. Thanks – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Now comments have been resolved. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) My turn.

• "Luton Town was a founder member " Not "Luton Town were..."?
  • No.
• "became a director of the club" So they had multiple directors at any given time?
  • Yes, English football clubs have loads.
• "from the northern heartlands of the Football League, crippled" No comma.
  • Ok.
• "ten point deduction"-->ten-point deduction
  • Ok.
• "in order to make Luton Town more recognisable." "in order" is almost always unnecessary.
  • Ok.
• "when they spent a solitary season in orange and blue" "solitary" is probably unnecessary.
  • Ok.
• "in time for the start of 1905–06." Can you append "season" to the end of that? "...for the start of the 1905–06 season."
  • Ok.
• "road which runs along"-->road that runs along
  • Ok.
• "Both records will almost certainly stand until the club relocates to a larger ground, as Kenilworth Road's present capacity is less than half of either of these figures." Source?
  • Ok.
• Footnotes B and C need refs, maybe?
  • No they don't. It's a very well known fact.

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [81].

---

SECR N class

Nominator(s): Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has just gone through peer review, and all issues have been addressed. The article is on course for FA, and any further suggestions for improvement will be gratefully received. Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments. Just a few initial comments:

• In the lead, "class" is treated as both singular and plural: "The SECR N class were ..." and "the class represents an important stage ...". I would have thought it should be consistently singular?

• There's sometimes an awful lot of "locomotives" very close together in some places: The new locomotive was designed prior to the K class passenger tank locomotive in 1914 to address the SECR's requirement for a sturdy mixed-traffic locomotive ...". Would "engine" or "unit" be acceptable variations in such cases, just to add a bit interest?

• What does "finally" mean in this extract from First SECR batch: "... a sharply tapered boiler and finally right-hand drive ..."? Is that the final one in the list of ideas, or were the locomotives initially designed to left-hand drive, with later models being right-hand drive?

• This, from Operational details and preservation is unclear: "... the class migrated from the Southern Railway's Eastern section to work on the Central and Western sections, where a robust and reliable design such as the N class was to see use throughout the Southern Railway era". Why "was to see use" instead of the straightforward "saw"? The phrase "such as" as well makes me wonder if it was the N class that saw service throughout the Southern Railway era or another class or classes like it.

• Was the class's nickname "Woolworths" or "Woolworth"? The article seems to be inconsistent.

--Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor's comment.

Ok, I've tried to address these concerns, and I think that both have been resolved. However, it may benefit from another look at the plural and singular issue. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I also have an issue over whether I should use 'is' or 'was' in the leader, as one class member still exists. As a result, I'm getting confused, so could someone suggest a compromise? Whilst I've changed it to 'is', I'm starting to feel that 'was' would be the better tense. Read the leader to see what I mean... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• The above issue I have raised is now resolved. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor's comment. I have addressed Malleus's observation above. As usual, these issues slip through the net when writing the article, and it is only when scrutinised from 'outside' that they are found and dealt with. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I peer reviewed this and believe that due to the changes made there and subsequently, this article meets the FAC criteria. I do think that the first sentence of the lead (now reading The SECR N class is a class of 2-6-0 (mogul) steam locomotive designed by Richard Maunsell for mixed-traffic duties ...) would read better in the past tense (i.e. The SECR N class was a class of 2-6-0 (mogul) steam locomotive ...). The rest of the lead refers to the class in the past tense and reserves the present for the surviving member. I also think of a "class" as one of those odd singular nouns referring to a group (like army). The class has ceased to be, even if one member of it survives. My only other comment is that I wish there were more images available, but understand it can be difficult to obtain free images of locomotives (so this is NOT an actionable item, just a wish). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'm inclined to agree that 'was' sounds right here. -- EdJogg (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I think I'd be inclined to go with "was" too. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor Comment -- That's settled then, I've changed it to 'was'. I may be able to get another image when I have time, but it's a works photograph of one of the experimental types, so not necessarily representative. It'll add a bit of variety, though. Will add it tomorrow. Cheers for the hard work already done to improve the article so far, especially to Iain Bell for coming up with the history of the N class boilers. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Changed title to Woolworths batch. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: problems in the prose. Grammar, flow, organisation and cohesion are all issues and need to be fixed throughout. An independent copy-edit is required. Here are examples from the top. A recurring issue is fuzziness in the grammatical subjects of clauses—most unusual.

• "three-cylinder", since there are lots of numerals in the vicinity?
• Is "Woolworths" intended to be humorous? I don't get it.
• "They were able to operate over most of the Southern Railway network after grouping in 1923,"—the last three words are pipe-linked to a 1921 act of parliament. It's a bit opaque, and we shouldn't have to hit the link to learn what it all means. "blah blah of 1923, in which ....".
• the new class attempted to ease maintenance? Suggest different grammar.
• "Outside of"—which word is redundant?
• "Designed in 1914 by Maunsell to address the SECR's operational problems, caused by obsolescent mixed-traffic designs running on poorly laid track-work, production of the N class was delayed by the outbreak of the First World War." Remove comma after "problems"? Is track-work or are tracks poorly laid? So the production was designed? (I'm trying to locate the main subject of the sentence.)
• "outside Walschaerts valve gear"—we couldn't say "external", could we? (But keep if "outside" is normal in your field.)
• equipped with tenders? Tony (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Editor's Comments - Tony, whilst you have in-depth knowledge of the use of language and the written word, I think there is some room for lee-way here, as there are editors who are trying to cut through the prose issues. I therefore invite you to copy-edit the article on our behalf, to show us how it should be done, so to speak. Anyway, here are a few comments in response to the issues you highlighted

• It's clearly not Tony's job to copyedit the article, but to provide a helpful critique. In that light an example or two of "fuzziness in the prose" would be helpful, and I'd agree with him that it still needs some tightening up. I think we know how it should be done, and how to fix problems when they're pointed out. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• The "3-cylinder/three-cylinder" issue has been thrown about like a hot potato several times, and at one stage in an earlier FA I used the word format only for it to be changed back again.

• "Woolworths" is most certainly not a joke, and there are references stating this as a nickname for the class.
• I don't see why every railway-related article should have to recite the history of the grouping every time the word appears, which is why linking it to the appropriate section in the appropriate article is better.
• I agree with you on the fourth point, but as usual, it is because you have the benefit of "strategic distance".
• "Outside of"- where is it? I can't find this when searching through the text.

• I already removed the "of" from "outside of". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• With greatest respect, I don't see what you are getting at on the fifth point, either...
• You are correct, "Outside" is the proper terminology for an "External" cylinder.

Thank you for your input, though.

--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Editor's Comments - Having taken Tony's critique of the article into consideration, and having a good read of the prose, I am also inclined to agree that the article needs a lot of tightening up. With this in mind, I have removed a fair amount of 'fuzz' and fluff, and have hopefully cut the article back to its essentials, which can be worked upon by more objective editors. In case any offense was caused by my above comments, I apologise, but the way the oppose was made seemed a bit undiplomatic upon first read.

Now this has been said, I will take a back-seat whilst the article takes its course, only improving blatant prose issues, and any changes to factual content. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support after a fair bit of thought. I agree that it doesn't always meet the whole "brilliant refreshing prose" thing, but there's so much dry technical information that needs to be included, by definition occasional parts need to go into technical detail in a way that's incompatible with 1a; although I'm a great fan of "background fluff" when it's possibly to add it, that's not the case if it comes at the cost of sacrificing accuracy. There are a few things I think ought to be explained more (at least in footnotes), such as the colour scheme (no general reader should be expected to know what "Maunsell grey" or "Maunsell-style green livery with Bulleid gilt lettering" mean), but these are minor points. On an article like this, I think the pertinent points are "why was it built?", "what did it do?", "how did it differ from others?" and "what happened to it?", and this meets all of those; criteria 1a is an important principle, but shouldn't encourage fluff over accuracy. Besides, the highly technical prose is generally the professional standard in the field of engineering history. – iridescent 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Editor's Comments - Taking into account the issues highlighted on the talk page, I have done a complete redraft of the Background which hopefully adds to, rather than detracts from the article. It is fully referenced, and I hope it satisfies why the locomotive was designed in the first place, as well as the wider situation on the SECR. All that needs to be done is to improve the prose if need be, and in that respect, I commend it to whoever wants to take up the baton. The facts are there, it just needs polishing up. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I've done a quick-fix regarding the livery issue, click on Southern Railway at the top of the 'Livery and numbering' section. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

These look good to me. I made two minor copyedits, but have reread the whole article just now and did not find any other errors. My only suggestion is to consider whether it would help to incorporate inline color samples. So something like "This Maunsell grey livery   was introduced by the SECR as a wartime economy measure." This is only an idea - not sure if it would work or not. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Editor's Comments - We could select the relevant liveries from the bunch in the Southern Railway article and put them in a row at the end of the section? It would also give a bit of chronology, as D L Bradley discusses the general changes in Southern Railway livery in his books on former LSWR locomotives. Another idea would be to just wikilink each livery back to the Southern Railway page, which would negate the need to have that italicised sentence at the start of the section giving instructions. What's the consensus? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose EDIT: Neutral for now pending further prose review. Switched to support. Steve ^T • C Mainly the prose. It's not far away, and likely passable during the expected timescale of this FAC, so don't worry too much yet (see the link for why I've registered an oppose, rather than mere "comments"). It's already been established above that some fine-tuning is required, and several people seem to be in the process of making improvements, so to save space I'll try to limit my comments for now to content only. As always, there's no requirement to change anything in the article to get my !vote; if there's a good editorial reason for the way something is, I'll be happy to strike the concern:

Background

—probably the weakest section overall in terms of the writing, but that's not surprising (or a big problem) given the wholesale changes it's had; if we can get this right, it'll set the article up nicely.

• "... a legacy of competent but unspectacular locomotives that did little to improve the SECR’s motive power situation." Something is lacking here, and I think it's context. At this point in the article there is no indication that there is anything wrong with SECR's "motive power situation"; that comes later, in the text about the increased loadings, rubbish tracks and weak bridges. Everything in that sentence after "locomotives" can probably be discarded; perhaps rework the text that follows to provide the necessary detail that as time went on these locomotives became increasingly inadequate to cope with the new developments.
• The first paragraph is repetitive: "Three factors dictated the type of locomotive that could operate on the SECR: increased train loadings, poor track quality and weak bridges ... ever-increasing demands on the SECR's infrastructure, with trains increasing in both length and weight ... whilst many of the bridges were lightly built." Could these be woven together more tightly to eliminate the redundancies?
• "On the former London, Chatham and Dover Railway lines beach pebbles had been used for ballast." As a layperson, I haven't been given enough information to tell me why using beach pebbles for ballast creates a problem. Is it simply that they represent an increase in weight?
• "All of these factors conspired to make the SECR a difficult railway to operate." This serves only to pad the section out without giving the reader anything of worth, as that has already been conveyed pretty clearly.
• Suggestion only: to the layperson, talk of 2-6-0 / 0-6-0 wheel arrangements might not be completely clear; would it be of any use to include a schematic from the Commons, a modified version of this image showing just those two configurations, or at least a prominent piped link to Whyte notation?

Design details and construction history

• Suggestion: "Design and construction" as a title tells us exactly the same thing as "Design details and construction history"
  • Comment: The amended article titles are better, but structure it oddly. The construction section contains a lot of design details, as the different batches differed in many ways. I still think the more appropriate structure would be to have the current "Design" section incorporated into "Construction" as an introductory paragraph, with the overall heading called "Design and construction" or similar. But I'm not going to quibble, or let such a minor point alone lead to opposition.

Second "Woolwich" batch and exports to Ireland

• "The cost of the maintenance burden imposed by the incompatible classes operated by the SECR at the end of the First World War meant that standardisation became a priority for the company." We've already been told exactly this in the design section's introductory paragraph.
• Suggestion only: give your eyes a treat and create stubs for the redlinked GSR K1 class and GSR K1a class? Even if you only create redirects to the appropriate section of a parent article, it'll be better than giving those links undue prominence by having the readers' eyes drawn to the red.

Operational details and preservation

• Slight inconsistency. The lead states that "One N class locomotive is preserved on the Watercress Line in Hampshire." This section states that "Only a single member of the class has been preserved ... and is currently stored pending overhaul"; if the locomotive is currently in storage, it's not in active service on the line, which the lead sort of implies.

Further reading

• The inclusion of such a section sometimes indicates that not all resources have been tapped for information, and that the article may not satisfy 1b. Does the book listed here include any major details that would be relevant to the article? If so, they should be included; if not, it may be appropriate to eliminate the section altogether.

General

• Review for manual of style consistency, especially on the use of endashes, hyphens etc. Random examples: "From 1949–1950" ("from" and "to" are complementary; if you spell one out, you should the other too); "Reynolds, pp. 155-156" (hyphen should be endash); "Tonbridge-Hastings" (disjunction—conveys the sense of to or through, so that hyphen should also be an endash).

—That's all for now; when more prose improvements have been made (or if you request some specific examples of passages that don't quite work), I'll take another look. Nice work so far, Steve ^T • C 13:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Co-Editor's comments -- in response to Steve...

With regard to the preserved loco status, that may be my fault for suggesting at peer review that it be removed from the lede. My thinking was that we don't want to edit the lede every time its operational status changes. It is highly unlikely that it will ever be scrapped, and therefore it can probably be considered "preserved" whether working or not. This has implications in other articles, so would be interesting to get a view on this matter here. EdJogg (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that Bulleid Pacific (talk) has now addressed all the issues specifically raised by Steve. Both BP and myself have had a go at the "Background" section -- mine slightly more radical. I hope we have tackled most of the remaining repetition. The most noticeable still present concerns increases in train loading, and each instance is covering a slightly different point; hopefully, this is no longer an issue. The only sentence I am still unhappy with is that concerning the "small beach pebbles". I have linked to track ballast, where there is a description of the properties of good ballast, but the explanation of the problem in the article seems to be lacking something. I have been unable to adjust it without extending the sentence excessively. (The significant point is that conventional ballast is made from small pieces of crushed rock, the irregular faces locking together and preventing lateral track movement: round pebbles from the beach can't do this (presumably it is the sheer bulk weight of pebbles that limits movement rather than their shape).)

EdJogg (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE -- An explanation has now been provided regarding the problems with the ballast, and a little extra detail correcting the history of the preserved locomotive. I think that's everything for now. EdJogg (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Super. Sorry for the delay, but it'll be this evening before I can get around to reviewing the changes to strike those issues that have been resolved (a quick glance looks good so far). Steve ^T • C 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Struck oppose; listed content objections have been dealt with speedily and with good grace. Will take another look at the prose in a day or so. Nice work. Steve ^T • C 23:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this, but as the article seems to be in the middle of a copyedit, I'm holding off a re-review until that's done. Let me know, either here or on my talk page, when you're ready for me to take another look. All the best, Steve ^T • C 11:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Editor's Comments - After a lot of work by EdJogg, the prose has been dealt with to form a much more coherent article. Any further issues will be dealt with, but as for factual content, the article is complete. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment -- Done -- actually, that one was introduced since we started the FAC process! (I checked and cleared the DAB issues as the first thing done after FAC started.) --- EdJogg (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The prose has had a lot of attention from several editors; while I'm sure someone would be able to find something to nitpick (there was one during my recent light c/e that I couldn't figure how to resolve; I'll leave that to the primary editors), I think it's at a good enough level to become featured. From what I can tell through a brief independent check, it seems comprehensive, and it presents an overview of the topic that is understandable to the general reader as well as experts. Nice work, Steve ^T • C 12:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment -- I have reworked the sentence referred to above and requested Steve to review and confirm my modifications... -- EdJogg (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC) -- ...which he has now done. EdJogg (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concern for the only image as follows:

• File:BR Class N 31871 Plymouth 1948.jpg: please go through the OTRS process for this image; i.e. forward the emails to the OTRS team and attach the ticket to the image.

Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have sent an OTRS request, as the file includes a link to a permission email. Unfortunately the source appears to be down, so it could be very difficult to follow this up beyond the available information. EdJogg (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry, it has been archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20070207103731/www.planefacts.co.uk/railway/main/index.htm. Jappalang (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well-found! I couldn't track it down. Thankfully, all the pictures have been archived too. EdJogg (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a moment. Is this photo taken by Richard H Huelin himself? It does not seem so on the index page: "These all appear to have been taken in either the late 1940's or early 1950's. Unfortunately the detail I have about them is sparse." If he is not the author, I am afraid even an OTRS ticket would not help. Where did he obtain the photograph from? Jappalang (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an image on Flickr here of one of these locomotives which is clearly by the original photographer. Not sure if he would be amenable to having it here if contacted. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How about File:Ropley Station on the Mid-Hants Railway.jpg? Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's severely cropped, and still not ideal (you can see little below footplate level, and its barely possible even to see the wheel arrangement!) but it is clearer than the other picture, it's free for our use (thank you for finding it!) and it gets us out of a hole. I'll swap it over now... -- EdJogg (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments.

• Intro. There's a mention of SEC-Ks. Because a link is made between the two locomotives, it needs to be made clear here that these were also of Maunsell's design, but served a somewhat different purpose.
• The Background begins with a long paragraph that indicates that things happened over time (eg. the number of passengers increased etc) but gives no time frame at all. At least one date is an absolute necessity, and several would be an asset.
• I was interested in reading about the problems with the balast.

Amandajm (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor's response

I have adjusted the offending section in the lede. The change also reinforces the link between 'It' (2nd sentence) and the N class (1st sentence), which is useful.

"Background" changes will need input from User:Bulleid Pacific, as he has the ref books!! As for the timing, I had always read this as a/the period that the SECR were running, up to the introduction of the N Class.

Glad you liked the bit about the ballast!

EdJogg (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead Editor's comment Just back from my holiday. Have added a few dates to put the Background section's first paragraph into context. I've also amended a few other issues raised on the article's talk page to clarify and simplify, as there is little to be done without going into original research if other texts don't refer to them. I'm surprised no-one has found an original works photograph of an N class, as this would be out of copyright by now. I have a couple of attributed images that have expired copyrights (taken between 1923 and 1940); I'll have to dig them out. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.